A substantial number of Episcopal Bishops recently wrapped up a conference in Chicago. Titled “Unholy Trinity: the Intersection of Racism, Poverty, and Gun Violence,” it was organized by Bishops United Against Gun Violence and it dealt with how to broach these three social sins in scriptural and theological frameworks. It was probably a very powerful event, especially given the panel it put together. I can also easily imagine that the work done will inspire new forms of advocacy and activism within various Episcopal Dioceses.
[N.b. The argument in this post presumes voting for a third party in an effort to work against the current two party hegemony, not as an act of political dissent. That is a different kind of case, requiring a different kind of argument.]
I just watched the first presidential debate. It was terrifying for many reasons. If I could vote, I’d vote for Hilary—but with that said, I know enough people of principle who have good reasons to vote for a third party candidate, both on the left and the right. This post is an attempt to try and argue that this is a bad idea. Continue reading “A Third Party Argument Against Voting for A Third Party Candidate”
I don’t typically write about politics. I would, however, like to dedicate a post to a phrase which I’ve heard quite a few times over the past month.
As we approach a presidential election featuring two historically unpopular candidates, a common refrain has emerged: ‘vote your conscience.’ It has been used by those who identify as true conservatives and those who identify as true progressives. It has been used by those who are tired of a two-party hegemony to explain why they’re thinking of voting for a third or fourth party candidate. It’s been used by those supporting both Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump to justify a vote for their candidates: ‘can your conscience allow four years of Clinton/Trump?’