When it comes to elections, everyone talks about voting for the lesser of two evils. Why settle for evil at all?
The fact is, voting for the lesser of two evils, is still voting for evil.Â Why vote for evil when there is likely a 3rd party candidate, not heavily funded by corporate and banking interests, that likely fits your stances on the issues?
Check out the third party debate this upcoming Tuesday. You might just find someone you can FULLY support.
From the USCCB Faithful Citizenship #36:
“When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.”
So, yes, we are permitted to vote for the candidate who is less likely to advance an intrinsic evil, but what if that candidate isn’t Mitt Romney? What if there is a candidate who sees the value of all human life, regardless of how that life was conceived? What if there is a candidate who support the end of the unjust wars we are waging overseas (and in the process, killing innocent people)? What if there is a candidate who wants to work on the real economic issues of our country? Again, what if that candidate isn’t Mitt Romney?
“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”
–John Quincy Adams
No comment yet, add your voice below!