I received an interesting comment

on a post below that I'd like to respond to, and since it ties in nicely with something I had planned to post today, I'll put it all together in a new post. First, the comment:

You said in a previous post that you feel that you can abstain and still have performed your civic duty. But isn't abstaining simply a tacit vote for whomever does win the election? If you feel that one of the third party candidates would be a better president, it is your civic duty to vote for them, even if it is hopelessly idealistic to imagine that any third party candidate could win. How do you reconcile this?

(Disclaimer: I'm not voting either. I'm just want to hear your thoughts on the matter.)

Here's my stance: I view civic duty in the case of voting as an intent and not a result. The point is to speak your piece by casting your vote, whether or not it is "heard". The point, and your civic duty in all elections, is to vote for the candidate (a) who most closely aligns with your values and positions on the issues, and (b) whom you feel would make an effective leader. The point is not, not, to vote for the guy you think is likely to win.

A brief sidestep here, to the candidates for this election. I did feel that I should at least consider third-party candidates along with the big two before making my final decision on whether or not to abstain. For my sanity, I had to restrict my consideration of candidates to the following:

• George W. Bush, Republican
• John F. Kerry, Democrat
• Michael Badnarik, Libertarian
• Ralph Nader, formerly of the Green Party, running now as an Independent, and endorsed by the Reform Party (I know, it's enough to make your head spin)

I think we've already exhaustively discussed why I can't vote for either Bush or Kerry. Nader, to put it diplomatically, is a loon, so he's out. And then there was one: Badnarik. In the course of researching him, which I did just this morning, I found this great website: Project Vote Smart (also linked above), an unbiased collection of information on the candidates and their positions, to help voters make informed decisions. Anyway, according to PVS, Badnarik is just too different from me ideologically to be a viable candidate; he wants to reduce or eliminate federal funding for almost all programs, including medical research and education. Additionally, he's for suspending the federal income tax and deregulating industry and the environment almost entirely. Again, while I'm no tax-and-spend liberal, his positions are just too different from mine to make him an option. So who does that leave me with? Precisely no one.

This is OK. As I said before, the point of voting is to speak your piece. My piece is that none of the candidates available to me in this presidential election is one I can vote for in good conscience. I cannot vote to put my country in any of their hands. I just don't trust them to do the right thing. So by not voting, I am still, in a manner of speaking, making my voice heard. And in the grand scheme of things, that's all I can control. If my abstinence affects a candidate's standing in one way or another, then so be it. Like I said, voting is about intent and not result. So I state my opinion and let the chips fall where they may. I figure I'll be unhappy with whoever gets elected, anyway.

Maybe I am being hopelessly idealistic. But my philosophy on this is that you can't base your decisions, especially your moral ones, on what is or is not likely to happen. You can only control what you do, and thus you should act according to your ideals, your values, your rules. Trust that enough others will do the same such that your desired result will come about. If not, you deal with it. That's what democracy is all about.