Voting Your Conscience vs. Voting For Who "Can Win"

I want to share with you a little bit of good old fashioned Braxtonian reasoning.  Before I do, I'll give you some context.

An issue I've seen discussed in debates, in mainstream media, and among real people who actually exist, is "electability."  I would argue that this has been promoted more frequently than the other leading issues, like the economy and jobs, or the "wars" we're fighting.  What is electability?  Well let's do what all great church talks do, and start with the dictionary definition.  According to the American Heritage Dictionary, 4th edition:

e·lect·a·ble adj.

Fit or able to be elected, especially to public office: an electable candidate.

Here are the constitutional requirements for presidential candidacy, shamelessly pilfered from Wikipedia:

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution sets the principal qualifications one must meet to be eligible to the office of president. A president must:

• be a natural-born citizen of the United States;
• be at least thirty-five years old;
• have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.

There are a few other ways to be disquailfied, such as already having served two terms, being a convicted criminal or having previously betrayed an oath taken to uphold the constitution.

So assuming all our candidates are over 35 and aren't traitors, they're all electable.  This isn't what so many people are referring to when using the word, unfortunately.  But because this term has this original meaning, and is now being used to describe a candidate's likelihood of being president, candidates who are "not electable" may appear to those who don't know much about the process to believe their vote would be wasted on someone who can't win anyway.  And thus I hear so frequently, especially from those supporting Mitt Romney, that, "I don't want to vote for someone who won't win anyway."  And this is what I want to discuss.  This argument is almost always followed with, "And I don't really know much about Mitt, but what it all comes down to is getting Obama out of the White House.  So if he's the one who can beat Obama, that's who I want to vote for." 

"I don't want to waste my vote on someone who can't win":

 If politics was like betting on horses, and you got a reward for picking the winning horse, then this would make some sense.  Unfortunately no one will be showing up to your door with a giant check regardless of what you do.  In this race, the goal is to pick the right candidate--or in other words, the one who best reflects your values, character and vision for the country's policies.  Your reward for doing so, if he or she wins, is enjoying accurate representation in government.  If your chosen candidate does not win--even if they only got 1% of the vote--your reward is having expressed your honest views in the political forum.  And knowing you didn't vote for the next schmuck who signs away your rights and adds trillions to the national debt.  A clear conscience is worth more than following the crowd.  Or at least that's what my mother taught me.

You may not think a single vote makes a difference, but it does.  First of all, nominees are chosen by delegates, who are chosen by citizens.  Every candidate is electable, and will be elected, if he gets the most delegates.  You can pick your delegate.  If you become a delegate, and cast your vote, your vote represents thousands of people who picked you.  Secondly, a group of individuals expressing their political voice is a movement.  Movements are noticed by the media.  Politicians, especially the really crappy ones, follow the media and will jump on whatever bandwagon they think will get them re-elected.  For example, the Tea Party was just a bunch of conservative people inspired by Ron Paul's values.  The media noticed the protests, and reported about it.  Before you know it, establishment republicans like Sarah Palin had gotten on board and put their name on the movement to take advantage of the publicity.  So while many of these politicians have no intention of actually acting on the principles which the people support, the principles are now in the public discourse, and people are recognizing again the original source of those ideals (Ron Paul) and voting in that direction.  All because some people protested, and voted out representatives they disagreed with.  One vote at a time.

"I don't care who wins, as long as it's not Obama."

This may be the first election you've followed, but if not, you should remember back to the last election, and the one before that.  "Anyone but Bush" in 2004 and "Anyone but another Bush" in 2008 were the motives for voting then.  Obama was elected primarily on his campaign's promise of change.  A change we can believe in.  What changed?  We're still at war.  The economy is still growing very slowly.  The president is still signing documents limiting our rights.  We're still increasing the national debt.  I would say the main difference is that Obama's speeches are less entertaining because he doesn't make as many mistakes. 
Running on the idea that the current president has got to go because he's just so horrible is the oldest trick in the book.  It's there every single election, and we should stop basing our vote on strategy and start basing it on the dictates of our conscience. Mitt Romney was declared the most electable from the start.  Why?  Because his head is disproportionately large and he looks executive?  Really, why?  Is it his awesome policies?  I want you to hold your hand in front of your face and see if you can count 5 of his specific policies on those fingers.  If you don't have 5 fingers, just pretend you do.  If you're missing fingers, you may be on a government terrorist watch list, by the way. "Restoring America" and "Preserving America's greatness" and "Not apologizing for America" are not policies.  If you were able to list 5, I respect you.  Now hold up your other hand and list 5 policies on which Mitt Romney differs from Barack Obama.  The point is, getting Obama out of the White house doesn't do any good if the guy you replace him with does all the same things.  Does that not make sense?

Also, please don't vote for Mitt or against him just because he's Mormon. 

Let's look at some quotes from people who know what they're talking about.

"I hope that no American will waste his franchise and throw away his vote by voting either for me or against me solely on account of my religious affiliation. It is not relevant."
John F. Kennedy

"Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature.... If the next centennial does not find us a great nation ... it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces."
James Garfield, the twentieth president of the United States, 1877

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816

 "We the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts--not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
Abraham Lincoln

"We hope that you will go to the polls in large numbers and vote for the strongest, finest people who are certain to do the most to safeguard the rights and freedoms of the people."
--Spencer W Kimball, October 1976.  Romney said in a debate that he would have signed the NDAA.

Now a word on politics. This is an election year, and there are many strong and strident voices incident to political campaigning. It’s a wholesome and wonderful system that we have under which people are free to express themselves in electing those who shall represent them in the councils of government. I would hope that those concerned would address themselves to issues and not to personalities. The issues ought to be discussed freely, openly, candidly, and forcefully.
--Gordon B. Hinckley, October 1982

Especially in an election year, as we have in the United States this year, we should seek to support those we believe will act with integrity and carry out our ideas of good government. The Lord has said: “When the wicked rule the people mourn.

“Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold.” (D&C 98:9–10.)

The Church maintains a policy of strict political neutrality, favoring no party or candidate, but every member should take an active part in the political process. We should study the issues and the candidates to be sure our votes are based on knowledge rather than hearsay.

--Joseph B. Wirthlin, April 1992

There are more, and I encourage you to research each candidate using more sources than just Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC.  Get involved.  Learn the issues.  And if, after learning of each candidate's specific policies and plans you support Mitt Romney, fantastic.  Vote according to your conscience.  Not by who you think everyone else will vote for.