Ricardo Davis
November 2004

As the 2004 election cycle got underway, a number of Christian groups created web sites to help register like-minded citizens to vote, inform them on the issues and candidates, and encourage them to actually vote. Particularly encouraging this election cycle has been the frank discussion of current events in light of Biblical principle by church leaders -- in part due to the efforts of such civic-minded web sites. The iVoteValues.com effort, led by the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and later endorsed by Focus on the Family and other pro-family organizations concerned with reversing the trend of voter apathy among evangelicals, was representative of these web sites. The common denominator in all these web sites was that they had a blind spot – they say nothing of alternative candidates and party positions even if these candidates or positions were more in line with their values.

The iVoteValues.com initiative, which included a voter education truck rig that has toured the nation, raised the bar in Christian activism. The site proposed that faithful Christians must seek to apply biblical standards of righteousness and justice when they go to the polls. The material on the site clearly communicated that a Christian’s duty was not fulfilled if they allow the votes they cast to be driven by personal political party preference, family history or secondary issues. IVoteValues.com left no doubt that there are fundamental issues of morality and justice that must be primary when making decisions at the ballot box.

The lack of information on all the qualified candidates for the races they highlight was a blind spot on this and other web sites. For if the principles and values are primary, why are only Republicans and Democrats discussed on the site? For the Christian community to be an effective force in politics it must be a fully informed electorate. I would expect every Presidential candidate who was on the ballot in enough states to win profiled on iVoteValues.com -- especially if the candidate supported the values the site promotes.

Most voters were not aware of Michael Peroutka, presidential candidate of the Constitution Party. Mr. Peroutka, a practicing attorney and co-founder of the educational organization Institute on the Constitution, proclaimed a platform that sought to honor God, defend the family, and restore our republic. Any Christian organization that wanted to educate the voters from a primary framework of Biblical morality and justice would be amiss in omitting Mr. Peroutka. But iVoteValues.com said nothing of Peroutka’s candidacy, nor did it include the Constitution Party’s platform in their party platform comparison guide.

The average person iVoteValues.com is trying to reach didn't know about Peroutka. The same can't be said for Dr. Richard Land, Dr. James Dobson, and many other Christian leaders involved in iVoteValues.com who have been in the fight addressing current issues from Biblical principles. Was it ethical for organizations promoting this and similar web sites to keep their supporters "in the dark" regarding all the alternatives in the election? Was this omission a result of partisan political strategy (“only Democrats and Republicans win elections”) or because Perouka’s policies and platform do not agree with the sites’ views of morality and justice? I suspect the former. These web sites’ “blind spots” were a disservice to their readers and threatened their long-term credibility.

An example of full disclosure was WBUR's "Vote By Issue Quiz" at http://www.votebyissue.org/wbur/. Readers obtained an overview of all of the candidate's positions. In taking the quiz you learned about the candidates through their platforms, not their personalities. We must encourage more sites like this, compare the candidates, then vote!