Politics: a wasted vote?
By luke g. on Oct 27, 2008 in Politics
Chuck Baldwin, the presidential nominee for the Constitutional Party wrote the following article, A Wasted Vote. I’d like to know your opinions.
When asked why they will not vote for a third party candidate, many people will respond by saying something like, “He cannot win.” Or, “I don’t want to waste my vote.” It is true: America has not elected a third party candidate since 1860. Does that automatically mean, however, that every vote cast for one of the two major party candidates is not a wasted vote? I don’t think so.
In the first place, a wasted vote is a vote for someone you know does not represent your own beliefs and principles. A wasted vote is a vote for someone you know will not lead the country in the way it should go. A wasted vote is a vote for the “lesser of two evils.” Or, in the case of John McCain and Barack Obama, what we have is a choice between the “evil of two lessers.”
Albert Einstein is credited with saying that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result. For years now, Republicans and Democrats have been leading the country in the same basic direction: toward bigger and bigger government; more and more socialism, globalism, corporatism, and foreign interventionism; and the dismantling of constitutional liberties. Yet, voters continue to think that they are voting for “change” when they vote for a Republican or Democrat. This is truly insane!
Take a look at the recent $700 billion Wall Street bailout: both John McCain and Barack Obama endorsed and lobbied for it. Both McCain and Obama will continue to bail out these international banksters on the backs of the American taxpayers. Both McCain and Obama support giving illegal aliens amnesty and a path to citizenship. In the debate this past Tuesday night, both McCain and Obama expressed support for sending U.S. forces around the world for “peacekeeping” purposes. They also expressed support for sending combat forces against foreign countries even if those countries do not pose a threat to the United States. Neither Obama nor McCain will do anything to stem the tide of a burgeoning police state or a mushrooming New World Order. Both Obama and McCain support NAFTA and similar “free trade” deals. Neither candidate will do anything to rid America of the Federal Reserve, or work to eliminate the personal income tax, or disband the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Both Obama and McCain support the United Nations. So, pray tell, how is a vote for either McCain or Obama not a wasted vote?
But, back to the “he cannot win” argument: to vote for John McCain is to vote for a man who cannot win. Yes, I am saying it here and now: John McCain cannot win this election. The handwriting is on the wall. The Fat Lady is singing. It is all over. Finished. John McCain cannot win.
With only three weeks before the election, Barack Obama is pulling away. McCain has already pulled his campaign out of Michigan. In other key battleground states, McCain is slipping fast. He was ahead in Missouri; now it is a toss-up or leaning to Obama. A couple of weeks ago, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida were all leaning towards McCain, or at least toss-up states. Now, they are all leaning to Obama. Even the longtime GOP bellwether state of Indiana is moving toward Obama. In addition, new voter registrations are at an all-time high, and few of them are registering as Republicans. In fact, the Republican Party now claims only around 25% of the electorate, and Independents are increasingly leaning toward Obama.
Ladies and gentlemen, Barack Obama is headed for an electoral landslide victory over John McCain. John McCain can no more beat Barack Obama than Bob Dole could beat Bill Clinton.
I ask, therefore, Are not conservatives and Christians who vote for John McCain guilty of the same thing that they accuse people who vote for third party candidates of doing? Are they not voting for someone who cannot win? Indeed, they are. In fact, conservatives and Christians who vote for John McCain are not only voting for a man who cannot win, they are voting for a man who does not share their own beliefs and principles. If this is not insanity, nothing is!
So, why not (for once in your life, perhaps) cast a vote purely for principle! Vote for someone who is truly pro-life. Someone who would quickly secure our nation’s borders, and end the invasion of our country by illegal aliens. Someone who would, on his first day in office, release Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean and fire U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton. Someone who would immediately, upon assuming office, begin leading the charge to dismantle the Federal Reserve, overturn the 16th Amendment, expunge the IRS, and return America to sound money principles. Someone who would get the US out of the UN. Someone who would stop spending billions and trillions of dollars for foreign aid. Someone who would prosecute the Wall Street bankers who defrauded the American people out of billions of dollars. Someone who would work to repeal NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, the WTO, and stop the NAFTA superhighway. Someone who would say a resounding “No” to the New World Order. Someone who would stop using our brave men and women in uniform as global cops for the United Nations. Someone who would stop America’s global adventurism and interventionism. Someone who would steadfastly support and defend the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
“Who is this person?” you ask. Go here to find out.
As John Quincy Adams said, “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”
*taken from here.
i’ve never heard of chuck baldwin. is this who you’re voting for, luke?
i like the john quincy adams quote. i like it a lot.
Tony | Oct 28, 2008 | Reply
What’s wrong with McCain? He’s pro-life and considerably better than Obama (in this woman’s opinion).
Doesn’t Baldwin have less of a chance than McCain?
Erin | Oct 28, 2008 | Reply
I couldn’t vote for anyone who wanted to leave UN. Such a move would be the end of any sort of fight for international human rights and would greatly weaken extremely important Christian organizations such as the International Justice Mission.
Mike | Oct 28, 2008 | Reply
Tony – I don’t think I’m voting for Baldwin. I do, however, agree with much of this article. I hate the two party system.
Erin – There’s a lot that I’m not in agreement with McCain. Actually, there seems to be no such thing as a perfect person for the job (other than Jesus). And I would also agree that Baldwin has a less likely chance than Baldwin – most Christians that I have talked with didn’t even know there was a Constitutional Party!
Mike – I agree. I wouldn’t recommend pulling out of the U.N., though I would strongly suggest we make some changes in the way that we interact with other countries and how the U.N. operates. I think the U.N. needs strong reform. By the way, I was curious if you’d had the chance to read Fee’s Pauline Christology, specifically in relation to his commentary on the Greek text of Romans 9:5. Hope to talk soon…
luke g. | Oct 28, 2008 | Reply
Isn’t the UN supposed to be an intricate player in the New World Order? I dunno- that’s what I heard for years, anyway.
Um, Erin, even though (sadly) I do have to vote for McCain over Obama as – Mr. Baldwin is right- the lesser of two evils- he is not completely on board as a pro-life candidate (however Ms. Palin IS). He beleives that abortion is ok in some instances. He also believes in continuing this war in the middle east for a “hundred years” if necessary, and as I debated in an earlier of Luke’s blogs, to me that is just another form of aborting America’s children-only waiting until they are grown and are the best and brightest-for no cause whatsoever.
If I had my druthers, I would be voting for a HUCKABEE-PALIN ticket, but I don’t have that choice, unfortunately.
But, the bottom line is this: GOD is in control. Yes, we should do our civic duty and vote our beliefs on Tuesday as a responsible Christian, but what ever the outcome, GOD will cause to happen what is supposed to happen- if that means Obama is President, then so be it. God will have it under control. If McCain is President, then God will still have it under control. Both of them will need our prayers, either of them should still be respected by us because of the office he holds.
I’m just saying…
mrsdoemrx | Oct 30, 2008 | Reply
I believe God is in control, but we need to also be praying for the outcome of the election. I believe a failure to pray can mean that God’s “best” will in the situation may not happen. For some reason, He chooses to wait until we pray before He does some things.
I think the article is a little on the “fallen off the high beam” side. He is overly negative about McCain’s chances of winning, and having half the conservatives voting for him and half voting for McCain will ensure Obama wins. Not sure why someone would want to do that, if they claim to be conservative.
It might be good to have a third party take a bite out of the presidential election. Look at Minnesota. They voted in a governor who was Independent, neither Republican nor Democrat.
This person had plans to make drastic changes, but does not seem to understand that people don’t want DRASTIC change…they want gradual, but productive change. (Ask any pastor!) What he is proposing to do would cause major disruption and would probably destroy our society, if he were actually able to pull it off. Another thing he seems to be forgetting is that the president is only one third of the leadership of this country. He still has to get it past the congress and have the Supreme Court to back him up. I seriously doubt he will get congress to agree to these kinds of drastic changes.
timbreldancer | Oct 30, 2008 | Reply
Allow me to make several comments as well as to play devil’s advocate here (you folks can figure out when I’m doing either)…
You bring up an important part of God’s Sovereignty! One must never understand His Sovereignty apart from His use of means. In other words, God is entirely Sovereign though He uses the means of human responsibility (e.g. prayer, evangelism, etc.).
However, I’m curious about the concept of God’s “best” will. Do you have any Scriptures that come to mind regarding God having a “best” will and it not being accomplished? I’ve heard folks use the term “best” or “perfect” will and terms of that nature; I’m just curious where it actually comes from!
Well, that depends upon your perspective. Plus, I didn’t interpret Baldwin’s article to ask for half the conservative vote… I think he’s just being realistic (apart from a move of God).
(1) Some people want gradual change and others want immediate. As a Pastor, I have found that it is based entirely upon the individual, no doubt reflecting the various influences that they may have.
(2) I’m confused as to how what Baldwin is asking for would disrupt and destroy our society. Could you explain that statement more? As near as I can tell, we would simply be guaranteed that Obama would become President and then there would be more awareness of a third party (and hopefully a fourth, fifth, sixth, etc.).
(3) You state that you seriously doubt that Baldwin could get the backing of congress. What about your opening statement about God being in control and the power of prayer? Perhaps, using your previous line of thinking, we can ask God for a drastic change and He could bring about that drastic change!
(4) I wish I had a fourth point or question, but I do not… so, have a great day!
Oh, I just remembered: I disagree with the U.N., officially. We need to pray that the Lord will bring a reformation and revival within these groups! Amen.
luke g. | Oct 31, 2008 | Reply
Point #2: How what Baldwin is asking for would disrupt and destroy our society:
Quoted from Baldwin’s site:
You are talking about getting rid of the Federal Reserve (our money system) and the IRS (the government’s way of raising money) and making a number of huge changes immediately upon becoming president. That’s about like someone coming into your home, grabbing your wallet and running all your cash and credit cards through the shredder; flushing your checks down the toilet and telling you we are now going to trade goats for everything we need. Imagine if someone went into every home in your town and did that at each home and place of business. None of the people have any goats, so what are you going to do? You can’t raise money to pay your bills, because all the money has been shredded. Don’t you think that would disrupt your town and cause major confusion? Don’t you think it might cause a total breakdown of the society it is supposed to be “helping”? (Remember New Orleans, when all those people had needs, but no way of meeting them…so they took to looting and general bad behavior?) I also find it hard to believe that congress would sit by with their hands in their pockets while someone eliminates our entire money structure. (I think this guy sounds like a nut, personally, unless he just hasn’t really thought about the ramifications of what he is saying.)
I don’t really agree with this. I think many people will say they want immediate change, but just watch their reactions if someone comes in and changes something they weren’t expecting or didn’t want changed. People who think they want immediate change have often not fully thought about all the ramifications of the change. An example would be the Israelites when they entered the Promised Land. They probably thought they wanted it to be immediately theirs, but God, in His wisdom, did not permit that, because He knew they would not be able to manage that large of a change all at once, and the wild animals would take over.
timbreldancer | Nov 2, 2008 | Reply
Luke wrote:
I don’t know, off the top of my head, of any Bible verse that specifically says this. I could be wrong.
An example, in my mind, would be Deuteronomy 27-28 when Moses is instructed to read off the list of curses and blessings over the house of Israel. If the people obey God, they are promised blessings and if they disobey God, they are promised cursings. Maybe it is just my human thinking, but since Jeremiah 29:11 seems to imply that God prefers to bless us, that would be His “best will” for the people of Israel. The curses are also His will, or He wouldn’t have stated them and brought them to pass, but I don’t believe they are His “best will”.
It seems to me that some things are just “The WILL OF GOD” and they will be accomplished no matter what. This would included the Creation in Genesis 1, the Flood, stuff like that about which there was no choice given. Other things are “the will of God”, lower case, and include things that depend on our choices to a certain extent. These would include the destruction of Sodom, where Lot was spared and not destroyed with the rest of them (but his wife was not spared, because of her choice), or God telling Moses (in the wilderness) that He was going to destroy the people of Israel and build a new nation out of Moses. Moses declined that honor and interceded for Israel, and God changed His mind (Exodus 32:14). I would think God’s best will in that situation was that the Israelite’s not choose to disobey Him in the first place.
timbreldancer | Nov 2, 2008 | Reply