In this upcoming election, eincredibly single vote counts. The term “counts,” in this case, is not supposed in a simply quantitative feeling, yet rather in a really qualitative way. A choice between the 2 candidates indicates an option in between 2 wildly various sets of values.

You are watching: Why voting for a third party is a waste

Each vote, then, has actually a telos, or finish, that “counts” in the ethical spbelow. The telos of a vote is the set of worths one desires to view applied in the nation, or at least the implementation of a regarded virtue one sees in one candiday and not the various other.

The suggest of this discussion, however, is not to defend or oppose a particular candiday (although the alternative should be quite noticeable to any Catholic), yet quite to keep the place that voting for a third-party candidate is, inevitably, a waste of a vote.

How does the concept of telos play into this argument? One may view the over definition of telos in the realm of national politics and also use it in defense of a third-party vote.

If neither of the 2 primary candidates holds onto a set of values that one perceives as the fact, yet a third-party candidate does, then a vote for that other candiday has the telos of that collection of values, which is eventually not a waste in the ethical sphere.

What is missing from that specific defense of a third-party vote is the virtue of prudence. Prudence, as St. Thomas Aquinas states, is “right reason in action.” The above discussion definitely complies with a reasonable framework, but prudence would certainly allude out various various other factors that have been left out of the equation.

Practicality plays a huge aspect in prudential decision making. Of course, if principles is completely endangered, then practicality takes a ago seat and zeal for the faith takes on its complete flame, as checked out in the situation of the martyrs. But in the situation of an election, a third-party vote definitely does not equate to martyrdom of any type of kind considering that practicality deserve to be kept.

Never in the background of the United States has a third-party candidate won an election. That pattern appears to be holding true for 2020 (despite some earlier excitement about a certain “birthday” party).

In regards to the finish of winning an election, a vote for a third-party candidate will be of no impact. Since this is the case, the just way one can defend one’s vote of a third-party candiday is the argument from values as stated above.

Practicality, however, would certainly dictate that if an entire collection of worths cannot be put right into action, then it would certainly be better for at least some of those values to be put right into action via no better evil coming out of it.

Thus, the next reasonable action would be to look at the 2 main candidays and check out which one holds the set of worths closest to the one in referral to the third-party candidate, considering that one of the 2 has a higher possibility of actually implementing those values.

Taken in this light of practicality, the telos of a vote is not the collection of values itself but quite the implementation of those values. This interpretation of implementation, then, offers an extensive discussion for the wasteful nature of a third-party vote (with “substantial” taken in a thoughtful feeling, meaning it have the right to stand on its very own accord in regards to the telos of the situation).

Tright here is also a consequential facet of voting that falls under the direction of prudence. Every vote for a candiday suggests that one is taken from one more. It is the straightforward result of the regulation of reason and also result.

In regards to principles, this law of consequence can not necessarily add to the telos of a vote, yet it is nonetheless an essential factor that need to be thought about prudentially.

In the presidential election of 2000, George W. Shrub won Florida by fewer than 600 votes, which confirmed to be the key aspect in winning the entire election. 100,000 votes in Florida checked out the Eco-friendly Party candidate Ralph Nader. If also a fraction of those votes saw Al Gore, the election would certainly have turned out exceptionally in a different way. While Nader’s votes were not almost sufficient to give him a substantial stake in the election, they still subsequently affected the outcome of the election.

If somepoint similar happened currently, a vote for a third-party candiday would not only be a waste however would actually prove to be a damage if the candidate who subsequently won had actually a worse set of values than the various other.

Prudence would certainly dictate that it would be much better to vote for a main candiday who has a lesser but still excellent set of worths than a third-party candiday that has a higher set of worths yet no possibility to win the election.

Given these extensive and consequential disagreements, it appears incredibly hard to safeguard any third-party vote. Now it is approximately each person to select a major candiday whose set of worths most closely coincides to the highest collection of worths tright here is, which is God’s legislation promulgated via the teachings of the Church.

See more: Why Did The Dinosaur Cross The Road ? Why Did The Dinosaur Cross The Road

In this election, however, the choice should be extremely apparent. But that is one more debate for another day.


Archives

ArchivesSelect Month September 2021 (3) May 2021 (2) April 2021 (69) March 2021 (67) February 2021 (46) January 2021 (2) November 2020 (41) October 2020 (61) September 2020 (51) August 2020 (2) May 2020 (1) April 2020 (6) March 2020 (19) February 2020 (71) January 2020 (33) December 2019 (23) November 2019 (62) October 2019 (78) September 2019 (85) August 2019 (2) June 2019 (1) May 2019 (8) April 2019 (85) March 2019 (55) February 2019 (72) January 2019 (32) December 2018 (42) November 2018 (50) October 2018 (115) September 2018 (74) May 2018 (3) April 2018 (76) March 2018 (34) February 2018 (61) January 2018 (26) December 2017 (26) November 2017 (54) October 2017 (76) September 2017 (42) June 2017 (4) April 2017 (70) March 2017 (43) February 2017 (58) December 2016 (30) November 2016 (37) October 2016 (74) September 2016 (45) April 2016 (64) March 2016 (66) February 2016 (49) January 2016 (6) December 2015 (1) November 2015 (69) October 2015 (61) September 2015 (56) May 2015 (2) April 2015 (47) March 2015 (48) February 2015 (68) January 2015 (19) November 2014 (49) October 2014 (72) September 2014 (70) April 2014 (32) March 2014 (28) February 2014 (50) January 2014 (15) November 2013 (47) October 2013 (58) September 2013 (41) August 2013 (2) April 2013 (21) March 2013 (15) February 2013 (33) January 2013 (10) November 2012 (19) October 2012 (24) September 2012 (37) May 2012 (10) April 2012 (29)
*
*

Meet the Staff


Edyta WolkEditor-in-Chief————————Veronica NovotnyAssistant Editor————————Cecilia EngbertCopy Editor————————Teresa DulacSports Editor————————Lizzie WagnerPicture Editor————————Jency ClementNet Editor————————Madeline Van HauteLayout Editor————————Ben MillerLayout Editor————————Jonathan Valladares-CormierFirm Manager————————Jared JohnsonSocial Media Manager————————Christopher DacanayDistribution Manager————————Dr. Wayne LewisStaff Adviser