Hypothetical Election

[kujo]

Hey ya'll. This stems from a debate we're having elsewhere on this Phorum. What would you do in this circumstance? I recognize that you could always vote for a third candidate, but seeing as how we're still a full year and a half out from this scenario taking place, there are no legitimate third party candidates out there at this time. Explain your beliefs.

Edited February 10, 2007 by kujo

[Aloysius]

These options remind me of the end of the Simpson's episode where the aliens inhabit the bodies of Bob Dole and Bill Clinton and Homer exposes them. The suggestion is made that they could vote for a third candidate... but of course nobody wants to throw their vote away by voting for a third party candidate so they end up voting for one of the aliens and being enslaved.

[kujo]

I fixed it a bit to alleviate your concerns, Aloysius.

Edited February 10, 2007 by kujo

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

From my understanding, this could be a possibility next time, correct?

[Didymus]

the more lives you can save, the better. At least, that's how I argue it. It's not necessarily correct, but that's how I see politics being different than religion.

[Nathan]

I'm not interested enough in politics to vote for a candidate who is not pro-life. To get my vote, it is very simple: be pro-life. If there is no suitably pro-life candidate, I will go to the polls and write on the ballot "vote withheld due to there being no pro-life candidate." This sends a clear message to political parties, and if enough people did it, you can bet that they would take it seriously.

Being pro-life or pro-death is not an adherence to one side of one particular issue; it defines the fundamental essence of a candidate, and very often what his/her positions on all other issues will be. Protecting innocent life from conception to natural death is the cornerstone of being a public servant, the absolute most important characteristic. Anyone who fails to protect life, or fails to understand the gravity of the situation, does nit deserve my vote or yours.

Edited February 10, 2007 by Nathan

[Veritas]

+

His name is Brownback.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'm gonna steal that simpsons analogy

[toledo_jesus]

you left out third party candidates.

[kujo]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' post='1191169' date='Feb 10 2007, 11:17 PM']
you left out third party candidates.
[/quote]

I said vote for another candidate didn't I?

[goldenchild17]

I wouldn't vote at all (or pick a 3rd candidate if there was one who fit the bill), pending an answer to my post here [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=63249"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=63249[/url]

Edited February 11, 2007 by goldenchild17

[morostheos]

It would depend on the other views of the candidates running. Most likely though, I would vote for a third party candidate whose views I agreed with most.

[Didymus]

I think it comes down to this. Alot of the pro-lifers are split between voting for third-party candidates so as to give the message that we want a pro-life candidate and voting for the candidate who is [i]mostly[/i] pro-life so that the pro-abortion candidate doesnt go into office.

[Proud2BCatholic139]

As Catholics, we are obligated to be pro-life. Why vote for a candidate who is pro-choice? Hypocrisy. I shall not vote if it boiled down to that situation.

[Didymus]

we just need to keep in mind the giant step backward the country will be taking if the democrats win the election.

[goldenchild17]

And we also need to keep in mind, do the ends justify the means?

[Didymus]

well then we'd have to define 'means' and 'end'

[goldenchild17]

Let's do so . Means: voting for lesser of two evils (yet still quite an evil). Ends: Avoiding the bigger of two evils.

How is this different from say supporting the execution of one or two people, in order that a whole group of people can be saved?

Edited February 11, 2007 by goldenchild17

[Didymus]

It would be more like a whole group of people are going to be executed, and you support the man who will save a great deal of them, because any other decision would leave all of them to be killed. Supporting the other candidate means they'll all die, and throwing away support means the first man may not have enough support to save some of them.

In the case of say, voting for Bush in '04. In voting for Bush, one was voting for a change for the better. One thus voted to save millions that could not be saved. Voting third party (or not voting at all) could have meant one less vote for Bush and thus the millions that [i]could[/i] have been protected would be at the mercy, or lack of, of the other candidate. I cant really apply this to '08 though, since as has been pointed out, there seem to be no definitive protectors of life aside from Brownback.

[goldenchild17]

How is your example different from mine? Would you say that it is okay to support the killing of some people in order to save the majority of them?