Randy Alcorn on "Voting for the Lesser of Two Evils"

Some evangelicals use the phrase "voting for the lesser of two evils" when contemplating the upcoming presidential election.  Others in response claim that voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil and, therefore, should be avoided.  This reasoning is usually brought out to encourage Christians to vote for a third-party candidate.  Randy Alcorn, in a well written piece entitled Is It Wrong to Vote for the Lesser of Two Evils? Shouldn't We Instead Vote for a Third Party Candidate?, appropriately defends the voting for a less than ideal candidate who has a reasonable chance of winning.  Here are few snippets from his longer essay.

To begin with, I think there are radically different understandings of what a vote is. In this presidential election, what does your vote mean to you? Is it:

1) The expression of your highest hopes and ideals

2) An affirmation of doctrinal agreement

3) A statement to the world about your Christian convictions

4) An unqualified endorsement of a candidate’s character and wisdom

5) A means of protest against the established parties that have both failed miserably

6) A choice of the better of the only two viable candidates who remain, both of them very flawed, and one of whom will be president

Your answer to this question will largely determine your voting choices. Do you view voting like choosing a marriage partner? (Be extremely choosy.) Or like choosing a school or job? (Choose wisely, but know you can change schools or jobs.) Or like choosing a seat on the bus? (The best seats are already taken, but you choose the best alternative that’s left.)

What will you do in this election? Here are some options:

1) Abstain from voting because you are so disillusioned, and/or your citizenship is in Heaven, not earth.

2) Vote for a candidate you know has no chance of winning, but you’ll sleep better knowing you didn’t vote for the lesser of evils.

3) Vote for whichever one of the two electable candidates you believe will do the most good for the most people and inflict the least amount of harm; who will most uphold and least undermine our moral base and liberties.

I think Alcorn's best lines come when he states:

Probably a dozen commenters wrote, “Voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil.”

I understand the logic. I’ve used it. But there is another way to look at it: To vote for the lesser of evils is to vote for less evil.

Think about it. Don’t we want less evil? Doesn’t less evil mean more good? I’m voting for the greater good my children and grandchildren and this country will experience than if the only other viable choice were elected. (Please don’t write saying others were far better candidates and Christians should have supported them. The only point I’m making is, regardless of the reasons, none of them will win the election.)