Not Voting Because You're Displeased With Candidates

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1351349113' post='2498531']


I can agree if you can cast your vote and don't, your creditibilty is compromised. I think there is an important caveat to this, however. If, by virtue of your informed conscience, you cannot vote for any candidate; i would posit that would still be a vote.almost like a conscientious objection vote..lol. If, as well, you are one of those 'anarchist-there's-violence-inherent-to-the-system type' and you refuse to vote on some odd principle; though I may not fully understand it; I could conceivably call that a vote as well.

In the case of your friend, though; who seemed to be too lazy; yeah.. i totally agree with you.
[/quote]

That is close to my attitude. I am not necessarily willing to argue at this point that voting is inherently immoral, but where I am right now, my conscience demands a non-vote. I agree entirely with treating a non-vote as something along the lines of a conscientious objection. I think of it like an implicit vote of non-confidence.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1351349366' post='2498535']
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism
[/quote]
Apparently Konkin is/was from a place rather near where my parents grew up. I wish there was more material available on him.

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1351347401' post='2498521']
That's like saying if you don't participate in a burglary, then you really can't complain about way the burglary was executed.

The premise behind the notion that those who don't vote can't complain is that A and B have a right to force C into an agreement he does not wish to be a party to. There is no social contract.
[/quote]

No, that's a fallacious analogy. Voting is a morally neutral action. Burglary is an immoral action.

Voting is the speech we use to promote the people we want forming political policy. All other forms of politcal speech are ultimately commentaries on our right to vote. If one doesn't vote, one can't complain about which candidates get elected. They can complain, however, about how broken our political system is.

But generally, people who don't vote and complain about our broken system are the exception to the "didn't vote" group of complainers.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1351356584' post='2498570']

If one doesn't vote, one can't complain about which candidates get elected. They can complain, however, about how broken our political system is.
[/quote]
That compromise works for me. We all know how I look at it.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1351356584' post='2498570']

No, that's a fallacious analogy. Voting is a morally neutral action.
[/quote]
Do you have something to support this? Seems to me that voting for a very pro-abortion politician would not be a morally neutral action.

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1351349113' post='2498531']
I can agree if you can cast your vote and don't, your creditibilty is compromised. I think there is an important caveat to this, however. If, by virtue of your informed conscience, you cannot vote for any candidate; i would posit that would still be a vote.almost like a conscientious objection vote..lol. If, as well, you are one of those 'anarchist-there's-violence-inherent-to-the-system type' and you refuse to vote on some odd principle; though I may not fully understand it; I could conceivably call that a vote as well.

In the case of your friend, though; who seemed to be too lazy; yeah.. i totally agree with you.
[/quote]

Now that, yes, I think I can understand what you are saying here. If someone really believes that they are sinning against their conscience by voting in a circumstance where they have carefully reviewed as many potential candidates and scenarios as possible and informed themselves and their conscience to the best of their ability prayerfully and in all sincerity, I think I would have to respect that. I think my criticism is more for non-voters that choose not to vote whether it's laziness or candidate dissatisfaction but generally don't even make that kind of effort. Thank you.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Ash Wednesday

[qfnol31]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1351363912' post='2498700']

Do you have something to support this? Seems to me that voting for a very pro-abortion politician would not be a morally neutral action.
[/quote]Certain actions generally speaking could be construed as morally neutral, but specific actions are definitely good or evil. Picking up a piece of straw is morally neutral, but the action performed specifically must be good or evil.

In the case of voting, however, I think we have a civic duty so voting is not morally neutral, but supposed to be a good act which could in fact be used evilly. I'm with you, I'm not sure how it can be morally neutral unless you are anti - democracy / republic, but then it's an evil action...

Edited October 27, 2012 by qfnol31

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1351322523' post='2498457']
so give up and let him be reelected?
[/quote]

I never said that. I'm simply saying some think that if we just get Obama out then all of our problems vanish (I'm not saying cmotherofpirl was thinking this), when he's just a stem, rather than the cancer itself. Cut off a stem and it doesn't cure you of the cancer.

[ACS67]

[quote]
[url="http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/catholic_principles_for_voting.htm"]The exercise of the right to vote is an act[/url]of grave moral responsibility, at least with respect to the electing of those who are called to give to a country its constitution and its laws, and in particular those that affect the sanctification of holy days of obligation, marriage, the family, schools and the just and equitable regulation of many social questions. It is the Church’s duty to explain to the faithful the moral duties that flow from this electoral right.Pope Pius XII was even more explicit two years later, again when speaking to the parish priests of Rome. He explained that in the precise circumstances of the time it was an obligation under pain of mortal sin for all the faithful, both men and women, to use their right to vote, since the common good depended upon all Catholics voting wisely.Here is the text of March 10, 1948:
[quote]
In the present circumstances, it is a strict obligation for all those who have the right to vote, men and women, to take part in the elections. Whoever abstains from doing so, in particular by indolence or weakness, commits a sin grave in itself, a mortal fault. Each one must follow the dictate of his own conscience. However, it is obvious that the voice of conscience imposes on every Catholic to give his vote to the candidates who offer truly sufficient guarantees for the protection of the rights of God and of souls, for the true good of individuals, families and of society, according to the love of God and Catholic moral teaching.
This application of the Church’s social teaching to the particular situation of the time is in accord with the teaching of the moral theologians, who speak of the grave sin of omission for those who simply neglect to elect good, Catholic representatives, and of the duty of doing all in our power of encouraging suitable laymen to work towards using the electoral system to obtain worthy lawmakers.
[/quote]

[u][b]But h[u]ow[/u] far we are removed from this situation[/b].[/u] [i]Clearly, we are no longer in the circumstance of having to choose between Catholic and non-Catholic, morally upright and liberal representatives[/i]. All the alternatives are liberal, the deception and the manipulation of the public by the media is rampant. In practice, it generally comes down to the question of whether or not it is permissible to vote for an unworthy candidate ([i]e.g[/i]., a candidate who only approves abortion in cases of rape or incest), for he would at least (we suppose) be the lesser evil. [b]In such a case, there can be no obligation to vote, [/b] for all the reasons mentioned by Pope Pius XII that could oblige, no longer apply. Ne[i]vertheless, it is still permissible to vote in such a case, provided that one can be sure that there truly is a lesser evil, and that there is a grave reason to do so (e.g., to avoid abortion on demand, or promotion of unnatural methods of birth control), [/i]and one has the good intention of providing for the good of society as best one can. This is called material cooperation. However, it can never be obligatory.

Consequently, in the rare case where there are informed Catholic candidates who publicly support the teaching of the Church, there is a strict moral obligation to vote, under pain of mortal sin. Where there is a clear gain possible from the correct use of a vote for some other candidate, it can be recommended or counseled. [b]However, when there is no clear advantage it would be better to abstain, so as not to contribute even to a material participation.[/b]
[/quote]
I'm abstaining.

Edited October 28, 2012 by ACS67