Does Mitt Romney Have a chance at becoming president?

[Byblos]

I tell you what, if you decide to go with the non-vote route, I'm willing to swap with you. I'll promise not to vote for anyone here in NY in return for you voting for Romney in FL. This way we both get what we want, my vote will matter where it should and your conscience will still be clear since one of us didn't vote.

This is a bizarre arrangement!

Not bizarre at all. There's been talk of abolishing the electoral college and making the presidential election by popular vote, the way it ought to be. I'm just jumping the gun so-to-speak.

Me no likie when a candidate can't win by popular vote, yet he becomes President by electoral votes.

Which is a very distinct possibility this year as well. Another distinct possibility is a president Romney and vice president Biden. Unlikely but still possible if the electoral college is tied and the vote goes to the senate and congress.

[Philip]

Rick wrote:

1) the candidate has to have the political views I share.
2) the candidate has to be trustworthy in my view.
3) the candidate has to have a legitimate chance to win.

None of the candidates fit my criteria. That's my dilemma.

Funny, Rick, but GOD never let such things keep HIM from voting, as He selects EVERY winning candidate, and He does so, EVERY time!

"He removes kings and establishes kings;" (Dan 2:21)

"For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God." (Rom 13:1)

But here's the thing: WE must do our best to make decisions amongst imperfect choices. We must choose a horse to ride amongst the choices God allows us. It's a bit like choosing a cable tv package - we don't like most of the programs, have no use for them, even despise many of them, but we still manage to choose the best between the choices we are given, so as to get some programs we so desire. We do this about many, many things in our lives - choosing between imperfect options. And so why should we not do so by choosing between our political options?

If we always operated the entirety of our lives upon the idea that we wouldn't choose between given options, until we had near-perfect choices, then we'd never accomplish ANYTHING. Men are ALL imperfect - you, me - ALL of us. So does someone have to be so close to our ideals before we can make a choice? WHY? And isn't that a bit hypocritical? Aren't others often accepting of us, choosing us for assignments/tasks/jobs, even though we painfully know that we each have considerable flaws, and that we've failed spectacularly in our own pasts? Did any of us wait until they met the female ideal of their dreams before marrying our wives (OK, not fair, as I did - just in case my beloved reads this thread, eh?). But seriously, we constantly must choose betwixt the imperfect, do we not?

And if two candidates are a wash or there are no real differences between them on MOST issues, then I think we must ask ourselves are there still not perhaps issues in which their other differences WILL (at least potentially, as far a we can humanly determine) make a BIG difference, or might one such difference of their intentions likely to be much more harmful to us? To ignore such things is to be naive! What kind of judges are each likely to nominate, etc. And there ARE issues that make these two men vastly different, and in which one is clearly much more dangerous, at least on some critical issues. Thing is, we should impact where we can and as we can - or at least try to. That is OUR responsibility. The outcome is God's. And, obviously, God often reflects the collective/majority values of society, back to us in the leaders He gives us. But I can only wonder if perhaps He also reflects back the value of our apathy and unwillingness to be responsible - at least as we CAN be responsible?

Some appear to sit on a moral high horse, as if theirs is a holy vote to be bestowed upon some grand SPIRITUAL leader, as if they are tasked with choosing a replacement disciple for Judas. We're electing a political leader, but some are so unrealistic as to continue waiting upon the perfect candidate, one straight from "Central Casting." And THAT fellow doesn't exist - and he/she NEVER did!

[PaulSacramento]

One must be careful when one begins to insinuate that a leader is such by "divine proclamation" just because he was the leader of any army ( Ancient times) or won by a "majority" vote.

[Philip]

One must be careful when one begins to insinuate that a leader is such by "divine proclamation" just because he was the leader of any army ( Ancient times) or won by a "majority" vote.

To believe that a person achieves any office or leadership does not negate that they were also chosen for office by men - or were voted into such an office. But we also cannot deny what Scripture says about who puts leaders into their positions, and that it is God Who controls history. Jesus told Pontius Pilate, "You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given to you from above." And when you combine such statements as ones which state that it is God Who "removes kings and establishes kings," then what are we to think? Does Scripture not teach this? I would say that it most certainly DOES.