 |
| How do we choose between flawed candidates? |
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 having their lives and their families disrupted through forced expulsions if Trump is elected.
Others strongly prefer the Democratic party's policies and candidates, but are equally appalled by how Harris favors the kinds of military aid that will result in thousands of even 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 Democratic-leaning voter would find someone leaning Republican but with some similar misgivings about their party's candidate or platform, and then have the two pledge to abstain from casting a vote in the fall 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 significant way.
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 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
6 comments:
...this is a complex and divisive topic. I like what Father David has to say.https://youtu.be/_K3wnkVjF4M?si=RMNci2mzWguN0MxE
I love Father David's comments.
Usually I find myself very much in favor of your articles. Not this time, though. Today I listened again to most of the debate between the two candidates. Very clearly, in responding to the question about her views about what's been happening in Israel/Gaza, and the West Bank, she noted the killing of Israeli young people at a concert and said that she believed that Israel had a right to defend itself; she also noted Israel's killing of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza, "many of them mothers and children," and called for an immediate ceasefire and the creation of separate countries. Aren't we all for those two solutions? On the other hand, Project 2025 --which Trump mysteriously denied knowing anything about but which will hand him dictator powers to deport thousand of our neighbors (again dividing parents and their American children) who uncomplainingly pay billions of social security taxes from which they do not benefit as well as federal, state, and local taxes, jail his political opponents, remove efforts to combat climate change, and cause the monitoring of all women's menstral cycles, and...So, please, please support Harris. She may not be in favor of all that you would wish. However, what she plans is constructive; Trump's are terrifyingly destructive. Terrifyingly!
Thank you, Anonymous, for your response. I'd be glad to hear more over a cup of coffee if you are willing to get in touch with me . Most of the responses I've gotten so far assume that my vote swap proposal means I am not exercising my civic responsibility and am giving the other party an advantage. I agree that if I simply don't vote I would just be giving assent to the majority of the electorate. And if I vote without making the kind of vote swap I'm suggesting I am allowing a Trump voting friend to cancel the effect of my vote anyway. If he or she agrees with me to refrain from voting this fall we also cancel each others vote, pure and simple, only we would have hopefully had a civil and thoughtful conversation about an important subject, and will have used our voting option to make a statement, even though the net effect on the election result will be the same if we choose either option 2 or 3. But as followers of Jesus we should be clear that we will not give total and unreserved support to any evil in either party's agenda. Meanwhile I've already had some really valued discussions with a number of my conflicted Trump leaning friends, and if I end up with no vote swapping partner I may then cast a reluctant vote in the direction I find the least objectionable. But history will not be kind to us if we give even tacit approval to genocidal violence in any and every form it may appear.
I appreciate this creative idea. I have been very conflicted about voting for Harris due to her strong support for genocide in Gaza. I also am repulsed by Trump and am scared of what another 4 years of him would do to our country. I am leaning toward voting for Jill Stein, but I also realize the futility of that given our electoral system that makes it nearly impossible for a 3rd party to gain power. So, I am open to this idea you propose. I would be glad to be connected with a conflicted Republican since, sadly, I do not know of anyone in my social circle who fits that category.
Thanks. As a purely symbolic gesture, maybe the two persons would agree to vote for Jill Stein, and in that way cancel each other's vote for a two-party system that doesn't serve us well.
Post a Comment