A couple of interesting articles out today concerning electoral politics this time around. We’ll start with Brian Beutler at The New Republic on how 3rd party voting impacts Hillary:
The nightmare scenario is that this turns into a runaway free-rider problem. If too many people assume Clinton has the election locked down, and use that assumption as their basis for not voting for her, she could lose.
This is an interesting point, but I think the answer to this is that (a) it only impacts voters in swing-states, and (b) Hillary’s turnout operation is so much more advanced than Trump’s that for voters who are going 3rd party this time around, it should be a non-issue. Additionally, I would imagine there are more Rs going 3rd Party than Ds this time around. If anything, Hillary should be able to expand on Obama 2012’s margins even with more 3rd party voting. This is before we even get to issues more of prudence than practicality as to why Hillary is a bad vote (pro-choice, corruption issues, etc.)
As for who voters should look towards, Alan Noble makes some good points over at Ed Stetzer’s blog on Christianity Today:
By voting for and publicly supporting Evan McMullin, you are helping to give the GOP a mandate to take the evangelical vote seriously and you are rejecting the pull towards a conservative party governed by racism and nationalism.
In the coming decades, what will matter far more than the promises of a dishonest man to appoint conservative justices will be the existence of a vibrant and influential conservative movement.
The whole thing is worth reading. I will personally be voting for McMullin in my state this fall. As Noble argues, it is important that Evangelicals make it clear that we support candidates who are truly pro-life and understand what that means, not who pay lip-service to the movement.