Voting in Light of God's Sovereignty

There are 6 Comments

Mark_Smith's picture

ridiculous, but you posted this article without finding out how ridiculous write-ins are.


In 8 states, write-ins aren't allowed!

In 24 states, write-ins have to register with the Sec of State and pay the election fee to have their write-in votes counted! My state is like that.

In 8 states there are "sore loser" clauses that people who ran in the primary and who didn't get the nomination CANNOT have write-ins.

10 states technically allow write-ins, but in general those votes aren't tabulated at all.

So, write-ins are ridiculous. They aren't really votes.

Jim's picture

Jim Interesting that you think boycotts are ridiculous, but you posted this article without finding out how ridiculous write-ins are.

  • On your second point about my posting this: after many years of being on Sharper Iron, you continue to be clueless about the point of Filings. 
  • On the first point about boycotts, address it on that thread and I will respond there
dgszweda's picture

I find the article meaningless.  First, at some point we will reach a point (maybe we are there) where all of the candidates are opposed to Christian values.  We know this to be just a matter of time.  With that said, write ins provide no value whatsoever.  The don't promote anything, or change anything, unless we are talking about 10's of millions of people writing in one single candidate that is legal to be voted in.  And even then it is questionable it does anything.  The article has its premise that it is our "God-given" right to vote.  But I don't really buy that viewpoint.  I am not sure a write in does anything of more value than just abstaining from voting.

Darrell Post's picture

Another article where someone wrestles with how to vote as a Christian. I don't really understand all this. There is a false presumption out there that a vote is a wholehearted endorsement. Or maybe a mild endorsement, or perhaps just a luke-warm endorsement. Christians should strip away this endorsement illusion. Voting has nothing to do with endorsing. Voting is very simple. Enter the booth. Observe that there are two candidates, and one of them is going to be the winner. Of the two, which one would you rather become the winner? Vote for that one. Walk out of the booth. Get your 'I voted' sticker. Go home. It isn't hard.

Now in a Trump vs. Hillary election, if those in fact are the options, I can totally understand how hard it would be to determine which of these horribly unqualified options is better/worse, and in this rare circumstance, simply voting for a third party candidate. But normally, it is a fairly clear decision. And it has nothing to do with endorsing.

Mark_Smith's picture

You are correct. In no way is voting for a casino building, strip club building, twice divorced, proud adulterer, proud fornicator (read his biography for evidence for the last 2) any way promoting that behavior. Its pure "bidness". Show me the money baby$$$$$$.

Bert Perry's picture

Per Mark's comments on the Combover, and equally negative comments we could make about Hilliary, it strikes me that these days, Al Capone would stand a good chance of becoming Mayor because he ran a soup kitchen.  Things that would have sunk a politician decades ago--remember Teddy Kennedy and Gary Hart--are now almost reasons to vote for a candidate.  The nation--remembering Kennedy, Studds, Frank--is now Massachusetts.

How are we to mimic Paul's rebuke of the corrupt magistrate from Acts 16?  Nobody reports on write in votes, for sure, and it appears likely that the candidates for both major parties are people who are, politely speaking, jerks who belong in jail.

(yes, Drumpf belongs in jail--note that his move into casinos and out of Gotham real estate closely follows Giuliani's putting mobsters in jail.....I don't think it's a coincidence that his fortunes dropped when New York City was cleaned up)

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.