'Don't waste your vote on a loser'
Stephen Stone, RenewAmerica President
One of the great things about America is the opportunity for open, sincere debate by all interested citizens about what should be public policy.
During this critical presidential election (perhaps the last in our nation's history, it can be argued), Americans have a compelling need to express their views regarding the candidates, and to persuade others to their view.
Thankfully, we don't all agree about what position to take, or who to support. In this complex, paradoxical world, that's a good thing. It gives less popular views a chance to compete with more prevalent views in the marketplace of ideas. As long as no particular view is unfairly suppressed, "truth will out," as they say — provided all sides have an equal hearing, and enough conscientious citizens are willing to make their perspectives known.
That's why RenewAmerica exists — to give all responsible points of view a fair chance to be heard, in the context of our nation's founding principles, with the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and God's Word as our guide.
RA itself has no "one" solution to our nation's ills, our current presidential election, or the duties and prerogatives of citizenship. Our only concern is that everyone affiliated with RenewAmerica be given an effective forum to express a reasoned view to our grassroots-minded audience, and that all of us at RA hold up our nation's "first principles" as the standard in all arguments, proposals, and decisions.
With that in mind, let me share a thought that struck me the other day.
Seemingly no choice where I come from
I live in Utah, where Mitt Romney is predicted to win by a higher percentage than in any other state — possibly more than 80 percent of the vote.
This state is "Mormon country," and that fact will bring out Republicans in droves to support Mitt (realizing that the LDS church's own officially-adopted political creed — Doctrine & Covenants 134 — reads much like the GOP platform).
This leaves the state's Democrats — including significant numbers of LDS members who support the Democratic Party's incredibly radical, essentially godless platform — in a quandary when it comes to deciding what to do on election day.
With the state overwhelmingly going for Romney, the votes of all Obama-supporting Democrats in Utah will effectively count for nothing this presidential race! By the well-worn logic many voters use to gauge whether their vote is worth casting — that is, whether it will likely make some difference in electing their preferred candidate, and not just amount to "tokenism" — the state's misguided supporters of Obama's "transformation" of America might as well stay home.
They don't have a chance of influencing the outcome of the race, either statewide or nationally. Under the state-by-state Electoral College system provided by the Constitution, their votes will be meaningless, being completely irrelevant from a "practical" standpoint.
A solution
I have an idea, however, how to salvage the situation for these unfortunates on Nov. 6.
They should not despair their predicament, but like good citizens, should put their franchise to good use and vote for the only evil choice on the ballot that makes practical sense (realizing the other evil choice is not much of an option, given the unique demographics of Utah).
In other words, all-but-disenfranchised Utah Democrats should make sure their vote is not wasted on a candidate who has literally no chance of carrying the state this fall, and go with a sure winner in Utah's Electoral College sweepstakes.
This means casting a vote for Mitt Romney purely on the basis of expediency, so their vote will "count for something," rather than be merely symbolic.
It will put them in the winner's column, rather than the loser's.
It's the only option available to them if they wish to avoid "throwing their vote away" on a candidate whose candidacy in Utah is as futile as that of a write-in candidate.
I hope Utah Democrats who value their role as citizens will seriously consider this perfectly logical recommendation, and put their personal preference (and self-professed beliefs) on a shelf and vote responsibly.
A parallel
I'm being facetious, of course. At the same time, I'm simply applying what appears to be an almost universal standard for voting in America: If you vote for someone who has "no chance" of winning (or otherwise put principle above pragmatism and vote your conscience), you're wasting your vote and behaving badly.
Here's the way it's being put in 2012 (if not exactly in these words):
"You may not like the two candidates the corrupt two major parties have given us this year for president, but you can't morally justify sitting this crucial election out (or writing in someone you prefer instead). A truly responsible citizen will suck it up and vote for someone they wouldn't otherwise support of their own free will in such a situation, since it's their 'duty' to cast a vote only for a candidate the establishment has anointed (through a manipulated, unrepresentative process) as having a 'chance to win.'"
This year, that would be Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.
If we were truly "wise" citizens — according to such thinking — we would not wander far from the artificial voting booth erected in our neighborhood, but would accept the two choices imposed on us by corrupt elites and willingly support that which we detest (or feel leery about).
It's akin to the superficial "bandwagon" mentality, or the "horserace" mentality. Everybody loves a winner — and no one wants to lose — so "get with it," Mr. Voter.
More absurdity
That said, let's now follow this absurd logic a bit further.
Suppose we live in Illinois, a bastion of unAmerican politics that produced Mr. Obama. Romney has no chance in Hades of winning the state — it should be obvious — so Republicans there who are stalwart citizens with their head on straight should do the logical thing and vote for Obama.
"If they don't, they're throwing their vote away and making merely a symbolic gesture by casting their lot with Romney."
Perfectly reasonable — given the logical extension of the above rationale that centers in "winning" and "being practical," at the expense of personal preference or principle.
Those who simplistically say everyone should accept the choices given them by party hacks on election day and not seriously rebel should follow their own advice to its reductio ad absurdam logical conclusion and REALLY be practical.
Better yet
Hold on! I've got a much better idea — one that can't be shown by its own logic to be morally or ethically bankrupt. Let's forego any notion that casting a vote for anyone who fails to measure up to fundamental standards of right and honesty is a wise thing to do, and instead stand firmly for what we believe in when we vote — no matter the "consequences."
If enough Americans did so, our country would have a fighting chance of surviving, regardless the sophistry we hear all about us to the contrary.
That's not just because we'd be a stronger people, less prone to manipulation by conspiring political interests, but because God would assuredly come to our aid as a country — provided the moral basis for our voting centered in Him.
That's logic that can't be assailed, no matter how much it offends the pragmatic.
© Stephen Stone
October 1, 2012
One of the great things about America is the opportunity for open, sincere debate by all interested citizens about what should be public policy.During this critical presidential election (perhaps the last in our nation's history, it can be argued), Americans have a compelling need to express their views regarding the candidates, and to persuade others to their view.
Thankfully, we don't all agree about what position to take, or who to support. In this complex, paradoxical world, that's a good thing. It gives less popular views a chance to compete with more prevalent views in the marketplace of ideas. As long as no particular view is unfairly suppressed, "truth will out," as they say — provided all sides have an equal hearing, and enough conscientious citizens are willing to make their perspectives known.
That's why RenewAmerica exists — to give all responsible points of view a fair chance to be heard, in the context of our nation's founding principles, with the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and God's Word as our guide.
RA itself has no "one" solution to our nation's ills, our current presidential election, or the duties and prerogatives of citizenship. Our only concern is that everyone affiliated with RenewAmerica be given an effective forum to express a reasoned view to our grassroots-minded audience, and that all of us at RA hold up our nation's "first principles" as the standard in all arguments, proposals, and decisions.
With that in mind, let me share a thought that struck me the other day.
Seemingly no choice where I come from
I live in Utah, where Mitt Romney is predicted to win by a higher percentage than in any other state — possibly more than 80 percent of the vote.
This state is "Mormon country," and that fact will bring out Republicans in droves to support Mitt (realizing that the LDS church's own officially-adopted political creed — Doctrine & Covenants 134 — reads much like the GOP platform).
This leaves the state's Democrats — including significant numbers of LDS members who support the Democratic Party's incredibly radical, essentially godless platform — in a quandary when it comes to deciding what to do on election day.With the state overwhelmingly going for Romney, the votes of all Obama-supporting Democrats in Utah will effectively count for nothing this presidential race! By the well-worn logic many voters use to gauge whether their vote is worth casting — that is, whether it will likely make some difference in electing their preferred candidate, and not just amount to "tokenism" — the state's misguided supporters of Obama's "transformation" of America might as well stay home.
They don't have a chance of influencing the outcome of the race, either statewide or nationally. Under the state-by-state Electoral College system provided by the Constitution, their votes will be meaningless, being completely irrelevant from a "practical" standpoint.
A solution
I have an idea, however, how to salvage the situation for these unfortunates on Nov. 6.
They should not despair their predicament, but like good citizens, should put their franchise to good use and vote for the only evil choice on the ballot that makes practical sense (realizing the other evil choice is not much of an option, given the unique demographics of Utah).
In other words, all-but-disenfranchised Utah Democrats should make sure their vote is not wasted on a candidate who has literally no chance of carrying the state this fall, and go with a sure winner in Utah's Electoral College sweepstakes.
This means casting a vote for Mitt Romney purely on the basis of expediency, so their vote will "count for something," rather than be merely symbolic.
It will put them in the winner's column, rather than the loser's.
It's the only option available to them if they wish to avoid "throwing their vote away" on a candidate whose candidacy in Utah is as futile as that of a write-in candidate.
I hope Utah Democrats who value their role as citizens will seriously consider this perfectly logical recommendation, and put their personal preference (and self-professed beliefs) on a shelf and vote responsibly.
A parallel
I'm being facetious, of course. At the same time, I'm simply applying what appears to be an almost universal standard for voting in America: If you vote for someone who has "no chance" of winning (or otherwise put principle above pragmatism and vote your conscience), you're wasting your vote and behaving badly.
Here's the way it's being put in 2012 (if not exactly in these words):
"You may not like the two candidates the corrupt two major parties have given us this year for president, but you can't morally justify sitting this crucial election out (or writing in someone you prefer instead). A truly responsible citizen will suck it up and vote for someone they wouldn't otherwise support of their own free will in such a situation, since it's their 'duty' to cast a vote only for a candidate the establishment has anointed (through a manipulated, unrepresentative process) as having a 'chance to win.'"
This year, that would be Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.
If we were truly "wise" citizens — according to such thinking — we would not wander far from the artificial voting booth erected in our neighborhood, but would accept the two choices imposed on us by corrupt elites and willingly support that which we detest (or feel leery about).
It's akin to the superficial "bandwagon" mentality, or the "horserace" mentality. Everybody loves a winner — and no one wants to lose — so "get with it," Mr. Voter.
More absurdity
That said, let's now follow this absurd logic a bit further.
Suppose we live in Illinois, a bastion of unAmerican politics that produced Mr. Obama. Romney has no chance in Hades of winning the state — it should be obvious — so Republicans there who are stalwart citizens with their head on straight should do the logical thing and vote for Obama."If they don't, they're throwing their vote away and making merely a symbolic gesture by casting their lot with Romney."
Perfectly reasonable — given the logical extension of the above rationale that centers in "winning" and "being practical," at the expense of personal preference or principle.
Those who simplistically say everyone should accept the choices given them by party hacks on election day and not seriously rebel should follow their own advice to its reductio ad absurdam logical conclusion and REALLY be practical.
Better yet
Hold on! I've got a much better idea — one that can't be shown by its own logic to be morally or ethically bankrupt. Let's forego any notion that casting a vote for anyone who fails to measure up to fundamental standards of right and honesty is a wise thing to do, and instead stand firmly for what we believe in when we vote — no matter the "consequences."
If enough Americans did so, our country would have a fighting chance of surviving, regardless the sophistry we hear all about us to the contrary.
That's not just because we'd be a stronger people, less prone to manipulation by conspiring political interests, but because God would assuredly come to our aid as a country — provided the moral basis for our voting centered in Him.
That's logic that can't be assailed, no matter how much it offends the pragmatic.
© Stephen Stone
