Several prominent pro-life figures have openly criticized candidates who have softened their pro-life stance or defended permissive abortion laws. Some of these individuals have announced their intention not to vote and are urging their followers to do the same. I’d like to remind those considering abstention from voting for less-than-perfect, or even far-from-perfect, candidates why we have a duty to vote.
- Your vote is your voice. We the people are the sovereign of the Republic. Voting is the mechanism by which the sovereign speaks. If the sovereign remains silent and refuses to participate in the electoral process, others will inevitably fill that void and make decisions on our behalf. Democracy operates as a feedback system, and the most direct way to communicate with our government—whether at the local or national level—is through voting. For those concerned about the influence of special interests in politics, exercising your right to vote serves as a powerful counterbalance against entities that seek to prioritize their agendas over your concerns.
- No candidate is perfect. It is rare to find a candidate who completely aligns with all your views. Politics by its nature involves compromise. A candidate who advances policy in your preferred direction—even if only incrementally—represents a positive step forward, particularly if the alternative is the election of a candidate committed to charging in the opposite direction. This principle applies not only to matters directly related to the protection of life but also to safeguarding fundamental rights, such as the right to advocate for the most vulnerable.
- Long term policy implications. Presidents and legislators make decisions that have lasting effects, shaping the nation’s legal and social landscape for years or even decades to come. Elected officials appoint or confirm judges, advisors, and other key figures whose influence endures well beyond the election. In particular, judges interpret laws and issue rulings that directly impact our rights and freedoms. Your vote helps to protect the rights and values you cherish for generations to come.
- Voting is a rare privilege. Throughout most of history, many people had no say in the governments that ruled over them. We are part of an extraordinary experiment in human governance. Countless individuals have sacrificed their lives to secure the right to vote for future generations. Treating this right with indifference is not only irresponsible, but also dishonorable. We owe it to ourselves and our posterity to exercise this privilege by voting.
- Voting for a lesser evil is rejecting a greater evil. Pro-lifers who choose not to vote in this election may believe their abstention will send a message resulting in candidates that are more closely aligned with their views in future elections. In reality, not voting conveys indifference. If you have power in a situation to change something or stop a greater evil and you choose not to, your actions communicate that either you are okay with the greater evil or that you don’t really care about the outcome.
In closing I should note that many of those who have declared their intention not to cast a vote for president this year live in states like mine (California), where it can be said to a moral certainty that their decision to abstain from voting will not affect the outcome of the election. Still, some of these individuals have hundreds of thousands of followers across the country. If you are grappling with how – and whether – to vote this November, please consider how much weight to give to the views of those whose votes likely won’t be missed in their own states.
If you are interested in a historical perspective on voting for the lesser evil, I suggest reading the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Abraham Lincoln, then a newcomer running for Senate in Illinois, challenged incumbent Stephen Douglas to a series of debates heading into the 1858 election.
Despite his opposition to slavery, abolitionists were disappointed that Lincoln committed to uphold the Fugitive Slave Law which required runaway slaves to be returned to their owners, even if the slaves were in free states. He refused to acknowledge political and civil equality for blacks. Five years later, President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, prohibiting slavery in Confederate states and authorizing the federal military to safeguard the freedom of former slaves.
Or consider Ronald Reagan, who in 1967 signed the disastrous Therapeutic Abortion Act, which legalized abortion in California, paving the way for Roe v. Wade. By the 1980 presidential campaign, Reagan expressed his unequivocal support for a human life amendment, believing that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments’ protection of the right to life extended to babies in the womb.
By this I do not mean to compare any candidate to Lincoln or Reagan – only to say that at times voting for the lesser of two evils can accomplish great good.