2026 New York Voter Resource Center

By Jason J. McGuire

Election season has a way of revealing just how complicated citizenship can be for Christians.

Voting would be much easier if every race offered us one candidate who clearly reflected our convictions and another who clearly opposed them. Sometimes the choice is straightforward.

Other times, it is anything but.

As we approach the 2026 midterm elections, Christians will face races where neither major-party candidate fully reflects a biblical worldview. In some contests, both candidates may support abortion rights. Both may be wrong on marriage, religious liberty, parental rights, or other issues we care deeply about.

That leaves many conscientious Christians with a difficult question:

What am I supposed to do when neither candidate reflects what I believe?

Some choose not to vote at all. Others cast a ballot for a third-party or independent candidate as an act of conscience.

I understand the impulse.

But my own approach has long been summed up this way:

I do not vote for the lesser of two evils. I vote to lessen evil.

It’s an important difference.

Voting Is Not an Endorsement of Everything

Casting a ballot for a candidate does not mean I endorse everything that candidate believes, says, or has done.

I have never met a candidate with whom I agree 100 percent of the time, and I suspect I never will.

Voting is not canonization. It does not declare someone righteous, trustworthy in every respect, or worthy of imitation.

It is an act of citizenship in which we are asked to choose between the actual options before us.

And sometimes those choices are deeply imperfect.

Christians should certainly vote according to conscience. But conscience should be informed not only by what makes us feel morally comfortable, but also by what our decision—or our failure to decide—may mean for our neighbors.

Who will write the laws?

Who will appoint judges?

Who will decide whether parents or government bureaucracies have greater authority over children?

Who will determine whether religious liberty is protected or eroded?

Who will make decisions affecting the unborn, the elderly, the disabled, and other vulnerable members of society?

Those decisions matter.

Principles and Prudence

Christian political engagement requires both principle and prudence.

Principle tells us that some things are objectively right or wrong. Human life matters. Religious liberty matters. Marriage and family matter. Parents matter. Truth matters.

Prudence asks another question:

Given the choices available to me, which action is most likely to advance what is good and restrain what is wrong?

That does not require pretending that an imperfect candidate is not who he or she is.

It requires honestly evaluating the consequences of the choice before us.

Suppose two candidates both take a position I believe is morally wrong. That fact matters.

But the analysis does not stop there.

One candidate may favor expanding that wrong, while another would limit it. One may oppose protections for conscience, while another would defend them. Their records and proposed policies may have markedly different practical consequences.

The choice may still be disappointing.

But disappointing choices can have dramatically different consequences.

What About Third Parties?

There may be races in which a third-party or independent candidate better reflects my convictions than either major-party nominee.

Every voter must decide what to do with that information.

But we should also be clear-eyed about the political system in which we participate. For practical purposes, America operates largely through two major parties. Third-party candidates can raise important issues and challenge the major parties, but many general elections ultimately come down to the Democratic and Republican nominees.

That reality should be part of our moral calculus.

Casting a vote that makes us feel pure is not especially virtuous if we refuse to consider the foreseeable consequences of that decision.

Sometimes conscience demands that we stand alone.

Sometimes wisdom requires us to choose among imperfect options.

Discernment means recognizing the difference.

If You Don’t Like the Choices, Get Involved Earlier

There is another response to the frustration of looking at a ballot and wondering, how did these become my choices?

Get involved before Election Day.

Too many Americans begin paying attention to politics only after the candidates have already been recruited, endorsed, nominated, and placed on the ballot.

By then, much of the work will already have happened.

If Christians want better candidates in November, we need more principled men and women to participate in the process that produces those candidates in the first place.

That can mean becoming involved in a local political party. It can mean serving on a town, county, or state committee. It can mean helping recruit candidates, circulating petitions, participating in primaries, supporting good candidates early—or even becoming a candidate yourself.

Political parties are not merely names people come up with on Election Day. Months earlier, party committees and their members play meaningful roles in recruiting, supporting, and, in some cases, formally designating candidates. In New York, candidates for certain party positions are elected through the primary process, and state party committees formally designate candidates for statewide office.

That means Christians who care about the direction of government should not think only about who they vote for in November. We should also consider who is helping shape the choices that make it to the ballot.

Perhaps you should become a county committee member.

Maybe you should help recruit someone you respect.

Maybe you should volunteer for a principled candidate in the primary.

Maybe the person who needs to run is you.

We often lament that good people will not run for public office. But good candidates do not simply appear. Someone encourages them. Someone recruits them. Someone supports them. Someone helps them navigate the process.

If we want better choices on Election Day, Christians cannot remain absent from the places where those choices take shape.

Christians Should Not Retreat

What concerns me most is when frustration with politics causes Christians to abandon the process altogether.

Government will continue making decisions whether Christians participate or not.

Elections will still determine who writes our laws.

School boards will continue to make decisions affecting children.

Legislatures will still debate abortion, assisted suicide, religious freedom, taxation, education, and parental rights.

Courts will still be shaped by the people elected to appoint judges.

Walking away does not free us from the consequences of not participating.

It simply removes our voice from the decision-making process.

Voting is not the entirety of Christian citizenship, and politics should never become our religion. Our ultimate hope is not found in Washington, Albany, or any political party.

Our hope is in Jesus Christ.

But recognizing that government cannot save us does not mean it is irrelevant.

We have been entrusted with extraordinary liberties, including the ability to help choose those who govern us. I believe stewardship requires us to use that opportunity thoughtfully, prayerfully, and responsibly.

So, study the candidates.

Look beyond campaign commercials.

Examine voting records and public statements.

Consider not merely personalities but policies and their consequences.

Get involved before Election Day.

Help shape the candidate pool.

And when qualified, principled people are needed, be willing to ask whether God may be calling you to serve.

Then vote.

You may leave the voting booth disappointed that the choices were not better.

I have.

But I refuse to confuse an imperfect choice with an immoral one.

I am not seeking a candidate to serve as my pastor, my theologian, or my Savior.

I am deciding who should hold governmental authority for the next number of years.

And when the choice is between imperfect alternatives, my goal remains the same:

Where my vote can restrain evil, protect even a single innocent life, preserve at least some liberty, and leave greater room for what is good, I believe I have a responsibility to use it.

I do not vote for the lesser of two evils.

In a fallen world, I vote to lessen evil.