The first man tells you his business will bring numerous jobs, more than his opponents, to the area. Many young women will be offered high paying positions as strippers in his establishment. He promises tight security, increased public interaction, and that his business will support many community activities.
The second man quickly interjects with his proposal. His business would admittedly not provide as many jobs but have much less liability through its entertainment options. His adult book/video/novelty store would bring in higher revenue due to their website and online options.
You are handed the clipboard with two columns, one for each business option. In one of the columns you must write your full name and address, checking the box to cast your vote for the business you would prefer. Your decision will be made known to the city council as well as your neighbors. Which do you vote for?
The reasonable answer would be to not vote for either. You are under no obligation to be a part of allowing either sinful business into your neighborhood. Of course, your refusal to vote for neither does not mean that one will not set up residence. In fact, you know your neighbors well enough that you are certain at least some of them will cast a vote.
If the answer to this scenario is so simple, why then do so many well-intentioned believers feel that when they vote anywhere else they MUST vote for the "lesser of two evils". They insist that voting for one candidate is a right that many have fought for, died, and still defend to this day. You are almost seen as un-patriotic...and sometimes unChristian...for not casting a vote. But not casting a vote is a right secured in the same manner as the right to cast a vote.
It's another issue altogether to take an apathetic stance towards voting. "My vote doesn't matter anyway", "I don't really care", etc. are some of the basic responses of apathetic voters. But refusing to vote does not always mean one is apathetic. If they decide not to vote because they have researched and found no candidate that meets the criteria for that office, then their vote is in fact a vote of "No Confidence".
"But if you don't vote then there is a better chance for the more ungodly candidate to step into office".
That is true...but not voting for either sends two messages:
1) There were no candidates qualified for the position which in turn tells those who supported the candidates to support and nominate more qualified candidates the next time around.
2) You are more concerned with qualification and following the majority of the group with which you are most closely affiliated.
Shall we simply be as the Israelites in 1 Samuel who cried out for a king to lead them with no regard for God's standard of ruling? While I agree with others that we are not electing a Pastor or Bible teacher, we are electing someone who must know where justice originates and acknowledges the Highest Authority. To elect anyone who does not is to elect someone whose basis for morals, ethics, and practice are borrowed from the Christian worldview (as any good presuppositionist knows) but are not rooted in the firm foundation of Scripture. Such a view can easily be swayed, moved, or altered as the newly elected official's position evolves while in office.
Voting for the lesser of two evils is not only a fallacious position but it simply ignores the third option of giving a vote of no confidence by refusing to support either evil. Evil does not need our vote, we allow it in power each time we settle on one of its softer supporters.
Thanks for stopping by!
Serving the Sovereign Savior,