I didn’t vote in 2016. Not because of some principled stand against the choices on the ballot, but simply because I had moved from Washington, DC to Maryland in August and never got around to registering to vote. It was a combination of laziness – maybe call it being uninspired by my options – and bureaucratic obstacles.

My grandfather, who had taught law at the University of Arkansas with the Clintons, emailed the entire family telling us not to let Hillary become President because, although he doesn’t trust a New York businessman, he trusts Donald Trump more than either of the Clintons. I still felt hesitant to pull the lever for Trump.

Had I voted in 2016, I most likely would have written in some third-party candidate like Evan McMullin. In Maryland, it wouldn’t have mattered anyway. In the upcoming 2020 election, I will almost certainly not vote for Donald Trump.

The bulk of the policies that I like from the last few years originate in Congress, which is where most policies should originate. I take great comfort knowing there is a pretty good chance Mitch McConnell will be Majority Leader again in 2021. I also trust in the foundations laid down in the Constitution to offer a great recourse against any totalitarian inclinations of whoever the people choose as President.

I cannot, in good conscience, support a man like Donald Trump to be President. Neither can I support any of the top 4 or 5 Democrats currently vying for the Presidency. I do not believe in a vote for the “lesser of two evils”.

Morally, I cannot support an evil, even if it is less evil. Ours is a Republic that was not founded to be governed by lesser evils. The continued practice of voting against candidates has not been a good thing for our country. When we vote for the lesser of two evils, we are still choosing evil, affirming evil, and enabling evil.

Some would say that voting for someone who has little chance of winning is also an enabling of evil. The argument goes that by voting beyond the realm of clear possibility, we would be throwing our vote away and taking part in the election of a greater evil. But I say we are morally obligated to actively make good choices.

When the choices are bad, we may have to choose between the moral obligation to vote and the idea that there is ethical and moral value to abstaining entirely We may have to make choices for a good we hope for, even when we know it will most likely not happen. This is still better than actively choosing something we know and recognize as a morally evil choice.

When we choose the lesser of two evils, we are still choosing evil. Our good intentions do not nullify the evil we choose any more than just ends remove the consequences of evil means. We should actively support the Good even if we are in the minority for it. Voting for a candidate you support, even one who may not have great odds at success, is a morally better choice than voting for a candidate you don’t support because you hate the alternative.

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson lamented the idea of political parties and factions. The structure of our Republican government was meant to lessen the strife and disunity of pervasive factions.

Early on in American history, elections often resulted in multiple people receiving electoral votes. Twice the Presidential election was decided in the House of Representatives (1800, 1824). There are provisions in the Constitution for when a majority is not achieved in the electoral college.

Many states have provisions for when elections are tied or when a consensus cannot be reached through voting (usually “drawing lots” or a literal coin toss). Although many of the reforms of the last century have moved us closer to a party-centric system, there is still a fairly sizable plurality that is not affiliated with either “major” party. This is how it was meant to be and we should celebrate that philosophical diversity.

For decades we have been told that voting for a third-party candidate would be “throwing our vote away”. During the Dole/Clinton race, The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror mocked the idea of choosing between two terrible options and the failed bids of Ross Perot. By this standard, any vote for a person who didn’t win is a wasted vote. But we have the right and the duty to vote for who we want and not just who we don’t want. We should not sacrifice that right on the altar of partisan goals.

Especially in 2016, but many times before that, people went out to vote against someone rather than for someone. In 2008, Barack Obama was able to inspire a lot of people to go out and vote for him. By 2012, many of those same people were voting against Mitt Romney, if they voted at all, because they became disillusioned with failed promises of hope and change.

By voting against, instead of for, candidates, we reward the nomination of bad candidates. We tell the political parties that they don’t have to take their nomination process seriously because they know they can hold our support ransom by nature of the opponent.

While changes over the last century, such as increasing access to primary elections and the obscuring of the roles of the electors, have made it harder for a protest vote to have any meaningful impact, it is still the right and proper option. No one should be ashamed or afraid to use it.

Casting a ballot is a right, not a legal obligation. Many people will say, perhaps rightly, that voting is a moral and civil obligation. But the exercise of this right is only a moral and proper exercise if we vote for our ideals and work towards right and true representation of those ideals. Our ideals may dictate that the moral and civil obligation is abstaining from certain votes (if not entire elections) until an acceptable candidate is nominated.

However, remember that there are many more names on the ballot. Whatever we do, we should continue to actively promote local and state candidates who espouse our ideals. Your local city council member who works tirelessly to promote pro-business policies and volunteers at their church deserves your vote, even if some New York businessman with decades of tabloid baggage doesn’t.

Thaddeus R. Winker is a father and husband living in the Midwest. By day he works as a software developer but in a past life, he earned an MA in Biblical Studies at the Catholic University of America in Washington, DC and a BA in Classics from Xavier University in Cincinnati, OH. He enjoys fantasy, science fiction, and spending time with his family. You can follow him on twitter @Thadypus.

Share this: Twitter

Facebook

Reddit

