To Avoid Voting For A "Lesser of Two Evils"

How do we choose when each candidate promotes policies
and represents positions we simply can't endorse?

I hear lots of concerned citizens, including many people of faith, who lean toward voting for a particular presidential candidate but who know that by doing so they are also supporting a lot of policies they find reprehensible. 

For example, many of my fellow pro life friends believe they must vote Republican for the sake of supporting more restrictive laws limiting abortions. At the same time, they are appalled, among other things, at the prospect of millions of undocumented workers or individuals with temporary legal status having their lives and their families disrupted through forced expulsions if Trump is elected. In communities like Springfield, Ohio, or localities lkie ours this would create unimaginable harm to our community and economy.

Others strongly prefer the Democratic party's policies and candidates, but are equally appalled by how Harris continues to support the kind of military aid that will result in thousands of ever more people being brutally bombed in Gaza and in the escalating and dangerous Ukraine/Russian war.

Yet in spite of feeling highly conflicted, many see the privilege of voting as too important for them to simply refrain from taking part in an election, believing their vote might at least move the needle of justice in a slightly more positive direction. Yet they feel uneasy about having that same vote lend support to policies they strongly oppose.

One option, of course, is for individuals to simply avoid voting altogether and to exert their influence in other ways. 

But here's a third option I've been pondering:

What if every conflicted voter who leans toward supporting one party would find a conflicted voter who leans in the other direction to simply pledge together to abstain from casting a vote in this fall's election? 

This could do several things:

1. It would  engage caring citizens with opposing views in important conversations that may help them understand each other better in spite of their differences.

2. Neither could be accused of simply being passive and doing nothing about matters of national or local concern through not voting and thus simply accepting the will of the voting majority.

3. Since each person's unmarked ballot in this agreement would have the direct effect of canceling the vote of someone who would have voted differently, each will have exercised their civic responsibility in a more impactful and significant way than either simply not voting or voting without having negotiated such an agreement, in which case ones single vote would have been canceled by another's in any case. .

4. All of this could be worked out between any two individuals operating in good faith, and would require no special organizing or funding. 

5. Each agreement could be tailored to the two persons involved, as to whether it would involve every item on a ballot, for example, or just the persons at the top of the ticket. 

6. Followers of Jesus could use this as a way of demonstrating their commitment to policies they see as being accordance with the future and forever reign of God and at variance with short sighted politics of the present age. In other words, it would highlight choices involving above versus below rather than just left versus right.

Feel free to offer your thoughts, or put your contact information and your voting preference in a comment below if you want to connect with an interested vote-trading partner. 

Here's a link to a really thoughtful piece by blogger Jonny Rashid on this topic

https://jonnyrashid.substack.com/p/the-plight-of-the-palestinians-in?utm_source=publicationsearch&fbclid=IwY2xjawFXHxFleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHdSupJ5CrfJpJBi8wdzMkDutVpotAzykqgP6P1xbEsVVA3DzN3x8R5UCJQ_aem_yyicj2kbd75TeeR1E9U2ng