Why Voting Against the Worst Candidate Remains a Moral Duty

Faith Facts

• Abraham Lincoln taught that the measure of any choice is whether it does more good than harm.
• Scripture repeatedly calls believers to choose what protects life, family, and freedom even when no perfect option exists.
• American history shows that principled citizens have often voted against greater evil to preserve liberty for future generations.

When the ballot offers only imperfect candidates, principled voters still have to choose. Abraham Lincoln argued that the real test of a choice isn’t whether it contains any evil, but whether it does more harm than good. By that test, voting against the worst is a moral act, not a compromise.

Many believers wrestle each election cycle with whether casting a ballot for the lesser of two evils betrays their convictions. Yet the alternative—staying home or scattering votes on third-party candidates—has repeatedly allowed the greater evil to prevail in close races.

History records several presidential contests where third-party efforts split the conservative vote and handed victory to policies hostile to faith, family, and freedom. Those outcomes remind Christians that abstaining is itself a choice with lasting consequences.

Let us know what you think, please share your thoughts in the comments below.