Not that this matters. As presidential elections are determined through the electoral college, and as Connecticut will vote for Clinton as a state, my individual vote, even if I were to vote for Trump, McMullin, Stein, or some novelty write-in candidate, would count for nothing. Clinton will take Connecticut and it won't matter one way or another what I do.
Now as an Episcopalian in New England, it is understood that I would vote for Clinton, because.... Well, I guess because the Episcopal Church has its morality intertwined with the Democrats and has since the days of Nixon. [That sentence just cracked me up a little. We see ourselves as claiming the moral high ground so, of course, we'll vote for Clinton, the...ah...moral candidate. Oh, dear.] At a recent clergy gathering, my colleagues could speak of nothing save the abomination that is the Trump campaign. I mean, they literally could speak of nothing but that. Not only does this illustrate the ideological monolithic world-view of Episcopal Church leadership, there is no small amount of class snobbery involved, too. [When The Episcopal Church began to, even by implication, demand a politically synoptic view of our society by its membership, it began to wither. If I point this out to my ordained colleagues, the response is sometimes loud and dipped in hostility. It varies from "We should educate these people so they will believe as we do" to "Why would we want them?"]
As I have mentioned before, I regard this election as the choice between Scylla or Charybdis, so I have a certain objectivity about it all. Coupled with the fact that on Election Day I will be watching the sun rise over Sydney Harbour, I am about as remote as I can be from the sturm und drang that is this year's election season. [My only regret is that I won't be able to vote for my organist, who happens to be running for state senate.] So, I tend to see it as a socio-historical trend worthy of notice. Naturally, I'm not the only one.
Electing either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump cannot change that trajectory. Because each candidate represents constituencies hostile to republicanism, each in its own way, these individuals are not what this election is about. This election is about whether the Democratic Party, the ruling class’s enforcer, will impose its tastes more strongly and arbitrarily than ever, or whether constituencies opposed to that rule will get some ill-defined chance to strike back. Regardless of the election’s outcome, the republic established by America’s Founders is probably gone. But since the Democratic Party’s constituencies differ radically from their opponents’, and since the character of imperial governance depends inherently on the emperor, the election’s result will make a big difference in our lives...
The overriding question of 2016 has been how eager the American people are to reject the bipartisan class that has ruled this country contrary to its majority’s convictions. Turned out, eager enough to throw out the baby with the dirty bathwater. The ruling class’s united front in response to the 2008 financial crisis had ignited the Tea Party’s call for adherence to the Constitution, and led to elections that gave control of both houses of Congress to the Republican Party. But as Republicans became full partners in the ruling class’s headlong rush in what most considered disastrous directions, Americans lost faith in the Constitution’s power to restrain the wrecking of their way of life.
From the primary season’s outset, the Democratic Party’s candidates promised even more radical “transformations.” When, rarely, they have been asked what gives them the right to do such things they have acted as if the only answer were Nancy Pelosi’s reply to whether the Constitution allows the government to force us into Obamacare: “Are you kidding? Are you kidding?"
On the Republican side, 17 hopefuls promised much, without dealing with the primordial fact that, in today’s America, those in power basically do what they please. Executive orders, phone calls, and the right judge mean a lot more than laws. They even trump state referenda. Over the past half-century, presidents have ruled not by enforcing laws but increasingly through agencies that write their own rules, interpret them, and punish unaccountably—the administrative state. As for the Supreme Court, the American people have seen it invent rights where there were none—e.g., abortion—while trammeling ones that had been the republic’s spine, such as the free exercise of religion and freedom of speech. The Court taught Americans that the word “public” can mean “private” (Kelo v. City of New London), that “penalty” can mean “tax” (King v. Burwell), and that holding an opinion contrary to its own can only be due to an “irrational animus” (Obergefell v. Hodges).As tempting as it is to quote the article in its entirety, I would encourage reading the whole piece.