Dear Len:

I decided to answer this question even though I have closed the topic of the election because you are considering the Catholic Church.

I personally cannot understand why you would have such profound problems with President Bush or say that various religious issues favor Kerry.  Kerry is religiously bankrupt as is the Democratic Party (for at least the last 35-40 years). This is not to say that the Republican Party are angels, but there is just no comparison with today's Democratic Party, who has sold itself to the devil, with the Republican Party.

I would also suggest that you be careful with the liberal propaganda about Bush being a warmonger. That is just outright hypocrisy on the part of the liberals who promote that idea. EVERY President in modern times has conducted war, covertly if not overtly. Kerry would be no exception.

Yes, Bush accepts the Death Penalty; Kerry accepts abortion. A few hundred people may be killed by the death penalty and a few thousand people killed in war. In abortion, Kerry supports the killing of about 1.5 million babies per year. There is no comparison here.

The liberal propaganda that Bush does not care for the poor is utter nonsense. In fact, I would call it demonic nonsense. This is just the typical liberal propaganda. In fact, it is the Liberals that could care less about the poor. Although one liners are always inadequate, the best one liner to characterize the difference between the Democrats and Republicans is that the Democrats think they know better than everyone and wish to "take care of us poor 'ol people" like we were children (and do that by big government -- a thing that hurts everyone, especially the poor). The Republicans wish to help those who cannot help themselves but do so treating us like adults with dignity (and with less government which is beneficial to everyone including the poor).

I would advise that you read at least the following book so that you can learn the real scoop behind these issues:

• The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation As a Basis for Social Policy by Thomas Sowell

Now to your scenarios:

Scenario #1: Candidate A is opposed to abortion. Candidate B is in favor of it. Is there any scenario whereby Candidate A could be so BAD that Candidate B could be your choice?

Yes, as Cardinal Ratzinger has stated there is this possibility, but this is an EXTREME last resort. Bush, under any definition and analysis doesn't come within a million miles of this exception as to justify voting for Kerry over Bush.

Scenario #2: You said if it wasn't so close, you would say it would be ok to vote for Bush. I don't understand that. The odds of your vote electing the president are one in a gazillion. Whether you have zero affect or one in a gazillion affect, what possible difference could it make? your vote won't matter to who gets elected. How can the "closeness" be the issue?

How wrong you are. Presidents have carried a state by as little as 500 votes and by that won the election. In a close race, EVERY vote matters and matters profoundly.

If you do not believe me then contact your favorite politician and ask. Third party candidates are a thorn in the side to the two major parties. Third Party candidates HAVE effected the outcome of an election. Why? because people who would have voted Democrat vote instead for a liberal third party takes votes away from that Democrat, and vice versa. If Pro-Life people vote for someone else besides Bush that gives Bush less votes and in a close election as this one that could cost him the election and we would have Kerry as President who supports killing babies.

Let me illustrate. We are in the Country of Oz. Kerry and Bush are running for President of Oz. There are 100 citizens of Oz and 49 of them are for Kerry and 49 for Bush and 2 undecided. That is how close the race is.

Now, let us say that Alan Keyes decides to run for President on an Independent Ticket. Do you think any votes from the Kerry camp will be diverted to Keyes? I think not. Rather, let us say that only 4 people who would have voted for Bush, decide now to vote for Keyes since they have a choice and Keyes is more "Catholic" than Bush. Let us also say that the two undecided votes go ahead and vote for Bush.

Here is the election results:

Bush = 47
Kerry = 49
Keyes=4

If those 4 people had gone ahead and voted for Bush the election would have resulted in 51-49 in favor of Bush.

This is simple arithmetic. A third Party candidate ALWAYS diverts votes away from their counterpart. In this election, Ralph Nader could cost the election for Kerry since the 1% who favor Nader will vote for him instead of Kerry. I am sure the Kerry camp wishes Nader will go away.

When the race is this close, all that I have described is profoundly important.

I might add that I do not offer this analysis from my arm chair. I use to be on the National Committee of a third party during the 1984 election year helping to make policy and decisions on a national level. We were one of the most successful third party efforts in history up to that time.

The fact is that either Bush or Kerry will win. If you wish to call it the lessor of two evils, then fine, but Bush is CLEARLY the one Catholics and all Christians should want in the White House over Kerry.

Scenerio #3: Even if you stand firm that your vote could be the ONE vote that sent Kerry to the White House, then what difference could it make in a state that is not "close"? Based on what you have already said, a Catholic can freely vote for Kerry in Kansas. Right?

Where did you get the idea that Kansas is any different than any other State concerning Kerry? In terms of voting specifically for Kerry, the statements made by the Vatican and others makes it clear that no Catholic has an excuse voting for a pro-abortion candidate -- no matter what the State.

On the issue of a State where the election is not close, you have a point that I forgot to consider. Since the election of the President is by the Electoral College and not the direct vote of the people, the principles I have outlined would permit a person to vote for a THIRD PARTY candidate who is 100% consistent with Catholic teaching, but not to Kerry himself, when the results of the election in that State are not expected to be that close.

Scenerio #4: Suppose you live in New Hampshire (statistically, the most likely state that your ONE vote could elect the president), what if you chose to not vote at all?

Not voting at all has the same effect as voting for a Third Party Candidate. Either way, a vote that would have gone to Bush or Kerry is not going to them. That is one less vote being applied and that could effect the election.

A large turn-out of voters tends to favor Democrats for example. The history shows that more people refusing to vote the more likely the Republicans will win.

The idea that one's vote does not matter is utter hogwash and a result of emotional apathy that has no basis in fact. Votes DO matter and the closer the race the MORE they matter.

The only part of this discussion that is a matter of faith is that a Catholic should not vote for Kerry.

The rest has to do with practical realities.

God Bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary