Don’t Stay Home, And Don’t Vote For A Third Party Candidate

The election coming up tomorrow is important. We’ve written a lot about it here, and we’ve said a lot about other elections involving similar issues. Anybody interested can search the archives.

For those who don’t think there’s any significant difference between the two major parties or their candidates this year, see my post here from the 2008 election cycle. It’s about the significance of the differences between McCain and Obama, but it’s largely applicable to this year’s candidates as well. See here for my explanation of why people should vote for Romney even if they live in states where the polling numbers aren’t close. Regarding voting for a third party candidate, see the comments section of the thread here.

People often single out an issue like Romney’s Mormonism or his non-conservative past. Among other factors we should take into account, it’s important to remember that not all aspects of a candidate or his platform will have the same impact if that candidate is elected. For example, our society and our presidency have become so secularized and so religiously pluralized that a Mormon president probably won’t influence many people toward Mormonism. By contrast, a president’s pro-choice stance on abortion will have far more of an impact, since a president does have a lot of influence in that context in our society. Contrast Romney’s lack of promotion of Mormonism when he was governor of Massachusetts and Obama’s promotion of the pro-choice position as president, for example. Or when it comes to Romney’s non-conservative past, ask yourself how much he’ll return to that non-conservative approach once he’s reached the highest office while running as a conservative, when he’s surrounded with conservatives like Paul Ryan and Robert Bork, etc. Some of the problems with Romney that people often bring up are problems that are unlikely to amount to much in the particular context that’s before us in this election. Yes, his Mormonism and his non-conservative past are problems and will have some negative effect if he’s elected. But those problems are far outweighed by other problems involved in voting for Obama, voting for a third party candidate, or not voting.

I don’t study politics nearly as much as I study other subjects, like the ones I usually write about here. I’ve been wrong about some past elections, and I could be wrong about this one without much difficulty. But it looks to me like Romney will win. My expectations are close to what Josh Jordan just posted at National Review. The general atmosphere of the election, the enthusiasm advantage the polls have shown for Republicans, the early voting results, the likely split of the undecided voters, and other factors lead me to believe that Romney will win. But I don’t agree with all of Jordan’s analysis of the states. I doubt Romney will win Wisconsin. Of the nine battleground states most often discussed these days, I expect Romney to win four of them: Ohio, Colorado, Iowa, and New Hampshire.

As I’ve said before, I think the American people deserve to be rebuked, no matter who wins. The election shouldn’t have been so close, even if Romney does come out ahead. After Obama’s horrible record not only on social issues, but also on the economy and some foreign policy matters, nearly half the people voting want him reelected. That’s pathetic. We’ve been told for years that the economy is what most concerns the majority of voters. I suspect that issues like race, a desire to have more access to abortion, bitterness toward the wealthy, and a desire for more government money are more influential than some people suggest. Even if a president has as bad of an economic record as Obama has, a large portion of the electorate will accept that bad economic record in exchange for more government money, more access to abortion, and other perceived benefits.