abstract: |

Skip Navigation

by William Gould

Christians are confronted with a perennial quandary in most election cycles. Should one support the major-party candidate whose platform is the better of the two, or maybe only the less obnoxious? Or should one cast a vote for a third-party candidate with an excellent platform, but who has no chance of actually being elected?

This fall (and also four years ago) this choice is between the Republican nominee, and the Taxpayer's/Constitution Party candidate. The third-party candidate has no chance of winning, but he loves God and understands and supports national confession of Jesus Christ. The Republican candidate does not even know what national confession is, but may actually get elected. The third-party candidate is excellent, the major-party candidate is not-so-bad, and the candidate of the other major party is horrible.

The debate is usually framed as practicality versus principle. The supporters of the major-party candidate say that if you split the party, you throw the election to the truly bad guy. The supporters of the minor-party candidate answer that the lesser of two evils is still an evil.

Both sides have a point. But it is not only a choice of practicality versus principle. Refusing to consider the probable consequences of a choice is reckless, not principled. On the other hand, sometimes voting for a protest candidate is the practical thing to do. Wisdom requires that we consider all these things.

In this article, I will first argue for the moral legitimacy of tactical voting. Then I will argue for the practical utility of protest voting. But before I do any of this, I shall note some of the background conditions behind these arguments.

Two Parties Inescapable

In the United States, and also the UK, the system of electing officials relentlessly drives all political combinations toward the two-party system. This is because each seat in the congress and all other offices go to the candidate with the most votes. Each individual candidate must assemble a plurality. This system drives all political actors to formulate their alliances before an election. By contrast, countries where parliaments are selected under a scheme of "proportional representation" typically have multiple political parties, and these parties wait until after an election to make the alliances which produce the coalition governments that are routine in such countries.

The two-party system is, therefore, a nearly inescapable consequence of the electoral system where the candidate with the most votes wins. Two parties have always dominated American politics, because there are, generally, two ways of looking at most political issues. Our two-party system began to form during the debates over ratifying the Constitution, and has continued. The parties have changed over time. The Democratic-Republican Party of Jefferson gradually evolved into the Democratic Party of Andrew Jackson, which remains today. The Federalist Party of John Adams broke down. Later, Jackson's opponents organized into the Whig Party. This party broke apart in the 1850s over the slavery issue. Then, the Republican Party formed, replaced the Whigs, and continues to this day. These two parties appear more durable than the Whigs, or the Federalists, because they have more readily adapted to changing conditions, co-opted challengers, and embraced new issues.

(Ironically, in the time between the War Between the States and World War I, the Republican Party stood for centralization of government, managed trade, and government aid to the economy, and the Democrats stood for decentralization, limited government, and free trade.)

Third-parties have always had either no effect, or else have thrown the election to the party most unlike the third-party. Lincoln was elected in 1860 because Southern Democrats believed Stephen Douglas was insufficiently pro-slavery, and walked out of the Democratic convention. (For some reason the South produced generals who were truly great men, but politicians who were mostly reckless.) Woodrow Wilson was elected in 1912 because Theodore Roosevelt hated William Howard Taft. Conservative James Buckley was elected to the U.S. Senate from New York in 1970 because the majority liberal vote was split between a liberal Republican and a liberal Democrat.

In these days, Republican apologists consistently warn conservatives that a defection to a third-party candidate would result in the election of a Democrat. Although some third-party candidates insist they have a realistic shot at winning, most of their supporters are aware that their vote is more of a protest. Often, the supporters of third-party candidates insist that their choice is the only way they can vote in good conscience.

The Legitimacy of Tactical Voting

Nathan Wilson in Credenda/Agenda (vol. 12, no. 2) follows this line of reasoning when he writes, "Voting for a rebel is rebellion. No god-hater should receive a pat on the back, no matter how small, from a Christian." If we vote for a rebel, we become culpable for the man's official sins (i.e., his unrighteous legislative or judicial acts). There is an element of scriptural truth in these statements, but Wilson states the matter more starkly than Scripture does.

Exodus and Deuteronomy detail what kind of men should be elected to office; that is, men who fear God and abhor dishonest gain. Deuteronomy further teaches that Israelites were not to select a foreigner to rule them. The apostle Paul states, "do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers." On the other hand, Daniel served as a senior administration official for the pagan rulers Nebuchadnezzar and Darius, and his example is a commendable combination of scruple and shrewdness.

Mosaic Qualifications for Magistrates

Jethro admonished Moses:

You shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens (Ex. 18:21).

These qualifications resemble the Pauline qualifications for church elders (1 Tim. 3:1-7). No son of Adam perfectly meets them, but some men appear to come much closer than others do. In considering the Mosaic qualifications, one must act according to substantive conformity, and that is always a matter of degree. We must also consider that the offices need to be filled. The men whom Moses chose to be magistrates were all (except two, Joshua & Caleb) among the cowardly Israelites who died in the wilderness.

In this country, there are many public officials and politicians who refrain from lining their own pockets from the public treasury, and who do not take bribes. Our officials instead tend to give bribes, not take them. They habitually take taxpayers money and spend it on vote-buying schemes. It is the voters who are the bribe-takers in our country.

Emergencies

In the time of the book of Judges, God raised up some judges who were explicitly not qualified for office according to the Law of Moses. Jepthah was a bastard and a hero of the faith, although his rash vow ruined his family. The rising of Deborah to be a judge was also extraordinary, but her example is commended in every way. In both these cases, the judges could be considered "emergency rulers." They came to authority during times of prevailing apostasy. Israel would have been a happier place if godly men were available, but they were not.

Not to Select a Foreigner

Moses wrote more specific qualifications for a king in Deuteronomy:

You shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God chooses, one from among your countrymen you shall set as king over yourselves; you may not put a foreigner over yourselves who is not your countryman (Deut. 17:15).

Paul's injunction, "Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness" (2 Cor. 6:14), also could apply to the choice of civil leaders.

These injunctions can be understood to mean that Christians should only vote for Christians. However, there is a practical difficulty. In this country, most candidates claim to be born-again Christians. Both the incumbent President and the two major-party nominees claim to be Christians, and are known to attend church. More serious digging is required. We must look for the fruit of a Christian life. The incumbent President leads a scandalous life-style. One major-party candidate has publicly affirmed a host of blatantly heretical beliefs. On this basis, we could reasonably say that a Christian must not vote for such men. Indeed, it would be irresponsible of their church elders to admit these men to the Lord's Supper.

The other major-party candidate has shown some fruit of repentance in his personal life, and has publicly stated biblical truths that could be politically costly. However, he does not display much understanding of how scriptural principles apply to civil government (though some of his advisors do). In other words, this candidate resembles most of the believing Christians in this country. Does that disqualify him from office? Do God's injunctions through Moses and Paul disqualify muddled, but true believers? One thing is sure, it would be irresponsible to call him a God-hater.

The Example of Daniel

Daniel worked for Nebuchadnezzar. In one sense, he did so under compulsion; he was not a free man, and was, as such, making the best of a bad situation. As a subordinate he was not responsible for Nebuchadnezzar's decisions, but it was his official duty to carry them out. He certainly did promote the stability and success of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, and there is no indication he tried to deceive Nebuchadnezzar (as did the Hebrew midwives during the captivity in Egypt). Later, he found favor with Darius, who had overthrown Nebuchadnezzar's successors.

Daniel's service can be compared and contrasted with voting. Daniel was closely involved with Nebuchadnezzar and Darius. The average voter is not involved in a similar fashion with his civil leaders. Daniel was clearly subordinate to Nebuchadnezzar and Darius. A voter is (in theory) in authority over the elected officials. We see in the example of Daniel that it can be lawful to participate in the high levels of government of a pagan ruler. Is it correspondingly lawful for Christians to use their vote in a country with no Christian candidates?

The Practical Expediency of Protest Voting

However, just as the protest voters do not hold the monopoly on principle, neither do the main-party voters hold a monopoly on practicality. There are times when protest voting is the practical choice, even when it might throw the election to the worst candidate of the major parties. How so?

You advance an idea. Abolitionists ran candidates in presidential elections three times before a major party picked them up. In 1840 and 1844, the Liberty Party ran. In 1844, the Liberty Party drew a larger vote than the margin of victory of Democrat James Polk over Whig Henry Clay. For more than 20 years, abolitionists did not win elections, but their third-party presence was one of the ways they advanced their ideas until the Republican Party picked them up in 1856.

In our time, only Howard Phillips, the nominee of the Constitution Party, supports national confession. Phillips has almost no chance of being elected this year. Yet, a strong showing for Phillips would draw attention to his ideas, including national confession. If churches started to teach the need for a national confession of Jesus Christ, then the Constitution Party would attract more attention, and eventually the Republican Party might embrace it.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T. One of James Dobson's best-selling books is Love Must Be Tough. In that book, Dobson advises wives of straying husbands not to cling to the straying husband, but instead to tell him that if he wants another woman, he can and must go. If you want respect, be hard to get. Dobson has applied this principle to his politics too. In 1996, he voted for Howard Phillips; not Bob Dole the Republican nominee. Although Rush Limbaugh has frequently told his radio callers that people like Dobson are thinking only of giving a good account on judgement day, there is more to it than that.

Republicans have been notorious for stringing the religious right along, for taking conservative support for granted, but doing nothing for their support, and even acting embarrassed by Christians. 1996 was an especially shameful year for that, with Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition shilling for Bob Dole, and Dole publicly humiliating Reed by telling the world he had not read the party platform.

The intervening three years were prolific years for discussion of third parties. In 1998, voter turnout from conservative Christians was much weaker than in earlier years, and the election went very badly for Republicans. This year, George W. Bush has shown much more respect for religious conservatives. I think part of this is conviction, but a part of this is simple intelligence. He has learned the lesson of history. He wants to be president, and does not want Christians to sit this election out. He understands the danger of protest.

Conclusion

We have seen that the vote for a less-than-ideal candidate does not necessarily mean sinful compromise, and can even be the principled thing to do. We have also seen, that a protest vote is not necessarily a wasted vote, and it can be the way to get the major parties to move toward your position. It is no better to be reckless in voting than it is to be overly clever. Let us fear God, vote wisely, and pray for Him to install godly men in authority.

William Gould is the treasurer of the National Reform Association and a deacon at Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church in Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania. He can be reached at OtherNRA@aol.com.

back to top