Imperfection Versus Unacceptability in Politics

     Many who oppose voting for a third party candidate do so because, as they argue, voting for a major candidate who is woefully wrong on some issues but who has a realistic chance of winning is preferable to voting for a candidate whose positions are in agreement with one's own but who is has no realistic chance of winning. To them, selecting from the lesser of two evils represented by the two mainstream candidates is preferable to voting third party.  In defense of this position they often point out the inherent imperfection of every human being, thus every political candidate. According to this argument every vote ever cast is for the lesser of two evils, since no human is perfect.

The Christian Voter

     The topic of how and why a Christian should vote is one that has stirred a great deal of discussion, even controversy. The most numerous group among Christian voters argues that Christians have a duty to preserve the country whatever the cost. These hold that a vote is in no way an endorsement of the person or thing being voted for, merely an acknowledgment that it is better than the alternative. Another, smaller, group maintains that a vote is an overt acceptance of the qualifications of the thing voted for, and thus implies that the voter believes it acceptable. Preserving the country at the cost of accepting the unacceptable would abhorrent to members of this group. The difference, striking as it is on a philosophical level, often, but not always, leaves the two groups in agreement. For the few times when the two groups diverge, however, it is imperative to understand the arguments on both sides and to have reached a conclusion.