Why some Christians will vote for Donald Trump

Many people seem to wonder about why some Christians will vote for Donald Trump. If those same people also wonder why some Christians will vote for Joe Biden, their amazement is probably legitimate. If not, it is likely just politics as usual. 

In the linked article, Baptist pastor Kent Brandenburg gives Three Reasons Christians should vote for Trump. Perhaps this will help those who wish to understand.

• If you pray 1 Timothy 2:1-4, you should vote for Donald Trump, since he will defend religious liberty.
• If you sigh and cry over the abomination of abortion, you must vote for Donald Trump.
• If you value free speech and oppose communist Antifa thugs Burning, Looting, and Murdering (BLM), then you must vote for Donald Trump.

The Ethics of Voting

Some interesting thoughts on politics from Jonathan Leeman, an elder at Cheverly Baptist Church, (currently meeting outdoors in Greenbelt, Maryland) and author of recently posted “The DC Mayor Doesn’t Get to Define Church.” The following is excerpted from “What Makes a Vote Moral or Immoral? The Ethics of Voting.”

“When you vote in a democratic system, you’re actually participating in the role of the “governing authorities” that Paul and Peter describe. Your job is to align your objectives with the purposes which God gives to the government in Scriptures, such as “punish[ing] those who do evil and praise[ing] those who do good” (1 Peter 2:13–14; see also, Gen. 9:5–6; Rom. 13:1–7; etc.).

“Therefore, your vote requires you to make a moral evaluation about what’s good and what’s evil, or wise and unwise (see Prov. 8:15–16), and then to act on behalf of your evaluation. You are morally responsible for this evaluation and act of judgment.

“Suppose then candidate Jack says he believes in positions a, b, c, d, and e, while candidate Jill supports issues l, m, n, o, and p. When I cast a ballot for Jack, I am giving Jack the agency—that is, the power or ability—he needs for turning a, b, c, d, and e into law over and against l, m, n, o, and p. If Jack is elected and succeeds in writing a, b, c, d, and e into law, I become morally culpable for those laws, at least in some measure, by the simple formula of cause and effect with my vote as the first cause. Our votes create the requisite agency. We’re handing Jack or Jill the sword of state…

“Suppose you believe issue e is wicked, yet vote for Jack because you really care about a, b, c, and d. Still, you cannot discount what your vote does. It gives Jack agency to pursue a, b, c, d, and e, and you remain morally responsible for that. There’s no way to absolve yourself of moral responsibility for the one thing you don’t like and to keep it for the four things you do like.”

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

According to Wikipedia, “The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U. S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.”

The idea is the brainchild of those who oppose of the Constitutional process of electing U. S. Presidents by electoral vote but rather desire them to be elected by a majority popular vote. The NPVIC therefore aims to make an end-run around the Constitution – rather than changing it head-on with an amendment. It would “ensure that the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide is elected president.”

I had heard of this concept and its movement before, but had not paid much attention to it. However (again according to Wikipedia), “As of June 2019, it has been adopted by fifteen states and the District of Columbia. Together, they have 196 electoral votes, which is 36.4% of the Electoral College and 72.6% of the 270 votes needed to give the compact legal force.” Commenters both pro and con say that this initiative is (1) designed to ensure that the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide is elected president, and (2) that a state’s electoral process change would come into effect only when it would guarantee that outcome. [emp. mine]

According to its proponents, this measure is constitutional because Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution says, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress…” Their point, then, is that the appointment of electors falls under the purview of the States. Detractors, however, note that the power of the state is to choose electors, but they cannot tell him for whom to vote. Some also believe it violates the Constitution’s compact clause by states entering into a compact to change the outcome of the presidential election. The initiative is not merely a state changing its electoral process but multiple states entering into a compact one with another to accomplish a designed result.

Here are two quotes from a report by the Congressional Research Service on National Popular Vote. First from the “Summary” (unpaged) of “The National Popular Vote (NPV) Initiative: Direct Election of the President by Interstate Compact”:

The National Popular Vote (NPV) initiative proposes an agreement among the states, an interstate compact that would effectively achieve direct popular election of the President and Vice President without a constitutional amendment. It relies on the Constitution’s grant of authority to the states in Article II, Section 1 to appoint presidential electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct....” Any state that joins the NPV compact pledges to award all its electoral votes to the presidential ticket that wins the most popular votes nationwide, regardless of who wins in that particular state. The number of electoral votes won by the national popular vote winners would depend on the number of electoral votes controlled by NPV member states. The compact would, however, come into effect only if its success has been assured; that is, only if states controlling a majority of electoral votes (270 or more) join the compact. [bold mine]

Second, from page 20:

Whether the NPV initiative requires congressional consent under the Compact Clause first requires a determination as to whether NPV even constitutes an interstate compact. At times, its supporters have resisted framing the initiative as an interstate compact, arguably out of concern for running afoul of the Compact Clause’s provisions. For example, Professor Akhil Amar has argued that because the initiative does not create a “new interstate governmental apparatus,” the NPV should not be considered an interstate compact, as NPV compact signatory states are merely exercising power collectively that each state could exercise on its own. It is unclear, however, whether the creation of a new interstate governmental entity formed out of an agreement between two or more states is necessary, as opposed to sufficient, in order to deem an agreement as being an interstate compact subject to the Compact Clause.

The Congressional Research Service finds that it is unclear whether this National Popular Vote Compact is “subject to the Compact Clause.” This is mainly where the debate will be and where the compact will be challenged in court. When I first heard the idea of a state allocating their electoral votes to the “popular-vote-getter,” it did not seem to me that it would be unconstitutional – since states already determine how they allocate their electoral votes. For example, states already decide whether the winner in their states get all the electoral votes, or whether to parcel them out.[i] I had not considered a possible violation of the Compact Clause or that states were colluding one with another. However, it is worth considering the fact that states are compacting (from a positive viewpoint) or conspiring (from a negative viewpoint) to effect a change in the Constitution without going through the process of amending it.

Whether or not it is constitutional, I do not like the idea. First, I think the present Electoral College system works and has served us well from the beginning of our Republic. Part of the initiative seems like sour grapes. Democrats have recently lost twice under the rules, so now they want to change the rules.[ii] Secondly, under this compact a state overrides the intent of the popular vote of its own citizens! How weird and arrogant would want to throw away the votes of their own people. If enough American citizens want to elect the President of the United States by nationwide popular vote, let them do it through their representatives presenting a constitutional amendment rather than states working around the Constitution. If so, let it be a true popular vote, rather than a mongrel system – one that hangs on to the Electoral College while not reflecting the will of the people who voted for their electors.

Best yet, let’s leave it alone!

Here are two links on the topic

Text of the National Popular Vote Compact Bill

How to Defeat the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

---

[i] 48 states have a winner-take-all system – the winner of the majority of the votes of the citizens of the state will receive all of the state’s electoral votes. Two states – Maine and Nebraska – divide their electoral votes proportionately by congressional district, instead of giving all the electoral votes to the candidate who wins the statewide popular vote.

[ii] Both George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016 lost the popular vote but won the electoral vote, thereby becoming president. In addition, the following men lost the popular vote but won the presidency – Benjamin Harrison in 1888, Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, and John Quincy Adams in 1824. Harrison and Hayes won by electoral vote. In the case of Adams (the first year the popular vote was even recorded) no candidate had enough electoral votes and the House of Representatives decided the outcome of the election.

Electors select Donald Trump

For all the squawking about the Electoral College and faithless electors, the results turned out much as expected. Last night ABC reported that Donald Trump Cruised to Electoral College Victory Despite Protests, garnering 304 electoral votes to 227 for Hillary Clinton (270 Electoral College votes were needed to win the presidency).

There were "faithless electors," but more on the Democratic side than Republican. According to AP's Stephen Ohlemacher, "With all Republican states reporting, Trump lost only the two electors in Texas. One voted for Kasich, the Ohio governor; the other voted for former Texas Rep. Ron Paul. Clinton lost four electors in Washington state — three voted for former Secretary of State Colin Powell and one voted for Native American tribal leader Faith Spotted Eagle. She also lost an elector in Hawaii to Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders."

Random thoughts on the voting scene

(With apologies to Thomas Sowell)

Today I performed my "civic duty" and voted this afternoon after I got off work. Over the past several years I have developed a healthy and increasing cynicism about politics and politicians, but I haven't quit voting.

The ballot. The ballot was pretty full of statewide and local candidates, as well as one constitutional amendment (and local school board) -- today you could even vote for Quanah Parker and Sam Houston (there's no place like Texas!). I like the idea of voting on constitutional amendments, but it is a pretty anemic process with probably in most cases the electorate having little or no idea on what they are voting. I voted for some Republicans and more Libertarians (no Democrats). The Libertarians fielded a very thorough slate of candidates, in several cases being the only challenger to the Republican candidates. Despite that, the Libertarian party does not win in very many cases. I understand my vote as a sort of expression of my views and a "none of the above" ballot, in the sense that I don't hold out a lot of hope for these guys winning. But, NO, I don't think a vote for who I think ought to win is a wasted vote!

Voter ID law. We voted under the new voter id law, though it may not hold up to further scrutiny. As both a voter and a former election judge, I like it. I don't really understand all the outcry against it. I think both sides do a lot of spinning -- enough to make a normal person dizzy -- which may be more about scoring political points than about expressing the truth. No, there is probably not as much voter fraud as those who support the voter id might want us to think. No, requiring a picture id is not the "new poll tax" to disenfranchise minority votes that the opponents decry it as. Most people already operate with some kind of a picture id, and it's not much of a problem to get one if you don't (and, by the way, you could vote a provisional ballot even if you didn't have it). Yet, that the polls accept concealed handgun licenses but not college IDs may reveal some of the bias of those who drew up the law. But, seriously, shouldn't the poll workers have some way of knowing that the person is a citizen of the state in which he or she is voting? My experience as an election judge was in a small rural voting box. Some one of us (and often all of us) who worked the polls almost always knew the folks who were voting. But if you live in a high population area with lots of folks you aren't familiar with, how do you know that person is really the person holding the cardstock registration card with someone's name on it? That said, I think more of the problems at the polls (and the lists drawn up before we get to the polls) is human error rather than deliberate fraud. From what I've seen, the greatest potential for fraud is in the mail-in ballots. From the standpoint of me the voter, I loved the voter id today. It's hard to keep up with that little card the county mails out and I seldom use. But I always know where my driver's license is! Just match up my DL with the registration on the books and I'm ready to vote. No pain. Much gain.

Electronic voting. One former election judge I worked with would not use the new electronic voting machines. He asked for a paper ballot at every election up until the time he died. I'm not so old and set in my ways to decry the electronic voting as too new-fangled. It speeds up the process in many ways. But...there is one sense of loss. At the end there is only the screen telling you "thank you for voting". There was something final and fulfilling in dropping the paper ballot into the voting box and as you walk out the door!

Readings of a political nature

The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the posts linked.


Can a Christian Vote for a Non-Christian Candidate?
Can Christians vote for a Mormon?
How should Christian voters decide whom to support?
Majority of Pastors Disapprove of Pulpit Endorsements
No to Pulpit Freedom Sunday and Political Endorsements
Obama versus Jesus: Black Christians Must Decide
Should I vote for a Mormon?
The Great American Worldview Test — The 2012 Election
Still the truth
Who Should a Pastor Endorse?

Free will voting?

Today marks the Texas election primary, in which we may have the sad distinction of providing Mitt Romney enough votes to push him over the top in delegates garnered for the Republican Convention. 

A few days back I posted on the general subject of voting, and want to make a few comments here. There are many principles we should look at in determining how as Christians we should relate to our government. Our God to whom we are responsible has ordained the principle of human government/governments (Rom 13:1-6) and is sovereign over the events of the world (Ps 75:6-7; 103:19; Dan 2:21; Ezek 30:20-26; Rom 9:17). God who has ordained government, also establishes our obedience to law/government (Rom 13:1-6). This includes paying tribute/taxes, praying for and honoring those in authority (1 Tim 2:1-2; 1 Pet 2:17). Christians ought to use what freedoms they have to do good, and so lead others to glorify God (1 Pet 2:11-17). The Christians’ allegiance is to God. The government’s power ends when it conflicts with God’s commands to His people (Acts 4:18-20).

Within these principles one must determine whether to vote, and if so, for whom to vote. I guess I came to that position by default, coming from a background where voting was considered both a duty and a privilege. Though I have increased in much skepticism, so far I have not decided that it is unbiblical to vote for human government.

As far as the biblical basis of choosing to vote for a particular person, platform or issue, I would say it is mainly informed by three main points — that God is sovereign over the events of the world, that the purpose of government is to promote good and punish evil, and that Christians ought to use what freedom they have to do good& to lead others to glorify God. 

Because I believe God is sovereign, I do not worry that it is my responsibility to “raise up” or “put down” the next “ruler”. God can do that with or without my vote. As a Christian under the rule of God and commanded to do good, I should vote for what or who I think will do good and punish evil. Mine is to vote; God's is to raise up and put down. As I thought about this, it occurred to me that many of us are very "free will" and "anti-sovereignty" in our voting. We worry that if we do not vote that God will not be able to raise up the right ruler or rulers. Perhaps we never consider that our vote or lack therefore is already part of God's determined means of accomplishing His will?

Did you vote?

Two days ago, Americans in great numbers went to polls (or not). Were you among them? I want to focus this post on why or why not people vote. Did you vote? If so, why? If not, why not?

Yes
It is a valuable right/duty/privilege.
I can change/support the direction the government is headed.
I wanted to cancel the vote of my spouse/brother/sister/uncle/cousin.
My employer gives me time off to go vote.
My brother was running for dog-catcher, and it's a good paying job.

No
Dumb and dumber is not an option; there was no way to select "none of the above".
Christ's kingdom is not of this world; we are strangers and pilgrims who should focus on the gospel and remain apolitical.
It doesn't matter; nothing ever changes.
I was too lazy to walk/run/drive/ride to the polling place.
My brother was running for dog-catcher.

The above are given as thought-provokers. Don't confine yourself to any idea I suggested. Please tell us from your heart why you did or did not vote.