Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Single-Issue Voting

Single-issue voting is normally considered a bad thing to do. After all, there are so many issues of importance.

My son-in-law made an interesting observation last week. I may agree with Candidate A on abortion and disagree with him on economics and size of govt and education and other issues. I may disagree with Candidate B on abortion, but agree with him on a plethora of other issues. Do I vote for Candidate B because I agree with him on most issues, or do I vote for Candidate A who may really botch up a lot of things I want done (or not done) in the capitol? Nathan's point was that, as Christians who are willing to lay down our life for the brother, wouldn't it make sense that we be willing to sacrifice our desires for how the govt is run, and vote instead for the protection of the LIFE of others?

When he puts it that way, it seems obvious!

There are other things to consider, of course. Sometimes voting for a pro-life candidate who's a member of the party with the pro-choice platform will actually backfire by tipping the balance of who is in charge of committees and scheduling hearings. There's also the observation that Congresses and presidents who are pro-life have not managed to outlaw abortion; but it is good to have lawmakers who will at least hold the line on obscenities such as killing the child who lived through a "botched abortion."


  1. Gene Veith's blog has some posts along these same lines at and


  2. It is, as always, a simple comparison if the (probable) significant effects of the election of candidate A, versus those of candidate B.