There's no such thing as a "non viable" candidate, unless you listen to the media, which uses psychology and fake polls to make people think that "so and so" doesn't have a chance.  If people voted for the best candidate instead of who has the best chance of winning, America would be better off.  Yes, if you vote for the best candidate, regardless of polls, you fulfill your obligation.
.
Another factor which people forget:  Typically, only the major races (president, congress, governor) are covered by the media with much effort.  Certainly these races are important, but there's usually only 2 candidates which have a chance here.  The major opportunity to change america is at the local/state level.  The races where no one knows the candidates too well and they are often forgotten (i.e. a state's secretary of state, or state auditor, state senate).  If people concentrated as much on these races as they do on the governor or US Congress, each state could be changed for the better, very rapidly.  This would have an effect on DC, as state's Attorney Generals and Governors are affected by the state congress and can affect the US Congress through legislation and lawsuits.
.
My whole point is that if you get into this mindset where you only have to vote when a candidate "has a chance", or you don't have to vote if there's no good candidate, then you are probably going to avoid voting/caring on the local races, since you don't vote/care about the bigger ones.  Not following the local/state races is a major lost opportunity that America's middle class has squandered for the last 50 years.

Yes, i understand this notion of trying to force the two-party system and marginalizing the other candidates.

I'm just trying to understand your reasoning.  Let's say I write in my uncle for President.  Clearly non-viable.  ZERO chance of winning.  He didn't even declare as a candidate.  Would that be a sin, in your opinion, or would it satisfy the obligation of voting?

This is tricky.  If someone says there's a grave obligation to vote, why is that?  If it's merely a theoretical moral principle, then I satisfied my obligation by voting for my uncle.  But if it's wrong not to vote because that would help enabled a bad candidate to win who might do grave harm to the nation and to the laws of God, then it would be just as wrong for me to vote for my uncle as it would be not to vote.

See how the theoretical and the practical are hopelessly muddled when it comes to the "theology of voting"?

In any case, Trump did appoint a less-evil Supreme Court Justice than Hillary would have, and may have the chance again if the death of Ginsburg ever sees the light of day.

Exactly.  There are so many issues at play.  So many ways that a candidate can affect good laws indirectly.  I did not vote Trump, mainly because I thought he was a neo-con.  2 years in, I'd say I was partially wrong.  He's less of a neo-con than Bush Jr, by far, and I voted for Bush Jr. 

Would that be a sin, in your opinion, (to vote for a random person) or would it satisfy the obligation of voting?

I think it depends on the circuмstances.  Do I think that every person has an obligation to vote?  Yes.  Is that obligation always a GRAVE obligation?  No, it depends on the circuмstances.  In my state, Trump was going to win, so I voted for a 3rd party candidate, on principle.  If it was a close race, i'd have voted for him, since it was a vote against Hillary, who was gravely evil.

See, here's the thing.  You never directly addressed my question.

If it's OK to vote for "my uncle" in an election, then it should be equally OK not to vote at all ... since voting for my uncle will have no more effect on the outcome than not voting at all.

So what's the principle requiring me to vote?  Do you get the problem here?

To me, if voting for my uncle is permitted, then not voting at all is also permitted ... because it has the same effect, at the end of the day.

If voting had any meaning the Jєωs wouldn't allow it.

ISIS used US missile strike to launch new offensive near Palmyra, Homs governor tells RT

https://www.rt.com/news/383826-isis-used-us-airstrike-syria/


ISIL takes advantage of US attack on government to storm western Palmyra

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isil-takes-advantage-us-attack-government-storm-western-palmyra/


Maillot Jaune

1. Even if we are to trust those questionable sources, they only had a couple sentences each! And all they said was an offensive was launched by ISIS. Guess what? They weren't successful -- at all! It was a TRAP. It was a trap to draw them out and get them excited and over-confident.

It's been a couple years, but I remember that now. ISIS was watching the MSM like everyone else and they fell for it. They really thought Trump was entering the war on their side (against the Syrian gov't) -- but they were fooled. Did they gain a single foot of territory? No, actually they lost ground and had their butts handed to them. The proof is in the pudding, boys and girls.

2. We don't know what the "Syrian base" in question actually was.

3. The facts speak for themselves. This news was 2 years ago. Did ISIS succeed with any of its new "offensives"? Did Trump follow up with ANY military activity whatsoever afterwards? Is the United States a very powerful country, among other countries in the world? Does the USA have the military power to do more than fire 59 missiles at Syria?

4. If the USA was still on the side of the "rebels"/ISIS/ISIL/Islamic State, they would still be in control of Syria like they were before Trump showed up. The actions of the last 2 years speak for themselves.

5. I never said there wasn't any confusion, noise, or fog of war. What I'm saying is that you have to look at the DEEDS and ACTIONS, not at the individual tweets or news stories. You have to use your brain and string it all together.

If voting had any meaning the Jєωs wouldn't allow it.

No, other leaders wouldn't. Remember, the Constitution only limited presidents to two terms in the 1950s after FDR. If a president wanted to make himself dictator for life, he could've

Yes, but today nearly all supposed Christians are either heretics or apostates

America is not a catholic country and never has been.  The best we can hope for is a country which supports the natural law and this is possible, even if God uses protestants.

From the Moral Obligation of Voting, 1952.

Link:  http://www.catholicapologetics.info/morality/general/voting.htm#OBLIGATION

4. CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH ONE MAY VOTE FOR UNWORTHY CANDIDATES

By the term “unworthy candidates” we do not necessarily mean men whose private lives are morally reprehensible, but those who, if elected, would cause grave injury to the state or to religion, as for example, men of vacillating temperament who fear to make decisions.

In practical life it is often difficult to determine whether a particular candidate is worthy or unworthy because there seems little upon which to judge accurately, especially in local or municipal elections. It does not follow that every Catholic is necessarily the best man for office and that every non-Catholic is not; nor that every Catholic will promote the interests of the common good of the state of religion and that the non-Catholic will not. Even if a man is of sterling character in his private life, he will not by necessity prove competent in public office. Sometimes too, as St. Robert Bellarmine pointed out in his De laicis [175] the so-called evil rulers may do more good than harm, as Saul and Solomon. It is better for the state to have an evil ruler than no ruler at all, for where there is no ruler the state cannot long endure, as the wise Solomon observed: “Where there is no governor the people will fail.” [176]

When unworthy candidates are running for office, ordinarily a citizen does not have the obligation for voting for them. Indeed he would not be permitted to vote for them if there were any reasonable way of electing a worthy man, either by organizing another party, by using the “write in” method, or by any other lawful means. On the other hand, it would be licit to vote for an unworthy man if the choice were only between or among unworthy candidates; and it might even be necessary to vote for such an unworthy candidate (if the voting were limited to such personalities) and even for one who would render harm to the Church, provided the election were only a choice from among unworthy men and the voting for the less unworthy would prevent the election of another more unworthy.

Since the act of voting is good, it is lawful to vote for an unworthy candidate provided there is a proportionate cause for the evil done and the good lost. This consideration looks simply to the act of voting itself and does not consider other factors such as scandal, encouragement of unworthy men, and a bad influence upon other voters. Obviously, if any or all of these other factors are present, the excusing cause for voting for an unworthy candidate would have to be proportionally graver. [177]

Lehmkuhl says that it is never allowed to vote absolutely for a man of evil principles, but hypothetice it may be allowed if the election is between men of evil principles. Then one should vote for him who is less evil (1) if he makes known the reason for his choice; (2) if the election is necessary to exclude a worse candidate. [178] The same author in his Casus conscientiae lists the general argument, adding that there must be no approbation of the unworthy man or of his programme. [179]

Tanquerey declares that if the vote is between a socialist and another liberal, the citizen may vote for the less evil, but he should publicly declare why he is voting this way, to avoid any scandalum pusillorum. [180] Prümmer says the same. [181] Actually, however, in the United States and in other countries where the balloting is secret, there seems to be no need of declaring one’s manner of voting.

Several authors including Ubach, [181a] Merkelbach, [182] Iorio, [183] Piscetta-Gennaro, [184] and Sabetti-Barrett [185] allow for material cooperation in the election of an unworthy candidate when there are two unworthy men running for office. Ubach adds this point: (1) There must be no cooperation in the evil which the man brings upon society after assuming office; (2) The voting must not be taken as an approval of the candidate or of his unworthiness. Merkelbach asserts that such cooperation may be licit per accidens if there is no hope that good men will be elected without voting for the bad ones in the same election.

As a practical point it may be remarked that at times a citizen may have to vote for an unworthy man in order to vote for a worthy one, e.g., when people have to vote a straight party ticket, at least in a primary election when the “split ticket” is not permitted. However the good to be gained would have to outweigh the evil to be avoided, or at least be equal to it.

In his Casus Genicot, [186] sets up a case of an election between a liberal and a Communist. To avoid scandal the citizen should give reasons for voting for the liberal. One does not support the evil candidate but simply applies the principle of double effect. This author also says that a person may use a mental reservation in promising to vote for an unworthy man.

Cardinal Amette, Archbishop of Paris, implies the liceity of voting for an unworthy candidate when he writes of voting for a less worthy one. “It would be lawful to cast them,” he writes,” for candidates who though not giving complete satisfaction to all our legitimate demands, would lead us to expect from them a line of conduct useful to the country, rather than to keep your votes for those whose program would indeed be more perfect, but whose almost certain defeat might open the door to the enemies of religion and of the social order.” [187]

Thus we may say that it is permitted to vote for unworthy candidates (that is, give material cooperation) if these are the only type of men on the ballot lists; in order to exclude the more unworthy; in order to secure the election of one who is somewhat unworthy instead of voting for a good man whose defeat is certain; and when the list is mixed containing both worthy and unworthy men, so that a citizen can vote for the former only by voting for the latter at the same time.