Election Thoughts: Trying to Articulate the Struggle

The election is less than a month away.  And I, like many others, have found myself dissatisfied with and resistant to considering either of the major parties’ nominees for president.  I perceive both as having said and done various things that cause me to neither respect them nor trust them to be in a position of power, leadership or influence over this country.  I went through a lengthy stage in which I told myself that I could not in good conscience cast a vote for either of them, and have been seriously considering third party or write-in alternatives.  For a while I was determined to support a third-party candidate.  But my conscience remained unsatisfied.  Voting for a third-party candidate does not soothe my conscience because I associate voting for a third-party candidate with surrendering greater influence by not voting for and/or against one of the two candidates who is most likely to end up appointed to the highest office in the land.  I fear that I will be abdicating my power to make a difference.  And I want to make a difference.

I have not yet determined for whom I am going to vote.  But I have narrowed it down to two.   And that short list includes one of the candidates that I previously told myself that I would not and could not vote for in good conscience.  Below I hope to explain why I am now possibly open to voting for a candidate I do not support despite my dislike of that candidate’s character and fear of damage that could be incurred under this person’s leadership.

The issues that matter most to me politically are social issues.  I care about society.  I love social science.  I am particularly interested in the moral development of individuals and of society.  This investment in society’s social and moral development repels me from both major parties’ candidates as individuals, but it also draws me toward the party and platform that best represents and supports the issues I most value. 

When I think of the potential of the next president to realistically appoint up to five Supreme Court Justices, it feels socially negligent to not advocate for someone who would likely appoint individuals who would justly advocate for the issues that I deem to be of the greatest value to the well-being of the nation.

I feel as though I am stuck in a moral dilemma.  Do I vote against individuals I don’t like, trust or have confidence in with a conscience-soothing third party vote but in doing so not have a say in who will realistically have influence?  Do I vote for a party and platform my values and interests more fully align with, knowing that my vote could contribute to a raise to power of someone that would easily abuse that power and do damage to the nation, its people and its foreign policy and relations? I feel stuck in a lose-lose situation.  I don’t know whether to prioritize supporting the party that I perceive as offering the most potential benefit or withholding support from the candidate that I anticipate would bring about the most immediate collateral damage.

In seeing how I wrote that last paragraph, I recognize that I am seeing a third-party candidate vote as being more about appeasing my conscience by not voting for people I don’t believe in rather than it being about voting for someone I do believe in.  Which is interesting.  Because I have found things I align with and admire in third party candidates.  And I have read and considered arguments for possible (but improbable) pathways to presidency or other gains from voting third-party and I find value and merit in those ideas.  But I also know that if I personally voted third party, it wouldn’t be with any expectation of that candidate winning, even if I want them to.

What’s more, I also wonder if I’m putting too much pressure on myself and on my individual vote.  Does my single vote really make a difference or have power and/or influence?  Honestly, probably not.  But I decided to ask myself, if I knew that my vote would be a tie-breaking vote, for whom would I vote?  And my honest answer to myself was: it depends.  If I knew that my vote would be a tie-breaker nationally and allow a preferred third-party candidate to win, I would vote for that person.  If I knew that my vote would be a tie-breaker at only the state level and most likely draw electoral votes away from the party I identify with, leaving the overall outcome of the election more likely to fall to the candidate of the opposing platform, then I would vote for the party’s candidate (despite the repugnance of that candidate).  

I also wonder, is my catastrophizing (assuming that either major candidate winning equates to abuse of power and irreparable damage) realistic and founded, or am I simply being overly influenced by a fear-mongering media?  Because I legitimately feel fearful of a presidency led by either major party candidate.  And I don't want to feel accountable for it or know that I supported it.  Is the damage that I can envision a likely outcome?  And is the threat of such outcomes sufficiently dangerous that I should not risk such an appointment despite the value of their alleged loyalty to promoting a specific platform?

I want to stand up for something.  I want to vote for what I believe.  But I also don’t want to vote for someone that I don’t believe in or that I want to stand up against.  How do I reconcile those?  Will a vote for someone who is likely to defend those things (despite potentially being despicable in other ways) be a way to cast my vote and voice for something that matters?  And is it worth the perceived risk?  Can a vote for a third party have influence in the areas that matter most to me?  These questions and others will be in my thoughts and prayers in the coming weeks as I seek to act consistent with the personal integrity, respect for this nation’s political processes, and a sense of responsibility to future generations that I feel should characterize my actions as I seek to fulfill my civic duty.