With campaigning in full swing and primary elections coming up, voters face the dilemma of deciding which candidates to support and possibly endorse for the public offices which will be filled in this year's general election. And, choosing the right candidate can be tough.
Though I've written about this before, I write about it again because it's an issue which I believe voters should consider.
How does a person know for whom to vote? Does one vote party lines or try to pick the best candidate for each post? I can't give you all the answers, but I can tell you how I choose the candidates for whom I vote.
Contrary to the feelings of many senators when considering approval of a judicial nominee, I use a litmus test. I look at where the candidates stand on certain key moral and political issues -- and I have to admit that it sometimes takes a bit of digging and research to even find out because they don't always like to talk about it. And oftentimes it's necessary to dig deeper than a candidate's stated position on an issue. One has to look at his past record and actions.
The first issue I consider is a candidate's view toward life -- is he pro-life or is he supportive of measures which destroy life or cut it short? I unashamedly believe and profess that the Almighty God is the Creator of life, that human life begins at conception and that any unjust action on the part of man to terminate a life or cut it short from the point of conception onward is murder. While a human life may be taken in a just war or in the defense of human life and property, there is just no excuse for unjust wars, murder, abortion, euthanasia or research which destroys human life. I simply will not vote for a candidate who does not uphold the sanctity of human life -- and that is so even if parts of my ballot are left blank or filled in with a write-in candidate who stands little or no chance of winning.
I look at other moral issues as well. Any candidate who openly opposes Biblical morality by his words, current lifestyle or official actions need not ask for my vote because he just isn't going to get it. Why would I want to fill an office ordained to preserve what is good and right with a candidate bent on evil?
Another important issue I consider is a candidate's adherence to the constitution he is sworn to uphold, whether that be the United States Constitution or that of a state. A candidate who does not abide by the constituting document of the government in which he seeks to serve, whether that be by violating constitutionally-guaranteed citizens' rights, by not carrying out constitutional duties or by usurping powers not granted by the constitution, doesn't stand much of a chance of gaining my support either. If there are problems with a constitution, a candidate should openly run on the platform of seeking an amendment to the document, not with a hidden agenda of ignoring it or trying to get around it.
Of course, to use such tests in evaluating a candidate's fitness for office doesn't always leave many ballot choices. I can tell you I won't be voting for a current front-runner in the upcoming presidential primary unless, of course, the candidate I have chosen does well and gains momentum in the next few weeks. I support him and plan to vote for him because he has a proven record of opposing abortion and euthanasia, defending all our constitutional rights and not just a few, and seeking to rein in an out-of-control federal government with term limits, a balanced-budget amendment and a tax plan which would completely revamp the tax code and do away with the IRS.
You see, I'd rather vote for right than for a compromise with wrong. Instead of voting for the lesser of two evils, I at times in the general elections vote for a third-party candidate who passes my litmus test. And sometimes, I write in a name or vote for no one at all.
To those who criticize my voting method, saying I waste my vote when I cast it for a candidate who stands little or no chance of winning, I say, At least I have voted my conscience and have not compromised what I believe in order to get a less-than-good candidate into office; and perhaps if more people who share my views would not compromise their principles in the voting booth, more good candidates would get elected and others in office would take note.
Randy Moll is the managing editor of the Westside Eagle Observer. He may be reached by email at [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Editorial on 01/13/2016