How did we get here?  This is the question many of us have heard or asked during the last year.  We’re all justifiably distraught that our choices seemingly are Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.  No one wants to vote for the lesser of two evils, especially when it seems like the lesser is still pretty evil.  Further, most Bereans believe that Christians have a stewardship obligation with respect to their vote:  staying at home is not a viable option.  So what do we do?  In my argument, I will focus on two ways of looking at our choice, with little actual focus on specific issues, both from a technical economic sense and from a Christian perspective.   The good news is that they both lead to the same conclusion. But let’s get straight to the point: I hope Donald Trump wins, but I will not vote for him.  Why, you ask?

From the perspective of an economist, consider the Public Choice theorist Gordon Tullock’s view in this video:

Tullock’s argument is undeniable; our vote will not be determinative of the election.  Historically, there is no evidence that I’ve ever been able to find where a single vote decided the outcome of any U.S. federal election. Indeed, the conventional wisdom from the 2000 presidential election is almost exactly wrong.*  In the conventional view, Florida’s close result proves every vote counts.  Yet, the reverse is almost certainly true:  if a single vote ever were to be determinative of the outcome, it would not be allowed to hold–the Supreme Court will decide the election result, not your single vote.

Yet this does not mean your individual vote doesn’t matter.  Indeed it does matter–very much so–but only as an expression of your preferences.  When you cast a vote for someone, let’s say a Democrat, the basic unit of analysis is that you endorsed the Democratic platform, their values and issues.  It’s true that political scientists will try to find out more deeply your specific values, but the political process will generally come to the conclusion that you support Democratic values, and thus the Democratic Party has no reason to modify its positions.  In fact, if you are a feelin’ the Bern–and only regretfully agreed to vote for Mrs. Clinton–you will send a far stronger expression of your preferences if you vote for the Green Party candidate, Ms. Stein. The Democratic Party will pay much more attention to the preferences of those on the edge, because if they can tweak their policies and pick up Green Party voters (without alienating their base Democratic voters and those independents in the middle they hope to capture), they will have a strong incentive to modify their behavior in the future.  The same logic goes for the Republicans as they will pay attention to Libertarian concerns more in the future if there is a strong expression of support for Libertarian values expressed in this voting cycle.  My conclusion?  Your vote cannot have an effect on the outcome of the election, but your vote can influence politicians in the future as political entrepreneurs will try to meet the “market demand” for the preferences that are expressed in this election.  But are there Biblical considerations that might lead to a different result?

Popular systematic theologian Wayne Grudem says yes, voting for Donald Trump is a morally good choice. On the opposite side, the executive advisor to the World Evangelical Alliance, Deborah Fikes, endorses Hillary Clinton.   I come to a different conclusion. First, while we do have agency, i.e., responsibility/accountability to God for our vote, we are most certainly not the determiner of this election—God will place whomever He wishes in power. It’s not like He is in heaven saying, “Haymond blew it; I would’ve put Trump in power but he wasn’t obedient.” Perhaps the most clear indication of the sovereignty of God in government leaders is found in Daniel. Many would argue that this is Daniel’s core message—the sovereignty of God in the affairs of men.  As Nebuchadnezzar is finally forced to recognize (Daniel 4:34-35):

“But at the end of that period, I, Nebuchadnezzar, raised my eyes toward heaven and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High and praised and honored Him who lives forever; For His dominion is an everlasting dominion, And His kingdom endures from generation to generation. “All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, But He does according to His will in the host of heaven And among the inhabitants of earth; And no one can ward off His hand Or say to Him, ‘What have You done?’

God’s sovereignty in putting leaders in power is also found in key N.T. passages, such as Romans 13:1, “Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.” And as Jesus told Pontius Pilate (John 19:11), “you would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above.” God is indeed sovereign over the affairs of men, including in this election. So I believe our primary concern should not be how we control the outcome, but rather how we most effectively steward the gift of our ability to participate in the election.

So what do we do? I intend to use my vote as an expressive vote—the only way it can possibly matter. Indeed, to try to influence the outcome of the election by voting for Mr. Trump would be to waste my vote: I cannot be the determiner of the election and I would have failed to send a signal as to my true preferences. So where should my expressive vote go? I would like our nation to move away from a politicization of everything in life, and this necessitates a smaller government. I would like our government to not be the arm of the culture wars against my values (especially through the courts). In Ohio, I have four choices (Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green) plus an independent that apparently is only on the Ohio and WV ballots (and my limited review of him is not positive). I normally would be potentially attracted to the Libertarian party candidate, however I consider this year’s nominee particularly weak.** Fortunately I can write in the Constitution Party’s nominees (provided I spell their names correctly—which is why I’ll probably mail in my vote just to be sure I do it here at home!). I agree with their seven principles, highlighted by their first principle of the sanctity of life.

So despite some concerns with his positions (there is no perfect candidate), I will cast my vote for a 3^rd party candidate this year, the Constitution Party’s nominee, Mr. Darrell Castle. I do this in full recognition that Mr. Castle will not win, but that is not a relevant consideration for me.  Nevertheless, I hope Mr. Trump wins, because I do consider him a significantly less evil than Mrs. Clinton–I just won’t vote for him.

PS:  Happy to review/discuss particular issues in the comments if you have ??s.  I admit this election has turned me off so much I have paid less attention to the issues they discuss.  Given both Mr. Trump’s and Mrs. Clinton’s “flexibility” with respect to any position, i.e., no position they take can truly be believed, it is certainly rational to be ignorant.

*I’m pretty sure I heard this great point from my former professor Pete Boettke

** Nevertheless since the Libertarian Party isn’t going to win, an expressive vote in this direction is likely to add some value to influence future Republicans in the general direction of smaller government, so not necessarily a bad choice. Just not for me this year.