Should I Vote "The Lesser of Two Evils"?

I say, "Yes."

Full disclosure: I have gone both ways on this question at times. 

On actual Voting Day I have gone the lesser-of-two-evils route, but in between elections occasionally I have thought, "Doggone it, that's enough!  I'm not going to vote for another phony RINO (Republican In Name Only) who pretends to support the [usually excellent] Platform, and then betrays us with Liberalism!"

I currently believe that such a rogue attitude (which I'm sure I share with many of you at times) is wrong.

This was brought more clearly to me in a recent post or tweet, I can't remember which, by an online friend, Dan Phillips -- blogger, pastor, and author.  He made the simple but profound statement, "EVERY vote is a vote for the lesser of two evils."

Now, unless you think that your candidate is Perfect, you've pretty much got to agree with that.

In a recent exchange with Ambassador Alan Keyes (www.loyaltoliberty.com), whom I have admired greatly for many years, but who disagrees with me on this subject, I wrote this:
=========================================
"God only is perfect, and in that relative sense every imperfect human is 'evil'.

"Thus EVERY vote is a vote for the lesser of two evils. To deny that is to demean the perfection of God, and His standard of perfection.

"We need a Savior precisely because we do not attain that standard. 'All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God', Rom. 3:23.

"So unless one thinks that Obama is the 'lesser of two evils', one ought to acknowledge that for a Conservative to vote a 'write-in' or '3rd-party' is a vote for the GREATER of two evils, Obama.

"This is because (and I realize 3rd-party-ists hate to hear this) no one else can win at this stage.

"While sadly I agree that both parties have huge Statist similarities, to say that there are no significant differences between Romney and Obama, as to policy, is a distortion of reality (deliberate or otherwise).

"Having said that, each should vote according to his conscience, but the conscience should be Scripturally informed, as opposed to thinking there is anyone completely absent of evil.

"To repeat, EVERY vote is a vote for the lesser of two evils."
===========================
Dr. Keyes responded:

"But you ignore the meaning of Christ's coming. By showing us the way to do good here, even here, he allows us to choose the sovereignty of God, 'on earth as it is in heaven.' Properly understood, this is what makes human self-government conceivable for us. We can choose to eschew evil, and learn from Christ's example to do good.

"Following Christ's instruction that we may aspire to be 'perfect even as your heavenly Father is perfect'. For though God's perfection is beyond our reach unaided, it is not beyond our hope, through the mediation of Christ. Though in reaching we stumble, we never fall beyond the reach of the forgiveness Christ makes possible.

"The choice of Christ makes the choice of evils unnecessary. If we still follow that path it is because we choose to do so, not because we must.

"Since Christ came, Scriptural information isn't just a matter of words on a page, it is a matter of hearts transformed by the love of Christ and thoughts reformed by the mind of Christ. This is why the timid calculations of the 'lesser evil' leaders who profess to believe in the grace of God through Christ are so tragically mistaken.

"Their unprincipled calculus has brought us to the pass we're in. And as long as they persist in their pragmatic delusions, and people continue to follow them, we will not pass through the open door that leads back to our God acknowledging roots."

============================
To Which I responded:

"Mr. Keyes,

"I'm not ignoring the coming of Christ. He came because we are a fallen race in a fallen world. Even transformed hearts and minds are attached, as it were, to 'members' in which sin still dwells.

"Therefore, there are no 'perfect' candidates. So we are left with a) voting for a candidate who can win, b) voting for a [presumably better] candidate who cannot win, or c) not voting.

"Conscience can dictate which of those three we choose, but we have to at least admit that voting for someone who cannot win, or not voting at all, will aid by default one of the two who CAN win. This is math (though under the sovereignty of God, which I affirm at least as strongly as you do, even to the outcome of a dice toss).

"I don't believe you addressed two of my main points: 1) that realistically only BO or MR can win, and 2) that there are substantive differences between them, even though sadly several similarities as well.

"I think it's worth voting for Romney in order to take advantage of those substantive differences (e.g., even though we have been disappointed by Justice John Roberts, I would far rather have a couple of him nominated in the next four years than, say, a couple of Ruth Ginsburgs to preside over perhaps decades)."
=========================

Whereupon, Dr. Keyes renounced his position and declared for Romney -- just kidding :)