You are correct, neither presidential candidate is an ideal choice, but I would like to suggest that they are the only two valid choices and you and I should plug our respective noses and vote for the guy who promises to advance righteousness the most.
But you object: Mitt Romney allows for abortions in the case of incest and rape.
I respond: You are correct, but the other guy voted FOR late term abortion.
But you object: Mitt Romney is a Mormon and if he wins it will help Mormons in their campaign to be seen as orthodox.
I respond: Yep, that is a big problem, but the time to worry about that was during the primaries. Furthermore, the other guy claims to be a Christian but he is a universalist. How much damage has that done to the Gospel? Let's just call it a wash.
But you object: Mitt Romney is a lying flip-flopper.
I respond: Maybe, but the other guy is blatantly anti-righteousness. He is for gay marriage and all forms of abortion. I have to go with the guy who might be a liar.
But you object: Voting for Mitt Romney is pragmatism.
I respond: It was pragmatism during the primary, now it is our only viable option.
But you object: Voting for Mitt Romney is a vote for the lesser of two evils and I just can't do that.
I respond: If your conscience tells you it is a sin, then you shouldn't vote for him. But I would simply share this analogy with you in an effort to persuade you it is not a sin. Imagine your neighbor's house is on fire, there are five men and five women on the second floor and they cannot escape unless you put a ladder to the window. Unfortunately, the ladder is too heavy for you and you need help. Suddenly, you see two men walking down the street. You approach the first man and frantically beg him to help you. It turns out the fellow is completely sexist as he responds, "Sorry, I don't like women, but I will help you save the men." You realize that is not the ideal solution, so you plead with the second man to help you and he responds, "Help you? Are you kidding? I set that house on fire." Neither choice is ideal, but then you recall that you have an uncle who lives across the country who is a fireman, surely he will help you. Unfortunately, by the time he arrives it will be too late. All ten will die. What would you do? I hope that you would grab the sexist man and save at least 5 people! My friend, that is precisely our situation. It is not pragmatism or a sin to vote for the "lesser of two evils" at this time. It is wrong to do NOTHING.
Voting for the third party candidate is a wonderful idea, but the reality is, he cannot win and voting for him will save NOBODY. If we are not happy with the choices (and I am not), then let's work on it next time around. Until then, let us vote for the man who promises to advance righteousness the most…even if that is just a little bit.