Voting For A 3rd Party Is Voting For Obama.

[Winchester]

“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”
― [url="http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/89275.Fr_d_ric_Bastiat"]Frédéric Bastiat[/url], [i] [url="http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/2548001"]The Law[/url] [/i]

[i]That's [/i]a liberal.

“But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.”
― [url="http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/89275.Fr_d_ric_Bastiat"]Frédéric Bastiat[/url], [i] [url="http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/2548001"]The Law[/url] [/i]

Edited October 24, 2012 by Winchester

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Freedom' timestamp='1351052804' post='2496824']
Just what liberals are notorious for: personal attacks. Goodnight everyone, sweet dreams.
[/quote]

You sound like a fun person. But your argument here, and your argumentation is shallow and misguided. You sound smart, so I think you can do much better than this. But calling us all liberal for not falling in lockstep with the sociopath who calls himself a republican is just silly.
It is also hilariously false, but it will be even more hilarious if you discover that on your own. I will give you a small hint on this one; give my profile picture a good analysis.

God bless you, but please do not be so narrow minded.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Nihil Obstat

[Lil Red]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1351053014' post='2496830']

That dog is so big I can't tell if I should laugh or be frightened.
[/quote]

he's about to eat her, because an evil clown is inside the dog. if you're worried an evil clown will come get you next, be frightened.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Freedom' timestamp='1351052804' post='2496824']
Just what liberals are notorious for: personal attacks.
[/quote]

[quote name='Freedom' timestamp='1351052025' post='2496811']
Then just vote for Obama because you have a liberal soul. Nobody can convince you of anything.
[/quote]
[quote name='Freedom' timestamp='1351034115' post='2496587']either the DemocRAT
[/quote]
[quote name='Freedom' timestamp='1351026028' post='2496458']
Mr. Obama is a good liar, I don't blame you for believing him.
[/quote]
[quote name='Freedom' timestamp='1351022346' post='2496435']Everything out of his mouth is a lie
[/quote]

[quote name='Freedom' timestamp='1351052804' post='2496824']
Just what liberals are notorious for: personal attacks.
[/quote]
[quote name='Freedom' timestamp='1351052804' post='2496824']
[size=5]Just what liberals are notorious for: personal attacks. [/size]
[/quote]
[quote name='Freedom' timestamp='1351052804' post='2496824']
[size=5]Just what[/size] [size=6]liberals are notorious for: personal attacks.[/size]
[/quote]

[img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HHQp8i5Puo4/TWMpQOCNTiI/AAAAAAAAAEI/P6yIleICGVM/s1600/inglip.jpg[/img]

[i]FREEDOM IS A LIBERAL.[/i]

Edited October 24, 2012 by USAirwaysIHS

[Winchester]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1351053125' post='2496834']

he's about to eat her, because an evil clown is inside the dog. if you're worried an evil clown will come get you next, be frightened.
[/quote]
that's so meta!

[arfink]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1351052252' post='2496815']
Physically speaking you are correct. Morally speaking there's a lot more nuance to this question.

If a person performs a bad action you can:
1) Go along with it (evil) - vote for Obama
2) Go along with it materially because you have no choice or this is a lesser evil than the alternative (no moral culpability on your part) - vote for a somewhat immoral, but more more candidate than Obama who can prevent Obama from retaining office [voting for a third-party candidate might fall here if a greater evil is [i]actually [/i]avoided in doing so]
3) Ignore it (which amounts to materially supporting whatever outcome occurs because you haven't acted in the best way to prevent it or ensure it) - don't cast a vote [voting for a third-party candidate might fall here depending on the final outcome]
4) Stop it (which is normally the most moral option if it exists at all) - vote for a perfect candidate who wins (won't happen)

So while I don't agree with Freedom's simplistic view, material cooperation can occur by both supporting and not supporting a person who will act unjustly. There are a number of factors that go into play. If in fact Romney wins, then your support of a third-party candidate could be more easily morally justified than if Obama wins. But the full argument (which I have yet to articulate) is incredibly nuanced.
[/quote]

I would like to propose a counter-analogy, because I'm too tired to attack premises here in a logical way and would do you a grave disservice to attempt it at this hour. [i]maybe next time, eh?[/i]

Suppose I am married, and my wife and I are kidnapped by some villainous rogues who pose an ultimatum to me:

You can chose to have her die now and you die after, to have her be tortured and let to go free and you die after, or the unspoken 3rd option, to attempt against all odds to resist, and escape.

I'm gonna say that despite having good knowledge that I will not be able to defeat these horrible men that I would be a madman to chose anything but option 3. The analogy to voting 3rd party being, even though it's incredibly unlikely to the point of being a foregone conclusion, I must still attempt it.

Edited October 24, 2012 by arfink

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='arfink' timestamp='1351056638' post='2496855']
I would like to propose a counter-analogy, because I'm too tired to attack premises here in a logical way and would do you a grave disservice to attempt it at this hour. [i]maybe next time, eh?[/i]

Suppose I am married, and my wife and I are kidnapped by some villainous rogues who pose an ultimatum to me:

You can chose to have her die now and you die after, to have her be tortured and let to go free and you die after, or the unspoken 3rd option, to attempt against all odds to resist, and escape.

I'm gonna say that despite having good knowledge that I will not be able to defeat these horrible men that I would be a madman to chose anything but option 3. The analogy to voting 3rd party being, even though it's incredibly unlikely to the point of being a foregone conclusion, I must still attempt it.
[/quote]

I was hoping you would get involved in this thread. [i]A[/i]wesome analogy, by the way.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='arfink' timestamp='1351056638' post='2496855']


I would like to propose a counter-analogy, because I'm too tired to attack premises here in a logical way and would do you a grave disservice to attempt it at this hour. [i]maybe next time, eh?[/i]

Suppose I am married, and my wife and I are kidnapped by some villainous rogues who pose an ultimatum to me:

You can chose to have her die now and you die after, to have her be tortured and let to go free and you die after, or the unspoken 3rd option, to attempt against all odds to resist, and escape.

I'm gonna say that despite having good knowledge that I will not be able to defeat these horrible men that I would be a madman to chose anything but option 3. The analogy to voting 3rd party being, even though it's incredibly unlikely to the point of being a foregone conclusion, I must still attempt it.
[/quote]What happens to your wife in option 3? I would argue that for your analogy to apply to this scenario, you must leave her behind and hope that she survives until you come back, all the while knowing that she will die the moment you disappear.

[Aloysius]

Everyone is taking a premise for granted: the premise that Romney will be better than Obama. He is not in any way, shape, or form better than Obama in my estimation, and I went through a bunch of issues including the pro-life issue wherein I illustrated that he is not. In some ways he's actually WORSE than Obama. I want Romney to lose, yes. I don't want Obama to win, but that will be the double effect of the good action of withholding my vote from Romney... well, even saying that accepts your premise that my vote actually was owed to Romney in the first place; it never was. it never belonged to Romney, so my withholding of my vote from both Romney and Obama does not actually help either side.

So many mental gymnastics are used by Catholics to toe the Republican party line, it's unbelievable. you are not having a voice when you play into their hands; your vote doesn't affect anything even if it puts Romney in place rather than Obama--because Romney is not better than Obama. It's like putting Obama in charge of both the presidency and the Republican party, the chance of opposition to it will be lost.

I have said again and again that it is absolutely morally permissible (NEVER obligatory, that is madness; the ends do not justify the means, the means are good in and of themselves. therefore even if your third party or write in vote results in the ends of an Obama victory, or a Romney victory which would be just as bad IMO, the act in and of itself was good because the ends do not determine whether the means was good) to vote for a lesser of two evils; but I actually don't recognize either Romney or Obama as a [i]lesser[/i] of two evils at all.

Q, did you actually basically say that because the result (ends) of a third party or write in vote could be an Obama victory, that this somehow constitutes material cooperation with Obama? That is the loopiest logic ever. there is no material cooperation with Obama; there is no moral obligation to vote for "someone with a chance of winning"; ever. I'm gonna go ahead and do a more detailed reply to your post from the other page on this in a second, but I just think that line of logic is so alien to Christian sensibilities about doing what is right regardless of the consequences that it defies explanation.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Aloysius

[Aloysius]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1351050226' post='2496771']
1. Catholics must vote in America. If we don't vote, then there must be an extremely good reason why not.
[b][A good reason could involve not supporting any candidate that will be counted, we are not obligated to support people we disagree with][/b]
2. Catholics must try to minimize the amount of evil performed. Since we don't have a presidential candidate who is 100% in line with Catholic teachings, we must go for the candidate that will limit evil the most. [b][take out all the "musts" and replace them with [/b][b]"mays", man, that's all the actual teachings say, that we may vote for someone that we judge will limit evil the most[/b]] In other words, our vote must limit the amount of evil performed by the person who wins. If this is accomplished by a third party candidate, then we should vote for a third-party candidate. Our intentions alone do not determine whether or not we truly act well. We are morally responsible for our actions and the outcome of our actions, insofar as we are able to ascertain the outcome of our actions. Prudence, the virtue, is knowing the correct end and seeking the [i]best[/i] possible means to that end. If we don't act prudently, then we act in an evil manner and are morally culpable for the outcome that we could have (and didn't) prevent to the best of our ability. [b][and of course the correct end is to have a pro-choice Republican instead of a pro-choice Democrat in the white house? I see no practical difference between the "two" options, and besides that I am under no moral obligation to make the most compromising pragmatic deal with the devil that I can, that entire line of reasoning is wrong. IF I thought Romney would limit evil, that would not mean I was obligated to vote for Romney, just that I MAY vote for him if I think he'll limit evil. We are obligated to do right actions, regardless of the consequences of those actions.][/b]

3. Catholics, when forced to choose between an evil and a greater evil must choose the lesser of two evils. [b][NO a thousand times no, we are not obligated. We MAY, that's what Catholic moral doctrine says, we MAY choose between the lesser of two evils, not MUST. this is where you're getting hung up, if you read the actual guidance from magisterial sources you'll find that everywhere you place a MUST they place a MAY][/b] If there are three evils, we must choose the lesser of three, and so on. But again, see my previous point: intention alone is not all that matters [b][it is not intention, it is action. the action itself is the good--voting for a good candidate is a good act. their chances of winning do not change that action. we are not obligated to participate with the winner of the election while voting, because that winner is not chosen until after our votes][/b]. We can be held accountable for our inaction or the end sought as well. When Catholics act, they may only materially cooperate with evil (meaning that they cannot formally cooperate with evil, or choose to perform an action for the sake of an evil outcome). This means you can't support President Obama on account of his views on abortion or because of his views on marriage. If you cooperate materially in evil, you go along with evil to prevent a greater evil. Any material cooperation with evil must be as remote as possible, or the action performed is evil. [b][and you lost me here, somehow voting for someone other than Obama or Romney constitutes a material cooperation in Obama's victory? this logic is unfathomable.][/b]

4. Catholics cannot vote for a 100% pro-abortion candidate, unless all candidates are pro-abortion. In this case Catholics must go for the best choice possible. The same goes for euthanasia, cloning, marriage, etc., though these cases do not receive equal weight.

5. This means Catholics must choose between someone who is for limiting abortions or flat-out stopping them. This goes for the other issues listed above as well.

6. Catholics not only cannot vote for a 100% pro-abortion candidate (unless they have no other choice [b][they never HAVE to, they never have no other choice][/b]), they must also try as hard as possible (legally) to keep such a candidate out of office. If they do not try as hard as possible to keep this person out of office, then they have materially cooperated in this person's election (by not preventing it). Material cooperation can occur when a person does not act, just as much as it can appear when they do act. [b][but the third party or write in or abstaining vote IS an action, it IS an action of resistance to the two pro-abortion candidates. its unlikelihood of success does not change that fact][/b]

7. If there is an extremely pro-abortion (etc.) candidate, who can make things worse in our country or keep things where they are, then we ought to work as hard to keep him from obtaining office. [b][which guy are you talking about, Romney or Obama? I'd equally like to try to keep either of them out of office, because they are both pro-abortion and will make things worse in our country, their policies will be equivalent][/b] By voting for a candidate who is very little pro-abortion, we are remotely and materially cooperating with evil insofar as we do not intend this person to be in charge, but intend the other person to stay out of office.

8. By voting for a completely pro-life candidate who has no chance of getting into office, we remotely and materially cooperate in the evil of whosoever ends up elected by not trying all possible to prevent that person from entering office. [b][except we tried one possible way of preventing those two pro-abortion candidates from entering office; we tried voting for another person. sure that person didn't win, but we tried][/b] If the more pro-abortion candidate gets in, then the person who did not try to prevent his election is culpable for his actions. If the voter votes for the other candidate (the less pro-abortion candidate), then this culpability is mitigated. [b][the third-party voters DID try to keep the pro-abortion candidate(s) from getting in by voting for someone else, they just failed because no one joined them because they all followed your line of reasoning.][/b]

9. If the person votes for the 5% pro-abortion candidate in order to keep the other candidate out of office, then he only materially cooperates in the candidate's election, because he did not elect the candidate for the candidate's sake. [b][who is this 5% pro-abortion candidate? where I come from, "health of the mother" justifies 99% abortion; and Romney's record is consistently pro-abortion.][/b]

10. It follows that the person who votes for the unelectable candidate remotely cooperates in the election of whoever gets elected [b][That doesn't follow at all, actually. How is voting for someone without a chance of winning remotely cooperating in the winner's victory? That only follows if you start from the premise that this person's vote already belonged to one candidate over another][/b]. If he votes for the less pro-abortion candidate, then he only remotely cooperates in that person's election, regardless of the outcome.

11. It would be possible to vote for a third-party candidate if the evil prevented by such a vote outweighs the evil of abortion, marriage, etc., then we ought to vote third-party. However, recall that no matter what, intention is not enough to make an action good. We are just as culpable for the end perceived (and I don't mean intention, but what we know will come of our actions) as we are for performing a bad action in the first place. I think this is where the discussion should go. Is abortion a greater evil than our country politics? [b][please show me the viable pro-life alternative to Obama. this is not about country politics, this is about every single issue, including the moral issues, wherein Romney does not earn my vote[/b]]

Is the government now set up in such a way that is morally evil and will protect evil actions more than a different system. I don't think that limiting abortion decisions to states is more viable or more worthwhile than the current system.

Is leaving abortion decisions to the states a more prudent means of protecting the unborn?

Is Ron Paul's system really the best way to prevent evil and rid our government of true evil? Do we perceive the results of our actions helping as much as everyone says, or are we acting based only on ideals?
[b][unrelated issue because this isn't a debate about whether we want Ron Paul's policies; but as an aside, Ron Paul's policies would involve both letting states illegalize it AND defining life as beginning at conception at the federal level, thereby granting all the protections of rights afforded by the Constitution to the unborn, it would just be up to the states to decide how to punish it. This would be a step-by-step process certainly and one important step is overturning Roe allowing states to decide; but Ron Paul supported federal personhood legislation as well, so he was definitely as pro-life as a federal politician can be.[/b]
[b]and as regards dUSt's quote about plan B, that is also something that every politician permits for anyway; and yes it's wrong but getting it made illegal is just as futile as trying to illegalize contraceptives (plan B is a very similar drug anyway), they're abortificient too so the legality of them would be a pro-life legal issue... I never agreed with Ron Paul on 100% of things but I also don't see his stance on plan b drugs as in any way related to political offices][/b]
[/quote]

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351080378' post='2496888']
Everyone is taking a premise for granted: the premise that Romney will be better than Obama. He is not in any way, shape, or form better than Obama in my estimation, and I went through a bunch of issues including the pro-life issue wherein I illustrated that he is not. In some ways he's actually WORSE than Obama. I want Romney to lose, yes. I don't want Obama to win, but that will be the double effect of the good action of withholding my vote from Romney... well, even saying that accepts your premise that my vote actually was owed to Romney in the first place; it never was. it never belonged to Romney, so my withholding of my vote from both Romney and Obama does not actually help either side.

So many mental gymnastics are used by Catholics to toe the Republican party line, it's unbelievable. you are not having a voice when you play into their hands; your vote doesn't affect anything even if it puts Romney in place rather than Obama--because Romney is not better than Obama. It's like putting Obama in charge of both the presidency and the Republican party, the chance of opposition to it will be lost.

I have said again and again that it is absolutely morally permissible (NEVER obligatory, that is madness; the ends do not justify the means, the means are good in and of themselves. therefore even if your third party or write in vote results in the ends of an Obama victory, or a Romney victory which would be just as bad IMO, the act in and of itself was good because the ends do not determine whether the means was good) to vote for a lesser of two evils; but I actually don't recognize either Romney or Obama as a [i]lesser[/i] of two evils at all.[/quote]I don't know if I said Romney is better than Obama here, though I could see how my comments could be construed that way. If Romney is at all better, then what I say follows. If he's worse than Obama (overall), then my logic applies backwards, but rarely do you find such an argument. If they are equally bad, then they have to be equally bad overall. I read your post on Romney, but I don't see how a person who's in support of abortion in some cases is as bad as a person who supports abortion in all cases and would extend it to partial-birth abortions, genetic selections, etc. if he could. I read a comment (I don't remember who made it right now) on how each of the last Republican presidents put forth a poor justice choice, but that ignores the four on the court from democratic presidents and the four "good ones" (depending on the day of course) put there by Republicans...

[quote]Q, did you actually basically say that because the result (ends) of a third party or write in vote could be an Obama victory, that this somehow constitutes material cooperation with Obama? That is the loopiest logic ever. there is no material cooperation with Obama; there is no moral obligation to vote for "someone with a chance of winning"; ever. I'm gonna go ahead and do a more detailed reply to your post from the other page on this in a second, but I just think that line of logic is so alien to Christian sensibilities about doing what is right regardless of the consequences that it defies explanation.
[/quote]In a sense, yes. Because we live in a republic that for all intents and purposes acts like a two-party system when electing our President, we are materially cooperating with the majority by not casting our vote. If you want, I'll take you through all the steps later, but the basic idea is that material cooperation isn't simply from action, but also inaction.

If you think your vote is most prudently served toward Ron Paul or some other such third-party candidate, then I can't do much to dissuade that. I trust that you find it the most prudential means to the end you seek. However, the resulting end (so far as you can foresee it) must also come into the equation as well. Here we're talking about the common good of (our) society. If you think that voting third-party is the best way to ensure the common good endures, then by all means go that route. In this case there must also be a proportionality of the evil that could be limited by another viable candidate over Obama versus the point/change you truly envision coming out of your actions.

This is all to say that if Romney isn't really an improvement over Obama (and so long as he isn't really much worse), and you think that a greater good will in fact come from going third-party, then morally you'll be obligated to vote third-party.

[Aloysius]

okay now this one thing deserved its own post:

[quote]We are just as culpable for the end perceived (and I don't mean intention, but what we know will come of our actions) as we are for performing a bad action in the first place.[/quote]

What is the perceived end of refusing to deny Jesus before the Romans? What is the perceived end of that girl in the school shootings who was asked if she believed in God?

What is the perceived end of Polish men riding into battle on horses with swords against the tanks of German Nazis?

What was the perceived end of David when he stood up to Goliath?

What was the perceived end of 300 Spartans against the Persian empire?

[b]By the logic in this quote, they were all materially cooperating in suicide![/b]

When the action is good, then perceiving that you will LOSE when you do it does not mean you shouldn't do it anyway. The idea that knowing you will lose somehow makes your action into material cooperation with the eventual winner is utter lunacy.

Being willing to fight a losing battle is the essence of the Christian spirit. That's what a third party or a write-in vote is: it's a losing battle. The fact that you will lose does not mean your action is not good. When you're on the side of a good cause, a good principle, a good candidate, the fact that you are going to lose means that the actions of those causing you to lose are the evil actions, not your own.

But you and all the kind of Christ
Are ignorant and brave,
And you shall have wars you hardly win
And souls you hardly save.

I tell you naught for your comfort
Yea, naught for your desire,
Save that the sky grows darker yet
And the sea rises higher.

Night shall be thrice night over you,
And heaven an iron cope.
Do you have joy without a cause,
Yea, faith without a hope?
GK Chesterton, Ballad of the White Horse

[Aloysius]

[quote]Because we live in a republic that for all intents and purposes acts like a two-party system when electing our President, we are materially cooperating with the majority by not casting our vote.[/quote]
But we do cast our vote. We cast it as a third party, or a write in, or a "None of the Above" vote; all of those are votes cast. None of them are a material cooperation with the majority, except in a twisted and hopeless world (forgive my bluntness, but I believe very strongly in fighting the losing battle no matter what the end result)

[qfnol31]

I'll get to your inline response later today...gotta run to class.

The 5% candidate comes from the last time I posted that. It was erroneously left in the most recent paragraph. I used must because one premise follows from another, since we are morally obligated to follow the path we find most prudential. To put it in other terms, we are morally obligated to follow our conscience, and our conscience dictates to us what is most prudential. The post was only about thinking through the various teachings on modern politics applied to the various points of view espoused here.

I'll also get back to the perceived ends that will arise from an action, but as great as that post was to read, I don't think it applies that well to what I have posted here.

[Amppax]

Can someone throw out a 3rd party candidate who is any better than the two major options? That's my problem with all of this. It doesn't seem like there IS an option.