Voting Dilemma

We’re having a gubernatorial race here. While this very much simplifies things, on the issue of abortion, here’s what we’re looking at:

  1. The GOP candidate has taken the “doesn’t like abortion but feels it is a difficult choice best left to the mother and her doctor, etc., etc.” position. He’s by far the most likely candidate to win, as the GOP is by far the strongest party here. He’s also violently hurling money into the campaign, which I don’t like, but means that he’s going to be by far the best known candidate.

Frankly, in addition to his wishy washy abortion position, there’s some other things I don’t care for much about him.

  1. The Dem candidate is for “preserving a woman’s right to choose”. In other words, her position is practically indistinguishable from the GOP candidates. She maintains some positions on other issues that I like a bit more than the GOP candidates, but otherwise she’s nothing to get too excited about.

  2. A GOP member is running a write in campaign, after failing to get on the ballot as the candidate for the “Constitution Party”. I’m somewhat familiar with this fellow, who is interesting, and he’s a mix of traditional conservative views, some Tea Party type views, and just some novel views. He’s the only candidate who is decidedly and openly opposed to abortion. He’s also the only candidate who is a Catholic. Interesting (and a mere observation on my part and nothing more) he’s the only candidate in this very Caucasian state who is black. The Dem candidate is a woman.

What to do I do about this moral quandary? I’d sort of like to vote for the write in guy, but I feel his candidacy is doomed, and some of his more Tea Party type of views worry me. On the other hand, he’s the only one who isn’t openly in favor of keeping the killing rolling, or who is so wishy washy on it that we don’t know what his real view is.

Don’t let GOP member 1 fool you by his smooth-talking rhetoric. He’s pro-abortion.

Your only acceptable choice, and not a perfect one, though, is number 3. Vote for him and let the cards fall where they may.

You could simply not vote for anyone? I’m saying, still be engaged and make your voice known, but if there are no viable candidates that believe in the moral basic principles of the Church, just do a pass…

  • Michael

Usually, I encourage people to vote, but I think if you choose not to vote, that in a way is your way of saying that you don’t like the candidates.

Seriously, we need to have an option on the ballot that simply reads “Nobody”. Trust me, I’m in Canada, and I think “nobody” could actually win some seats in the House of Commons (Okay, the runner-up would have to take the victory, but it’s an interesting message).

Too bad that option really doesn’t exist with a do over or no confidence type result.

My answer will be hated by everyone.

Vote for the lesser of two evils. Don’t feel noble by staying home.

It’s pretty simple, I think. If you stay home, pat yourself on the back and say, “I didn’t vote for the pro-choice canidate! I rule!” You’ll watch as the MORE pro-choice canidate racks in the votes.

It’s black and white, in my view. I clearly feel strongly about it.

I’m not noble at all… I just can not support a candidate who’s basic beliefs does not line up with mine (and the teachings of the Church).

How is that noble?

  • Michael

Look, the “noble” thing wasn’t really directed at you. It’s more like a “universal” you. However, if the shoe fits, slip it on.Let’s not kid ourselves. Many people who don’t vote for a “moderate” pro-choicer feel better about themselves for doing it. By staying home and not voting, they let someone who is radically against the church teaching into office.If you vote for a third party, you generally do so for your own benefit.

We do have the none of the above option here in Nevada.:smiley:

When you have the option to vote Pro-Life, you must vote Pro-Life.

If feeling better about myself means not going against my conscience than as you say… slip on the shoe.

  • Michael

The problem is that this governor may eventually run for a seat in Congress.

When neither candidate rejects abortion, my vote goes to the Republican party because they routinely reject abortion.

Ok than. So, just to be clear-if the very pro-choice canidate wins, leading to more abortions, how do justify staying home?

I justify staying home because I reject your hypothetical. Why? because, what in the world is a very pro-choice over just a pro-choice? How in the world could you possibly know that the very pro-choice will increase abortions? What is the difference between a very pro-choice elected official and a pro-choice elected official. Can you provide real world examples?

Abortion is wrong no matter if its a very pro-choice or just pro-choice elected official.

Where you are going with this… its kinda silly… I must be missing your point…???

  • Michael

Look into other third party candidates. The GOP running for governor here was either a thief or just plain stupid when he was the CEO of a large medicare company (the biggest medicare fraud in history took place in that company when he was CEO). So I really don’t like him. Plus he ran a bunch of money on ads that were all lies during the primaries. Though he is pro-life, I don’t trust him at all.

I don’t even look at the Dems any more. Especially since this is my first election and I REALLY don’t want my first vote to go to a Democrat.

Look into other third party candidates. Nowadays the Libertarian Party is split on the issue of abortion. So check out your state’s Libertarian candidate’s view on the issue. I have a pro-life Libertarian running for governor in my state and that’s the guy who’s getting my vote.

Look up the different candidates. Or write in that guy.

Why vote third party? These videos will explain it.

Good luck. Vote for the third party!

It’s actually quite simple, and not “silly” at all.

Candidate A is pro-choice for all forms of abortion-including partial birth, accepts federal funding for abortion, demands pro-choice judges.

Candidate B is pro choice on early term abortions, against partial birth, and against federal funding. They would not vote for a pro-choice judicial nomination.

You say, “No! I can’t vote for either one.” Candidate B needs all your votes, and since you don’t vote for him, Candidate A sweeps into office. Now do you get it?

It’s not that complicated. Thankfully, third party people are in the minority. The dynamic third parties draw about 3 percent of people, and are quite useless in mainstream politics.

So, your logic says that I should accept a certain level of evil because its less evil than another more intense form of evil? How do you justify accepting evil? Of ANY degree?

  • Michael

We don’t live in a perfect world.

My logic is “What will cause the least number of abortions?”

The other way of thinking, to stay home and have the other person win is the more evil option.

Well, as you have rejected my logic, I reject yours. I can not accept and promote evil by voting for someone who supports the killing of innocent children, period. The Church is clear in her teaching, from conception to natural death all life should be allowed to live in dignity.

Both of us will have to live with our conscience and face almighty God in defense of our respective positions…

  • Michael

I don’t reject your logic. I reject your outcome.

When I die, I’ll be able to say, “Yes, at least I worked on reducing the number of abortions.”

When someone of the other way of thinking dies, they’ll be able to say, “By me not voting, the other canidate won, and abortions continued to rise. Don’t I rock?”
Peace brother.

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