We Must Choose
The great, dramatic pageant of Democracy in Action 2024 unfolds its final act in the next few days, leading up to Election Day on Tuesday, November 5. In a modern twist, millions of Americans have already voted thanks to the creation of early voting opportunities in many states. I voted by mail in Maryland in early October. In addition to electing the next president of the United States, voters will choose all members of the House of Representatives (they must be elected every two years) and many members of the U.S. Senate, along with numerous other public officials.
Voting is our most precious civic right and most important civic duty. We must exercise our voting duties with great seriousness and a large sense of purpose for our nation.
Unfortunately, too many citizens do not vote. The large volume of non-voters has a clear outcome on the results of elections. In the last 25 years, many national elections have come down to a few thousand votes in a few precincts in a handful of states. Imagine how more robust participation of the non-voters might have changed the results in, say, the 200o election where George W. Bush defeated Al Gore largely over a handful of votes in Florida and after the Supreme Court had to intervene. A few thousand votes in a few states resulted in victory for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton in 2016. Joe Biden beat Donald Trump by a larger margin in 2020, but not by that much.
Non-voters have a huge impact on elections, but not in a good way.
This year, I’ve heard some people say that they simply will not vote because while they don’t like one candidate’s vitriolic speeches and threats against Democracy, they also detest another candidate’s alliance with the Biden Administration on the issue of support for Israel while that nation wages a horrific war against Palestinians in Gaza and throughout the Middle East.
These issues are all legitimate. What Israel is doing in Gaza is truly horrific, and I join those who think the Biden Administration must do far more to bring the killings to an end quickly, which might require suspending financial and military support to Israel. Engaging the debates and protesting fiercely over the Middle East situation is everyone’s right.
But we must choose. It’s not a noble stance to say that we want our political leaders to do something, but that we will not vote. Voting is the price of admission to the table; opting-out leaves you outside. Non-voting gains nothing, and it can often lead to an even more bitter national outcome.
We must choose. Our obligation as citizens is to research ALL issues, not just one issue. We must weigh what the long-term impact on our nation will be if one candidate or the other wins.
One candidate or the other will win. Your failure to vote will not stop that outcome, but enough citizens failing to vote could cause an outcome that might undermine our very Democracy. Voting is the ultimate exercise of Democracy; not voting is a rejection of Democracy.
We must choose.
One candidate says that those who disagree with them are enemies, that if elected president, they will use the military to hunt down and imprison dissenters.
Another candidate says that they will welcome those who disagree to the table, that the president must listen to everyone, even those who disagree.
We must choose.
One candidate says that they will deport hundreds of thousands of persons who came into this country seeking relief from violence and oppression in their home countries. “It will be bloody,” that candidate said of the possibility of mass deportation.
The other candidate says that they will hold Congress accountable to fix immigration policy, to create fair and just methods for asylum seekers and those who want a pathway to citizenship.
We must choose.
One candidate speaks with pride of their appointment of Supreme Court justices who overturned a 50-year-old legal precedent protecting a woman’s right to make her own reproductive decisions in the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship.
One candidate says they will work with Congress to ensure restoration of women’s rights completely.
We must choose.
Even Pope Francis finds the voting choice challenging, but in September he reinforced the necessity of voting. He spoke of the problem of one candidate treating immigrants so badly, and the other candidate supporting abortion rights. “In political morality, in general they say that if you don’t vote, it’s not good, it’s bad. You have to vote, and you have to choose the lesser evil. What is the lesser evil? That woman, or that man? I don’t know. Each one, in their conscience, must think,” he said.
Washington Cardinal Wilton Gregory further illuminated the Pope’s message in an interview with the Catholic news outlet Crux. When asked if Catholics could vote for a pro-choice candidate, he replied:
“If you isolate it in those terms, does that mean you dispense with voting for someone who denigrates immigrants, who promotes capital punishment? In other words: yes, it is foundational, the dignity of unborn life; but does it dispense with all of the other awful proposals that are out there? Can I sleep saying I didn’t vote for this person because of their position on abortion, but I’ll ignore the other issues that also fall under the umbrella of the dignity of human life? Whether it be the issue of racism, whether it be the issue of economic disparity, all of those things – I’ll close my eyes to all of the others because of this one issue? We have to say, look, it’s foundational, it’s the first moment of human dignity, but it’s not the last.”
Like the Pope, the Cardinal reiterated that no political candidate gets a 100% perfect score on moral issues.
We must choose.
We are free to agree or disagree with any candidate on any issue. We can and we must engage the debate with knowledge, research, weighing the likely outcomes for our nation and way of life. And after all of that research and consideration, we have one clear duty: VOTE!
WE MUST CHOOSE.
