There Is A Difference Between Arguing Morality Vs Effectiveness

[dUSt]

I am making this post because I believe this stance has been lost and buried in the threads, even though I have repeated it many times.[list]
[*]When I argue against voting third party I am not arguing that it is immoral.
[*]Voting third party can be a perfectly moral position.
[*]I am arguing the [b]effectiveness[/b] of voting third party, [b]not[/b] the morality of voting third party.
[/list]
To all of those I have offended, I'm sorry. If there is any question as to whether I was judging your faith or criticizing your conscience, rest assured, I was not and am not.

So now let's debate how this post should be interpreted.

[sixpence]

depends on what you are trying to be effective at

[dUSt]

[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1351803492' post='2502167']
depends on what you are trying to be effective at
[/quote]
What do you mean by "depends"?

[Winchester]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351803994' post='2502176']
What do you mean by "depends"?
[/quote]
Adult diapers.

[dUSt]

[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1351803492' post='2502167']
[s]depends[/s] [b]adult diapers[/b] on what you are trying to be effective at
[/quote]
Well adult diapers on your face then.

[homeschoolmom]

[missionseeker]

There are a lot of factors to consider- what are change are you trying to effect? Are you in a Swing state? Is the problem with the candidate? The party? the system?

I say this because there tends to be an overwhelming goal to get Obama out of office (which is not a bad goal). However, I think there is a deep rooted problem and that problem is power. You know the adage that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely... I think that our two major parties are exemplary of that. The republicans continue run presidential candidates that are just not in line with the ideals, morals and values of most conservative voters for at least one reason or another (whether it be economic policy, abortion, war, taxes, etc) But the majority of Republicans continue to vote for these candidates because there is just no better viable option.

My belief is that the problem is with the parties. They have become corrupt. The Constitution was written with the idea of a very limited federal government. Republicans keep running candidates who blatantly ignore this principle, which is the cornerstone of American government.

The change that I would like see happen is the major parties start backing candidates who actually hold the ideals and values of the constitution. (I think I'm registered as a Republican, I'm not sure, but I'm probably going to change that. I'm not sure I can take the label - I think I identify much more with Libertarians) [b]this won't happen if we continue to vote for candidates on the basis of them being less bad than the other [/b]

When I made my choice, I considered that and I considered the electoral votes of my state. Obama will probably get somewhere around 34% of the vote in Alabama. My vote for a third party candidate [i]will not in anyway effect the outcome - Romney will take Alabama with or without my vote. [/i]

If Republicans keep backing candidates who are nominally prolife, but have done nothing for the cause (and I base my judgments on the actions of the candidates, not what they say), then we will continue to have these issues. Because what the party leaders want is not your vote. It's power. This will lead to fewer prolife victories (and I mean really pro- life, not just babies. Wars, punishments, healthcare, etc). We are setting ourselves back by settling. Lesser evils are still evils.

Sure I don't want Obama to be re-elected. But - especially given that Romney's got my state no matter what I vote- why should I vote for a candidate who favors things that are completely antithetical to both Catholic values and the US Constitution? Third party votes in my state are a loss to Republicans (but not at the cost of me "re-electing Obama") I can hope that the loss of votes will cause both parties to re-evaluate their platforms and become more in tuned to what Americans want to see in politics. I speak to democrats who hate Obama and Republicans who dislike Romney. I really do think that if more people actually voted the way they thought (that either candidate smells of elderberries), then a message would be given. Because let's face it votes= money. Money = power. Both parties hate loosing money AND power.

[dUSt]

This thread is not about voting third party, it is about The Difference Between Arguing Morality Vs Effectiveness.

[Aloysius]

this is a good distinction to make. I have seen you step aside and make this distinction a few times to my satisfaction, only to be caught up again in the types of arguments that act as if the third party or write-in vote is not a moral option. It has not usually seemed to originate in you, but you certainly pile on in that regard.

ironmonk's post, for example, clearly calls on people who disagree with his particular political strategy to stop even bothering to call themselves Catholic. yay! ironmonk to the rescue! no. that wasn't cool. I don't feel threatened in any way by it, I have a well formed conscience and I feel I have participated in the political process this time around by giving a lot of time and effort towards advancing what I think was right in the political realm, I'm comfortable that my efforts in this political cycle amount to doing all that I could do. I was even involved in the potential of forming an alliance with Santorum supporters across the country at the RNC to really stop the Romney machine from winning (which fizzled out because of pressure from the pragmatic folk who don't realize how harmful their pragmatism actually is to the possibility of advancing the cause in the long term)... so yeah, I'm not threatened by the accusations that my vote is evil or whatever, I don't mind people playing hard ball. I come back hitting hard against posts that make it seem like the Romney vote is the only moral vote, though, because I know quite a few people do feel that pressure and guilt from people, the misappropriation of the communion of the Church into nothing more than the glue to hold together a political block, giving people the sense that they're being told they're not good Catholics for not supporting Romney or they're going to hell for it or whatever. That reasoning isn't cool, and you haven't necessarily been the epicenter of it but you have certainly been willing to cheer it along when it comes up, even after you've made clarifications. case in point: when ironmonk came to the rescue.

Anyway, this is a good clarification. You have every right to argue from the standpoint of effectiveness, so long as you recognize that people with a differing viewpoint on political strategy are in no way less Catholic or more hell-bound.

[Jaime]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351808245' post='2502249']
This thread is not about voting third party, it is about The Difference Between Arguing Morality Vs Effectiveness.
[/quote]


no it's not. You aren't arguing effectiveness, you are arguing pragmatism. this argument of "It's nice to have ideals but how about living in the real world" croutons is just that.

"It's pointless to vote third party since No third party candidate is ever going to win" Ok then what's wrong with

"It's nice to hope that teens won't have premarital sex but in reality, they are so why not provide contraception?"

"What's the point of marrying in the Church when half of marriages end up in divorce anyway?"

The pragmatic moralist list goes on and on. If effectiveness means giving up on my morality, then no thank you.

For the record, I have absolutely no problem with anyone voting for Romney as the lesser of two evils. I can see how someone can prayerfully come to that conclusion and vote their conscience. I do have a problem with anyone telling anyone that voting for a third party candidate is a waste. I have a problem with anyone calling someone pro-life who is in favor of abortion in certain circumstances. I have a problem with someone telling me that voting third party is supporting Obama, and therefore, abortion.

[Anomaly]

Political parties in representative government necessarily reflects significant portions if public opinion. The softness on RTL issues by one party and antagonism by the other reflects majority opinion. Most Catholics vote Democrat which is why Obama is President now and why Democrats have such a significant power base. I find it ironic that Catholics here are pointing at Republican Party moral shortcomings in RTL issues and calling for a third Party while voting in Democrats who are most pro-abortion in action and intent.

Catholics don't vote Pro-life as a whole. If they did, political reality in America would reflect that. Why don't they? Because Catholics spread their vote for other issues. If ther was a third Party called Pro-Life, maybe a quarter if Catholics would support it because that Party would also have to address economic, military, energy, and educational issues and Catholics would all disagree(as they do now) and not support it just as they have consistently supported Democratic Party that has brought us the pro-abortion legislation, policies, and agenda.

[missionseeker]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351808245' post='2502249']
This thread is not about voting third party, it is about The Difference Between Arguing Morality Vs Effectiveness.
[/quote]

Oh sorry... something you said made me think it was. [color=#282828][font='Open Sans', sans-serif]I am arguing the [/font][/color][b]effectiveness[/b][color=#282828][font='Open Sans', sans-serif] of voting third party, [/font][/color][b]not[/b][color=#282828][font='Open Sans', sans-serif] the morality of voting third party.[/font][/color]
[color=#282828][font='Open Sans', sans-serif]So - stupid me - I wrote a whole post on how voting third party could indeed be effective. [/font][/color]

[sixpence]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351804143' post='2502180']
Well adult diapers on your face then.
[/quote]



what I mean is this. Most people are not in a swing state and do not have an effective way of getting Obama outta there. So what does this "effectiveness" mean for most people? Can they be effective at making sure Obama doesn't get their states electoral votes? NO. Then what are they supposed to be effective at?

[dUSt]

I think if you are in a swing state, getting Obama out of office is priority #1, so therefore, I would vote Romney.

If you are not in a swing state, it may be more effective to vote for a third party candidate that has true Catholic values, because I think that might make more of a statement for the future--even though this is debatable.

[sixpence]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351892064' post='2503106']
I think if you are in a swing state, getting Obama out of office is priority #1, so therefore, I would vote Romney.

If you are not in a swing state, it may be more effective to vote for a third party candidate that has true Catholic values, because I think that might make more of a statement for the future--even though this is debatable.
[/quote]

see now that sounds very reasonable!