Well, I've finished the debate & the discussion thread. It really has helped me to understand the question better.
This post got a little long. So I'll start with the major bullet points, and then append the fleshing-out of each one.
1.) Do not do evil to avoid bigger evil. In your actions, words, and thoughts, do not compromise God's standards. Ends don't justify means.
2.) To figure out this question, you have to figure out what a vote means.
3.) If voting is inherently an act of approval, support, or participation in the proposed policies of your candidate, then you shouldn't vote for a candidate with any policies that violate God's law.
4.) If voting is only a tool for affecting what happens, then you should vote to have the best possible effect, according to your best judgment about what will happen.
5.) I'm not sure how to view voting. I suspect there isn't an objective answer. When Christians differ on this point of political philosophy, then they're disagreeing over disputable matters--not over the teaching of Scripture or over the demands of God's Law.
Moving on:
1.) Do not do evil to avoid bigger evil. In your actions, words, and thoughts, do not compromise God's standards. Ends don't justify means.
There's no such thing as a "little white sin". There's no justification for going against his commands, in the slightest degree. It doesn't matter if you think it would save many lives. (And this isn't about being proud of your own purity--it's about trusting God's goodness.)
Note: God's law isn't always as simplistic as some people make it. Situational ethics is bad; moral compromise is bad. And some people try to say that "killing in self-defense" is moral compromise, or situational ethics--because "justifiable homicide"
does depend on the details of the situation. But that's not situational ethics--not of the kind,"I'm willing to violate the Law in some situations." Because the Law doesn't say, "You shall not kill". This is not compromising the Law--it's identifying what the Law says. (The "is it moral to lie in some situations" question is similar in nature, however you end up answering it.)
2.) To figure out this question, you have to figure out what a vote means.
What is a vote? The conferring of authority? Approval of the candidate? Approval of his policies? Support for the man? Support for his policies? Participation in his policies? Is it some kind of statement? Does it mean, "I prefer what is likely to happen with this vote, versus what is likely to happen if I don't vote this way"? Is it a tool for affecting what happens in a nation? Something else? Is it some mix of these? Is it ambiguous?
If you don't spend time thinking about this, stating your conclusion, and defending it, then you have no basis for deciding whether a vote is moral or immoral.
3.) If voting is inherently an act of approval, support, or participation in the proposed policies of your candidate, then you shouldn't vote for a candidate with any policies that violate God's law.
If a vote means, "I'm doing what the candidate does", then principle #1 applies. Moral compromise is moral compromise. But this is about evil policies, not just unwise policies. You can vote for someone with bad/unwise policies--someone you disagree with on some issues--just not for someone with evil policies. (I think so, anyway... Unless it is sin to deliberately choose to do something you know to be unwise.)
Note: Bob Enyart's slippery-slope argument in his "
that abyss has no bottom" entry applies. If you want to limit this principle to grossly evil policies, then you need a different rationale than "voting is approval/support/participation". Moral compromise is moral compromise. Or, you need to explain what kind/degree of moral compromise is OK. (Do you think that moral compromise is OK on non-capital crimes?) In short, if (1) you shouldn't/wouldn't do/approve the action yourself--based on the perception that it would violate God's revealed moral will--and (2) voting is doing or approving the action, then you must not vote for such a candidate. Not for any candidate with
any policies that are
at all immoral.
4.) If voting is only a tool for affecting what happens, then you should vote to have the best possible effect, according to your best judgment about what will happen.
That means thinking short-term, long-term, on all the issues--making your best judgment about the actual effects of your vote. This includes the policies that will be enacted, the judges that will be appointed, the foreign affairs that are likely to come up, and also things like, "Will my vote perpetuate the 2-party system?", or "How can I vote to make it more likely that we'll get better candidates in the future?"
Thought experiments:
A.) Suppose a hostile government is about to appoint a new general. They're deciding between two people, and we know that one of them is actually incompetent. We want him, not the other guy. We know incriminating information about the better general--so we use spies to reveal that information to the hostile government. They appoint the incompetent general.
Question: Was our action good?
B.) Same thing, except that the two generals are equally competent--but one is going to torture POWs, and the other is going to torture & kill them all. We plant the information to incriminate the second general.
Question: Was our action good? (Bonus question: What if there was a third general that would follow the Geneva Conventions--but we're pretty certain that he wouldn't be picked, regardless of what we do?)
C.) 1930s Germany is having an election between Hitler (who is pro-choice) and a pro-choice candidate who isn't going to go on a genocidal, conquering rampage. We have the power to rig their election so that Hitler loses (though we're not able to make a third candidate win.) We do it.
Question: Was our action good? (Bonus question: What if the election is between Hitler, and someone who will activate a doomsday device to destroy the earth?)
I would say yes, to all of these. And if voting is
only a tool to affect what happens, and it
doesn't mean "support/approval/participation", and if I had the power to vote between those people, I would vote for the incompetent general, the less evil general, and the pro-choice guy running against Hitler.
5.) I'm not sure how to view voting. I suspect there isn't an objective answer. When Christians differ on this point of political philosophy, then they're disagreeing over disputable matters--not over the teaching of Scripture or over the demands of God's Law.
As far as I know, voting has traditionally been seen as a kind of support/approval. Maybe a kind of participation. But I usually think of a vote as a tool for affecting what happens. (In other words, it's a statement of preference between outcomes--not approval of the candidate.)
This seems to be a question of political philosophy. I'm not sure if it has an objective answer. If not... Then this is a question over which Christians can legitimately differ.