Americans have always compromised when the issue is important.
Constitutional Convention and Slavery Compromise
When America formed her current government, they were facing an incredibly divisive issue: slavery. Slavery is an abomination. It takes away every aspect of freedom from a fellow human being. Northern states followed the teachings of the Declaration of Independence, and ended slavery. Yet a number of southern states depended on slavery to run their plantation agrarian economies. They refused to join a nation that would not allow slavery, and their current economic system, to continue. Finally, a compromise was reached. The new national government would be allowed to stop the importation of new slaves, but slavery was to be allowed to continue if a state wanted it. (Read more about slavery in America in Chapter 17.) Compromise was used to achieve the greater good of forming the nation, even if an evil was allowed to continue.
Trending: Texas State Constitution, 1869
My Perspective: Immigration Dominates in GOP Nomination
Every voter has the free will and the right to use their personal criteria in selecting a candidate. In my view, immigration is the most important issue facing the nation today. We have at least 45 million people (14% of the population) in our nation that were not born here. NOT including 10-30 million illegals in America that most politicians dream of granting amnesty too. If we continue to import this number of poor 3rd world people, having no knowledge of self-government under a representative Republic, our Constitution is doomed. America will become a 3rd world nation just like those nations the masses she has imported came from.
In light of this, there were only two candidates I could support. [score]Ted Cruz[/score], who fought the DC “Gang of 8” amnesty effort in 2013, and Donald Trump, who promises to build a wall to stop illegal immigration, and to halt Muslim refugees. I viewed Cruz as more reliable and trustworthy, with Trump being more likely to crush Hillary and win the general election. (This is my perspective. You may disagree.)
However, if needed, I would have compromised my beliefs for a greater good. I would have voted for Jeb or [score]Marco Rubio[/score] had they won the GOP nomination rather than protest vote. Even with the knowledge that conservatives would likely have to fight either of them on amnesty just as we fought G. W. Bush during his presidency. Sometimes compromise is needed to achieve a greater good. In this case keeping the entire executive branch, and the judicial branch (through appointment) out of the control of liberal activists.
Note: I personally AM willing to strategically protest vote for less important races like Congress. A Congressional seat’s power pales in comparison to the presidency. A representative should earn your support with their actions in my opinion.
The Cost of President Hillary (or Bernie, or Biden)
Anyone wishing to protest vote should consider the harm that a Democrat will do to the nation. Hillary Clinton will fill the federal bureaucracy with the same type of people as Obama – dedicated big government liberals. Do you like the recent trans-bathroom edicts from the feds? Expect more. Hillary will replace recently deceased Justice Scalia with a dedicated liberal-activist judge. Enjoy the “new” constitutional right for homosexuals to marry? Expect way more as a Hillary judge will give the activists a solid 5-judge majority to control the top-court in the land.
Note: Some argue that a Hillary justice will finally expose the corrupt activist courts. But does it really matter if every state governor accepts the ruling? Going to court to fight will NOT work, as the case is predetermined against you by the 5 activist judges. A governor must be willing to tell the courts to go pound-sand by ignoring the unconstitutional ruling. Not a single governor did this on homosexual-marriage. They bowed to the court’s decree. Why would you think governors will offer opposition to judicial tyranny in the future?
3rd Party vs 3rd Person
A third party is a legitimate party running candidates at every level of office. The last example of this was the Republican Party forming in the 1850’s and 60’s. It succeeded in replacing the Whig Party. A third party does not begin with the presidency; it should begin at the state or congressional level. A third person is someone (usually popular) running for president outside of the two main parties. Two examples of this are Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, and Ross Perot in 1992. Neither of these candidates had a broad slate behind them in the ticket. They were one man shows. Both 3rd person efforts resulted in the opposing party (Democrat) winning the presidency. This may or may not have been the intent of the third person, but it was the result.
A vote for a 3rd person presidential candidate is a protest vote. This will always be true unless there is polling data within a week of the election, showing a legitimate chance for the 3rd person to win. Protest votes for President carry enormous costs as detailed above.
Not voting is a protest vote where the voter sends the message that they do not care about the future of the nation at all. That is how a politician will read the inaction.
To conclude, every vote cast in America is a compromise. The only candidate who agrees with you 100% of the time is YOU. So unless you write in your own name (protest vote) you are compromising when voting.