Is Voting for a 3rd Option a Wasted Vote in the 2016 Presidential Election?

UPDATE: November 4, 2017, a new Heat Street/Rasmussen Reports telephone and online survey of Likely Utah Voters finds Trump with 42% support to Democrat Hillary Clinton’s 31%. Republican-turned-Independent candidate Evan McMullin has faded to 21%.

In a brief piece entitled, "Election 2016 Thoughts – Part One: A vote for a 3rd Candidate is not a Wasted Vote or a Vote for Clinton" by Baptist21 contributor, Nathan Akin, five reasons are listed as to why Akin believes a 3^rd candidate vote for president in the 2016 election is not in vain. With a degree in political science, we might expect a cogent case for his proposition.

Below are Akin's five reasons (embolden) with my response following. The reader can be the judge if Akin has made his case (at least in Part One) that voting for a 3^rd party candidate is not a wasted vote.

[First] A 3rd option is not a wasted vote. Per Akin, since "this kind of thinking is exactly why we are in the mess we are

picture source

in," voting one's conscience is "never a wasted vote." Akin cites Republicans spoiling the "binary options" for the Whigs and Democrats in 1860.

In response, it's not always true that voting one's conscience is never a wasted vote. What if, in acting consistently with one's disgust for American politics, and thus voting according to one's conscience, a person voted for Mickey Mouse as POTUS in November? Or Lucille Ball? Wouldn't this count as a wasted vote?

What's more, since when has one's conscience become the ultimate criteria by which believers discern life-changing matters whether at home or in society? True Scripture not only affirms as the "the goal of our instruction… a good conscience…" (1 Ti 1:5), but also states that "the blood of Christ" is designed to "cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God" (Heb. 9:14). Granted. But citing conscience apart from other significant factors involved could be a recipe for spiritual disaster. And we all are very much aware of how dull even the Christian conscience can become much less for those outside the church.

More problematic is citing personal conscience alone when dealing with public policy, something about which Akin should be very much aware as a student of political science. Personally, I'd gladly deal with a bit of regret in putting a flaunting Donald Trump in office if I thought it could help the unborn and preserve the Supreme Court from a disastrous leftward tilt for the next forty or more years. When dealing with public policy, conscience must be a part of the balancing act. Thus, while conscience is relevant, conscience should never be considered alone.

Finally, Akin citing the Republicans getting Lincoln elected as evidence that a 3^rd party candidate can work in the 2016 election seems absurd. It took at least six long years for Republicans to get Lincoln in the White House, and that was after he lost the Republican nomination to the US Senate in 1858. It took time to build a formidable political party, time we don't have in 2016.

[Second] A strong showing from a 3rd option might just be what is needed for an overturn of the whole system… In response, no 3^rd party candidate presently has a strong showing unless Akin counts low-bottom, single digit polls strong. And like we stated above, we don't have time for a strong showing to build. Nor is believing "our two parties take for granted many people's votes" serve as evidence for anything really. Three or four parties could just as easily "take for granted many people's votes."

[Third] Evan McMullin could be a better option and there is a remote possibility of a path to victory… Evan McMullin entered the presidential election in early August of this year—about two months ago. McMullin says, "I humbly offer myself as a leader who can give millions of disaffected Americans a better choice for President." Perhaps he can, but most serious candidates need to have more than a couple months before voters align their allegiance to them. It looks like McMullin is exploiting the moral dilemma many evangelicals feel in voting for either Clinton or Trump. In other words, McMullin apparently is claiming he's a better moral choice than either of the two primary candidates, and I honestly would not doubt he is! But is one justified in voting for a candidate just because he or she has fewer moral problems than another? Is this reason sufficient? Not for me it isn't.  

Not mentioned in Akin's article is McMullin's deep religious roots in the Mormon church. While I personally do not count that against him (for the record, I voted for Mitt Romney), there is a sizable chunk of evangelicals who would not vote for a Mormon as president of the United States. Hence, one has a divided house even with McMullin. And his high poll numbers in Utah are high for a reason since a whopping two of three Utah citizens are Mormons!

Finally, to cite an 1824 incident where the House of Representatives decided the presidential election is as vacuous as citing Lincoln's win over Whigs and Democrats. Akin is merely throwing a political "Hail Mary" hoping it lands in somebody's hands (just not Trump or Clinton's).

Consider.

Do we really want to gamble away the Supreme Court; the unborn population in late-term abortions; the military; better protected borders; immigration reform; a refreshing, workable healthcare solution among many other issues affecting all Americans, by wishfully hoping a completely unknown, untested candidate will arise from the ashes and in two-three months win? Our grandchildren—my grandchildren—are at stake here. I feel no compulsion--moral or otherwise--to place the political future of this nation at risk by handing it over to Hillary Rodham Clinton.   

[Fourth] The amount of votes a candidate gets is often used as an indicator of how much public support they have to carry out their policies. I'm confused as to Akin's point other than to assert that since neither Clinton nor Trump has positive ratings or likely to gain a high percentage of the voting public, both candidates would suffer from lack of an American mandate and therefore limit their effectiveness in office. My only response is, where has Akin been the last eight years under President Obama?

[Fifth] A vote for a 3rd option would also tell the world we are not in anyone's political pocket. Granted. It could also tell the world that when it comes to preserving the rights and privileges of our American republic, Christians don't give two shakes of a gnat's behind. Nor is voting for Trump necessarily suggesting we're in anyone's "political pocket."

Moreover, what matter does it ultimately make exactly what we're allegedly telling the world when we're implicitly telling the unborn that we don't care if Hillary Clinton pushes late-term abortions or not?

Or telling our military families we don't care if Hillary Clinton abandoned you to die or not?

Or telling our grandchildren we don't care if we leave you with a leftist Supreme Court for the next forty years or not?

Our children will just have to suck it up and live with it because we are never going to vote for Donald Trump. Instead we're going to vote 3^rd party regardless of an unknown candidate whose chances are slim to none in winning the presidential election.

So is voting a 3^rd option candidate a wasted vote?

You decide.

 

Comments

[Lee]

I agree with Akin. The Trump campaign rests on false premises and false promises. The facts don't support his contentions, and if you think his Supreme Court appointments will be anything but corporate lackeys and liberals, I've got bridges in San Francisco and beaches in Arizona to sell you.

I don't vote for Mormons, because I won't do anything to affirm their legitimacy as a faith, or their quirky eschatology, which is what electing one to the presidency would do.

What a long way we've come. Republicans used the unproven accusations of several women against Bill Clinton, and then claimed he committed perjury to try to remove him from office. Now they're bad mouthing women who have come forward claiming Trump assaulted them (you have his own words in several cases supporting their claims) and suddenly, because he's Republican, hypocrisy has pushed the opposite view. Now the GOP isn't for character and values, its for winning at any cost. If you couldn't support Clinton, you can't support Trump without a complete abandonment of your values.

Thank you for being open to comments. S

[Scott Shaver]

According to your tortured logic, Lee, I'll buy the bridges in San Franciso and you can throw in the beachfront property in Arizona for half-price.

The only principle I'm abandoning in voting for Trump is the principle of giving "evangelical leaders" like Mohler, Moore and the author of this article (degree in political science notwithstanding) credit for having even a modicum of common sense.

You don't vote for Trump and you don't vote for Mormons but you will defend a baby-killer. Personally, I've got no use, time or patience with so-called "evangelicals" of this stripe.

[Scott Shaver]

Akin cites the political environment of 1860 as support for his logic on how not to vote. Again, some of these folks just can't seem to live in the present.

Had these guys actually lived in 1860 I doubt they would have been so cavalier about demonstrating their modern politcally-correct religious superiority.

Cowards are very good at criticizing past generations based on hindsight and revised history. They're just not very good at contributing anything constructive to the present.

[Alex Guggenheim]

And all those who voted for Ross Perot still say, "We showed them, didn't we?", not.

[Lydia]

Akin needs to do his homework. Third party voting for Perot is what elected Bill Clinton the first time in 1992.

[Lydia]

Oops, I did not read comments before I posted. Alex beat me to it.

[Lydia]

There is also the problem of Akin taking the grueling political and social events (including Westward expansion) leading up to 1860 and putting them into Twitter sound bites. Sheesh!

[Lydia]

Will McMullin be on every state ballot?

[peter lumpkins]

According to McMullen, he hopes to be on the ballot in 40-45 states, enough, he indicates that will fulfill his purpose. And what is his purpose? To be POTUS? No. According to him, he only desires to stop Trump from being elected. That's it. He merely is a spoiler candidate--a #NeverTrump stooge.

Given the purpose from McMillin's own lips, Akin appears to be extending the #NeverTrump message by promoting a #NeverTrump candidate, an entirely disingenuous attempt to make McMillan into something he's not. What a Georgia Hoot.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/23/evan_mcmullin_goal_of_candidacy_is_to_prevent_trump_electoral_vote_victory.html

[Lydia]

What a mess. Not to mention WHICH states McMullen is on the ballot or not!

[Lydia]

Does anyone here remember the perpetual candidate, Lyndon LaRouche? My dad used to have us kids watch his broadcast when he ran for prez and then analyze his economic assertions with reality.

We could use some economic reality for this election.

[Scott Shaver]

Lydia:

I fear the economic reality of this election will occur when the nanny state can't pay its bills or continue doling out the freebies.

[Lydia]

Don't worry Scott. As that happens, Hillary's foreign government and big bank gazillions will be safe in their jet setting global pay to play foundation in safe accounts. It is lucrative to be big time public servants. You can even have the FBI destroy evidence and the DoJ to turn a blind eye to what would put you or I away for life.

The really sad part is a large portion of Americans find that perfectly acceptable in a public servant.

[Scott Shaver]

Your public education dollars at work for last 3 decades

[Scott Shaver]

As well as your SBC seminary dollars would appear😛

[Alex Guggenheim]

Let's see, he chose a conservative born again Christian for his VP but is going to now choose leftist judges according to Lee? Someone help Lee with his conspiracy theories.

[Lydia]

Jimmy Carter might fit Lee's criteria for Prez. Christian. Sunday School teacher. Never divorced. Moral. Etc.

Problem is, he was a disasterous president. And even after with his Arafat shenanigans.

[Robert Vaughn]

Peter: According to McMullen, he hopes to be on the ballot in 40-45 states...

This is not up-to-the-day, but I found on Evan McMullin's web site as of September 29th he was on the ballot or a write-in in 34 states. He may have gotten on others since that post, but I think by now it is past his working to get on any more ballots. We've already started early voting here in Texas. He is write-in here, as he is in more places than not.

[Scott Shaver]

The problem in the SBC is you've got novice Christians, celebrity gurus and young guys who haven't been around long enough to grow a beard trying to instruct Christians who've been walking the talk and paying their spiritual dues for generations.

Would love to see how full of themselves these paragons of virtue will be 20 years from now.

[Lydia]

Scott, without the instruction, protection and money from their SBC gurus, they won't know what to believe or do.

[Scott Shaver]

Thats why down here in SE Texas when posed with the question of suitable candidates other than HC, the typical response is El Diablo Por Favor😘

[Scott Shaver]

Let both Russell and big Al put that in their reformed evangelical-analytical pipes and puff to the hearts content

[Scott Shaver]

I repeat an earlier comment, " these guys just can't seem to live in the present". Russell Moore woke up this morning tweeting the yellow highlighted words of DL Moody as an appeal for the buttress of his religio-political convictions.

Somebody dig DL up, resurrect him, give him a two-week crash course on America for the last two decades...and then ask him to put his own words into current context.

These dudes think they're young and radical but I can't figure why they want to live perpetually in the past. Riddle me that.