In which I counter the Lesser-of-two-evils argument

It's October 2008. The next presidential election is just around the corner, and the question has arisen again, “Why not vote for the lesser of two evils?” In a country founded upon Christian principles, by godly men, it is shameful that this question has arisen. The question has only one clear answer, that is that we cannot vote for the lesser of two evils. In a society where the Christians are the majority voting population, we have a tremendous voice if we would only raise it. A vote for the lesser evil is commonly accepted as the best course, but it is nonetheless, a vote for evil. God appoints rulers in every nation, so we should have confidence in the fact that we can vote with integrity, and leave the results to Sovereign God. As citizens who have the hard earned privilege of voting, we bear a great responsibility in exercising this privilege. By failing to stand up and raise our voice in support of the best and most qualified candidates, we are either condoning the actions of the lesser party, or effectively voiding the importance of standing for integrity and freedom.

Many who hold to the view that says “Vote for the lesser of two evils” base their decision on the assumption that their vote towards a third party candidate would be null. Essentially casting a vote towards the greater of the evils. This assumption may be grounded in the current situation, but there is a factor that has yet to be considered. Based on study done by the Barna research group, it was shown that Evangelical Christians and non-Evangelical Born-Again Christians make up 64% of the voting population. Clearly, the majority vote. If each member of the group would have the courage to vote for the best candidate, I daresay those candidates would have more than a fighting chance. Failure by each member to vote for and uphold the party candidate who best represents their views, is a guarantee that they will be overrun. One voice will not be heard, and will not sway the vote. When Christians, as a whole, recognize the potential they have to change the face of the presidential elections, the majority vote will change. We cannot hold to the idea that there are too few of us to make a difference. This very idea has led to the constraint we currently see, as we sit comfortably within the status quo of two majority parties.

A vote for the lesser-of-two-evils is still a vote for evil. It is political compromise to the two party status-quo. Politicians who receive the lesser-evil votes should not surprise us when they fail to perform according to our values and principles. After all, they do not hold these values and principles for themselves. The Republican party has long assumed that conservative voters have nowhere else to turn, and that they are pragmatic enough to not “waste their vote” by voting for a third party. At large, they have been correct. The principles held by the voter begin to corrode as pragmatism takes root and replaces idealism. Each progressive voting cycle delivers less than optimal results, and becomes easier than the one before. This suboptimal result is not a better solution. Reform is the solution, and in order for this to take place, we cannot allow our standards for leaders to fall slack. Edmund Burke paraphrased this nicely, “But his [the candidate's] unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.” We must be voters of integrity, and as voters of integrity, we must vote for candidates who possess the same qualities.

We, the people of the United States, have the right to vote. We have the privilege of being able to vote. This privilege is one that has been earned by hundreds of men, with hundreds of lives, over decades of time. It not one to take lightly, and carries with it a tremendous responsibility. This responsibility demands our personal attention, and scrutiny of our own ideas and sentiments. This scrutiny may reveal that voting for candidates who lack integrity and biblical character is one thing not required of a responsible citizen. There are many responsibilities that we do possess, among these are our duty to God, to our conscience, our family, our fellow citizens, and so on. It becomes evident that our privilege bears tremendous weight. When virtually no public official is in office because we the voters have embraced his clear principles and trustworthy positions, we get a government that is easily corrupted. It is our duty as citizens to reconsider the wisdom of how we vote, so that it may be done with the utmost integrity.

As the leaders of generations, there is another thing to consider. We must look beyond the next four years when we consider our presidential leaders and the effect they will have on our nation. It is not good enough to decide that we can merely “live with” a candidate for four years. This attitude is one that is content to remain in the present state, or continue in backsliding patterns of injustice rather than embracing the change and cost necessary to recover the backbone of our nation. We must realize that the decisions, laws, wars and principles set by our current leaders affect more than ourselves. Future generations will feel the impact of what happens now. It should be our aim to appoint leaders of character who will uphold the essential principles of government, based on our country's founding constitution. We should strive to return this nation to it's original roots and foundation as a representatve republic.

When we fail to stand up and raise our voice in support of the best and most qualified candidates, there are two possible results: we are either condoning the actions of the less qualified party, or minimizing the importance of standing for integrity and freedom. Neither result is a good one. Instead of standing against the evil, we are capitulating to it as long as it is a slower evil. As John Adams so aptly stated, we must “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” To vote for lesser evil leaders, seems to send a message to our men of integrity that is not necessary for them to offer themselves as candidates. The role of our government is to secure “certain unalienable rights, among them are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” It is impossible for this to be achieved when we vote for candidates who are openly committed to unsettling these rights. James Madison explains that “There are more instances of abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” How can we possibly rest in the knowledge that we are voting for leaders who have a history of gradual and harmful encroachment on our freedoms? We must be willing to to make the difficult choice to stand, alone if necessary, for leaders of integrity. Our vote will not be lost, rather it will be honest stand for our commitment to see good, strong, godly leaders return to our government.

In a world of human imperfection, there is yet another aspect to be considered. That is that God is the one who ultimately puts rulers in power. As citizens, we are commanded to appoint “Able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness.” We are called to be faithful in the voting process that appoints these men. The results are left up to God. He assures us that He is the one who puts rulers in power, including wicked rulers as judgment when His people disobey. In Proverbs we are told that “The king's heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord; He turns it wherever He wishes.” A hands off non-voting approach is not the right response to this, as we have been called to action. We should feel no guilt in casting a vote for the best candidate. In the Lord's sovereignty, He is able to overcome all probability and appoint whom He wills. Whether it means the sudden death of all but one suitable candidate, the rising of a majority vote for a minority candidate, or leadership by a wicked ruler, we must trust that God will direct those placed in power.

In a country where we maintain a degree of freedom and the privilege to vote, we must consider more than mathematical probability when we cast the ballot this coming November. There are enough voices, enough votes being cast, that we could drastically sway even the mathematics behind the election process if we are willing to each stand for our true convictions. Banded together, the minority will expand to the majority it ought to be. A vote for evil is not a vote for the best candidate, rather it is compromise, and must be left behind to stand for what is best. Abdicating the privilege to vote should not be considered an option, but should drive us to honorably accept the responsibility that has accompanied it. We must look beyond the present, and consider the long term affect of our actions, realizing that only defense and support of the best candidates is worth our effort. God will appoint the president of this election. We are called to stand in support of the presidential candidate whom best fits our understanding of the role he is to fill. This privilege is ours to claim.