Do we vote for the lesser of two evils?

This question was recently posted in the Ask an Apologist forum, follow this link:

Since there are some who would like to discuss this topic, I am creating this thread even though there is no article link.

More information is here:

N.B.: Please do not pass judgement on anyone on this thread, on any other thread or outside CAF.

The ‘lesser of two evils’ argument makes me think of, ‘my liar is more honest than your liar.’ It’s a grey area I won’t cross, myself; for either candidate.

Who says there are only 2 options? That is lie. Sure, you’ll get the “you’re throwing away your vote” crowd getting mad at you. But voting for either of the “two parties” ensures that we perpetuate the failed system that we’ve had that gave birth to disastrous presidencies, and the invasive gestapo, anti-Catholic government we have today. The problem with U.S. government is not the D or R occupant per se. It is systemic. We embolden collusion among the “two parties” by accepting the idea that it has to be either one or the other guy. The D & R false dichotomy should be destroyed. Assuming that our votes actually count…

I can agree with this.


I am not going to express an opinion for the sake of argument. I am simply going to state some facts about the forthcoming US Presidental ElectionFor those of you who feel morally superior for abstaining to vote in the next US Presidential Election, you should bear in mind that this is going to be one of the most important presidential elections in American history. One has a choice between continuing our country as a democratic republic or becoming a super secular nanny state.
The incumbant candidate has prooved himself in disregarding at least two amendments of the, Constitution, is a vocal advocate of abortion and contraception, and is the most anti-Catholic President in history; the other does not evoke a sense of leadership or trustworthiness, and has a gubanatorial record at odds with Catholic teaching-but not as severe as that of his opponant.
Considering that the vote is going to be close. abstaining or neglecting to vote in this election will be a vote for the incumbant, and will result in long term harm to not only the country, as it was envisioned by the Founding Fathers, but to the Catholic Church’s position in it.
Remember that whoever is elected will replace several Supreme Court Justices, which will determine the future course of our country.
So, all of you moralists, don’t be right, but still do harm to our country.

But while this is a perfectly valid strategy - to use your vote to try to cause wider change - it is also a perfectly valid use of your vote to try to avoid an immediate danger. The question of which one is more important is not, I think, a question whose answer is independent of circumstances.

In general, I respect both options. To try to send a message to the politicians who choose to run that if they want your vote, they’ll have to be decent candidates is a good thing. But it will not effect the election that is happening now, and any real effect that it does have may be slow. The likelihood of a third party getting the presidency any time soon is extremely low, but it is possible that the two major parties now might notice that there is an appreciable group of people not voting for either party and modify their candidates/platforms to include some of the things that the most successful third party candidate stands for to try to appeal to these voters. Great.

However, in so doing it is also reasonably likely that we’ll get, for example, stuck with Obama for another four years. And Obama has proven to be on the wrong side of abortion, religious freedom, and probably gay marriage now (all essential issues), and not only to be on the wrong side of the first two in principle but to be aggressively working on behalf of that wrong side.

Whereas Romney, while I have to say I don’t particularly like him as a candidate, is more or less okish on all these issue.

So the question becomes: is the possibility of changing future candidates in small ways (which will hopefully add up to big ways over long enough time) or the possibility of avoiding another four years of Obama more important?

It is my view that in this particular election, it is more important to get rid of Obama, and to possibly save the other strategy for when neither candidate represents grave harm.

I’m a Catholic realist. I will vote for Romney. Period.

I’ve been told by partisans for both men that an abstention, which I intend, is a default vote for the other candidate! Can’t win, so I’ll just continue my course of action with no malice to either candidate. :shrug:

I’m not going to not vote but my vote really matters little. Elections are won by the electorial college and not popular vote. Being older, I remember when each vote seemed to count. Now with all the polling and technology, they only pick 6 or 7 states to really campaign in. My vote in Kentucky is taken for granted, while my brother and sisters vote in Ohio are being sought after with commercials and phone calls like crazy. Remember Gore won the popular vote but lost the election.

I hate hearing that there is a third party option, there isn’t it is a joke to think voting third party even matters, at best it builds moral for those in a third party, but what it does is screw up the real vote between the two primary parties.

Is Mitt Romney the lesser of two evils, yes by far .

I will vote third party, when a third party such as the Tea Party starts actually growing, and not being infiltrated by the other two parties if that is even possible, or any third party if it stood a real chance.

voting third party only benefits throwing one of the other two parties off track.

At least with Mitt Romney we have a chance at stopping the chaos Obama and his party of destroyers are trying to lead America down,

and Mitt Romney will be on a very tight leash, it will not be an easy 4 years for him at all, one or two major screw ups and he will be packing his bags just like Obama.

hopefully Romney at the very least wont be worse than Obama, though who knows…

Catholics have a duty to vote

Bishop Gracida

Those Catholic voters who love moral absolutes would have no choice but to vote for candidate, but those Catholics who recognize that in the real world it is sometimes necessary to choose the lesser of two evils in order to prevent greater harm—in this case harm to innocent unborn children would vote for candidate

I’m with you, I won’t be voting for either candidate.

Obama supports abortion and Ryan is too close to the presidency for comfort.

Unfortunately, for Romney, I was probably going to vote for him, before his choice in a running mate.


Hello - Earth to Catholics… Paul Ryan is one of US!!! It seems there is no pleasing some people.

Have you noticed how every election is the most important election in American history?

In this case, we either support the extreme left, or the extreme right, both are equally scary.

The political center no longer exist.


And no matter who is in control, they blame the other side for not getting anything done.

Of course Ryan was one of the big obstacles for getting anything done in Congress.


Bet he blames the other side. :smiley:

Third party votes “send a message” that is forgotten within 24hrs after the election and are a waste of time. Period. End of Story. Just stay home and save your gasoline.
As to a vote for Obama, its a vote for the status quo; another 4 years of borrowing from China (till they cut us off) and more folks dependent on Govt handouts. More “executive orders” circumventing Congress and our Constitution. Back door amnesty for illegals etc etc etc. Frankly the endorsement of Obama by Al Sharpton is enough to make me vote for Romney/Ryan.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit