During elections, you may have been told to vote for the “lesser evil.”
On hot-button moral issues, some politicians back evil openly while some are silent. Others say the right words, then quietly abandon the cause.
Amidst this reality, the pressure to vote “strategically” persists. You’re told that if you don’t vote for the less bad candidate, you’ll hand victory to the worse one.
But that framing obscures an important point.
What’s At Stake
Causes that social conservatives care about aren’t just “social issues.” They’re the most foundational ones.
Without life, there is no society. And when a society refuses to protect the most vulnerable like the sick and unborn, it has lost its moral compass. Society is formed by families, which are built on marriage, which exists for the sake of children.
If a candidate undermines these foundations, it doesn’t matter how good their other policies are. Some actions are intrinsically evil and can’t be justified or balanced out by any other cause, no matter how noble.
What Catholics Teach
In Catholic moral teaching, there are principles that help all voters navigate these dilemmas. Some Catholics argue that any politician who supports such evils is automatically disqualified from your vote.
As Father Matthew Habiger put it, to vote for “a politician who regularly uses his public office to fund or promote abortion” is “clearly a sin”. To him, voting for such a candidate, “knowing full well that [they] will help make available public monies to advocate for evil”, is as good as “aiding” them.
But Church guidance is more nuanced. Cardinal Raymond Burke admitted that “It is sometimes impossible to avoid all cooperation with evil”. But he still felt that it didn’t justify voting for candidates who support evil.
Cardinal Burke also wrote that voting for such candidates could be allowed if:
- The voter clearly opposes the evil views but voted to advance other moral goods that the candidate supports.
- No other candidate takes a stronger stand against the evil.
For Cardinal Burke, one may vote for a candidate who supports limiting an evil even if they don’t oppose it completely, if no better alternative exists. This seeks to limit evil by limiting the circumstances in which it is legal.
This isn’t about choosing the “lesser evil” for its own sake. It’s about limiting evil where we can, while never approving the evil itself. And that distinction is vital.
Speak Up Against Evil
This is why silence is dangerous. If you vote for a candidate who supports evil but say nothing against it, others might think you’re okay with it.
Worse still, that candidate may think it’s okay to support evil, encouraging them to stick to their position or double down. For if social conservatives keep voting for candidates who betray them, why would those candidates ever change?
Staying silent risks sending the wrong message that social conservatives care more about winning than about why they want to win – to protect life, marriage and family.
Your vote might be tactically justified, but it should never be morally confused. That’s why, for example, Joe Biden was denied communion over his pro-abortion stance. We shouldn’t let politicians contradict moral truth and expect no consequences.
If you must vote for a flawed candidate to limit evil, your duty is to speak out loudly and clearly against that candidate’s evil policies. Not just privately, but publicly and consistently.
Your Vote Is Always Useful
Voting isn’t just about who wins. It’s also about what message your vote sends. Even a non-decisive vote like write-in votes or abstaining can shape future platforms.
As theologian Germain Grisez notes, a large win gives a candidate more power while a narrow win sends a warning. Parties track vote margins, take notice when blocs defect, and adapt accordingly for their political survival.
So if no candidate supports life and family, a write-in vote or public abstention might be the most morally consistent choice. This is especially so in areas where your vote won’t change the outcome but can still send a message.
The Bottom Line
Yes, voting can be hard when every option is flawed.
To navigate it, we must remember to never vote for evil. Rather, we should use our vote to send a signal, not just pick a winner. If no good options exist, limit evil but don’t be silent about it. Finally, we must always make our values clear before, during, and after elections.
In every election, your vote does more than choose a winner. It shapes the country you want to live in.
Politics may involve trade-offs, but conscience cannot be traded away.
So vote wisely, but also speak up boldly. That’s how we protect what matters most, not just at the ballot box, but in the culture that its votes shape.