Wednesday, May 05, 2004
Conundrums, conundrums. I have been considering this today:
Candidate A has views that the church says cannot be justified, so you choose not to vote for him.
Candidate B has views that in your prudential judgement make him unsupportable (not strong enough on pro-life (although in the general pro-life camp), views on caring for the poor and the death penalty and other things which make you unhappy with voting for him.
You cannot vote in good conscience for A. But if you vote for a third party candidate, you may weaken the ability of Candidate B to defeat candidate A, thus making your vote function like a vote for A.
Not voting again may function like a vote for A.
Question: Do you vote for B?
Do you vote for B and then try to work to support those issues you think B is wrong about?
Do you immigrate?
Candidate A has views that the church says cannot be justified, so you choose not to vote for him.
Candidate B has views that in your prudential judgement make him unsupportable (not strong enough on pro-life (although in the general pro-life camp), views on caring for the poor and the death penalty and other things which make you unhappy with voting for him.
You cannot vote in good conscience for A. But if you vote for a third party candidate, you may weaken the ability of Candidate B to defeat candidate A, thus making your vote function like a vote for A.
Not voting again may function like a vote for A.
Question: Do you vote for B?
Do you vote for B and then try to work to support those issues you think B is wrong about?
Do you immigrate?
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
