Tomorrow is the election. You may have already voted, like tens of millions of Americans. But if you haven’t voted, I encourage you to vote because your vote might make the difference.

In the past, many groups circulated articles and e-mails talking about the importance of one vote. In the last few elections, we haven’t needed these reminders because the some of the elections in the last few decades provide numerous illustrations.

For example, George W. Bush won the 2000 Presidential election by the slimmest of margins. His election essentially was decided by 537 votes in Florida. He won re-election in the 2004 Presidential election again by very slim margins. He won the 20 electoral votes from the state of Ohio with 50.8 percent of the vote.

Over the years, I have collected some stories of elections that resulted in a tie. You can’t get any closer than that. Consider the story of Penny Pullen in Illinois. A number of years ago, it appeared she lost a primary election by 31 votes. However, there were many irregularities in the ballots. Judge Francis Barth concluded that the election was a draw and ordered a coin toss. She lost the election on a coin toss. Later she found out that many members of her church hadn’t bothered to vote in the primary election and could have made a crucial difference.

In 2006, there was an even more interesting story of an electoral tie. William Crawford and Jean Miller both received an identical number of votes in an election in Ohio. William Crawford was especially upset. You might ask why. Well, it turned out that his two sons failed to vote that day. His son Jim lives across the street from him. His other son Andy is a college student who lives at home with him. Neither took the time to go to the polls.

Would the outcome of these elections be different if a few people in Penny Pullen’s church had bothered to vote or if either of William Crawford’s sons had bothered to vote? Does one vote count? Just ask Penny Pullen or William Crawford.

In a recent essay, Ravi Zacharias devoted a few paragraphs to the importance of moral reasoning and an ethical foundation. He reminded us of the insight that can be found in the book, The Roads to Modernity. Gertrude Himmelfarb makes a very powerful statement in the book. She argues that the difference between the European Enlightenment and the English and American Enlightenment was really one word.

For the French philosophers, reasoning was supreme. For the English and American philosophers, moral reasoning was supreme. Edmund Burke makes a similar observation in his commentary. Ethics, morality, and moral reasoning were important not only in that period of time but also were important in the framing of our government.

Ravi Zacharias then goes on to tell of a dinner in a European country he attended. One of the heads of a prestigious school of business proudly stated that a class in ethics was not part of their curriculum. “As the topic of conversation moved from curriculum to impact, several moments later he said that in the last national election three of the candidates were graduates of their school. “What happened,” I asked? “One lost because he was a womanizer, the second lost because he was an alcoholic, and the third, because he was corrupt” was his answer.” Ravi Zacharias then said that his wife whispered in his ear, “Maybe it’s time they started teaching ethics.”

Yes, it probably time they began thinking about teaching ethics in that school and in the major universities of Europe and America. The problem, of course, is they can’t even agree about the moral foundation necessary to effectively discuss ethics. Once you reject a belief in biblical absolutes, any ethical conversation quickly devolves into a discussion about personal moral preferences. This is often what we are left with in this world of postmodern personal truth and relative ethics.

Yesterday I talked about the number of narrow (5-4) Supreme Court cases. Many have been using them to illustrate how important the presidential election will be to the future of America. Today, let’s look at a First Amendment case, a Second Amendment case, and a case involving restrictions on abortion.

The first case involved a question about the legality of Mojave Memorial Cross. This cross was placed on Sunrise Rock in the Mojave Desert and was put up by the VFW foundation in 1934 to honor World War I dead. For some time, a bag was placed over the cross until the court could rule on the case. The Supreme Court ruled by a vote 5-4 in 2010 that the cross could stay but also sent the case back to a lower court.

Two cases involving the Second Amendment are the Heller case (decided in 2008) and the McDonald case (decided in 2010). In the Heller case, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes (such as self-defense within the home). Also, it addressed similar Second Amendment issues in the McDonald case out of Chicago that was also a 5-4 decision.

The Supreme Court also ruled in 2007 on the issue of partial birth abortion. President Bush signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act that was then found unconstitutional in a few U.S. District Courts. The Supreme Court upheld the legislation by a vote of 5-4.

Over the last two days, I have talked about a number of major court cases that were all decided by a 5-4 vote. Perhaps you can now see why so many people feel the presidential election is so important. The next president will be able to shape future rulings on a variety of issues through the people that he or she put on the Supreme Court.

During this campaign season, many have been talking about the narrow (5-4) Supreme Court cases to illustrate how important the presidential election will be to the future of America. Let’s first look at some of the key First Amendment cases.

The Hobby Lobby case was decided by the high court in 2014. The Department of
Health and Human Services under the Affordable Care Act required employers to cover certain contraceptives (including abortifacients) for their female employees. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby by a 5-4 vote.

The Little Sisters of the Poor case in 2016 was similar to the Hobby Lobby case but raised the question of whether religious institutions (other than churches that are already exempt) should be exempt from the HHS contraceptive mandate. The 4-4 Supreme Court vote essentially returned them to their respective courts of appeals for reconsideration.

The Citizens United case in 2010 challenged the Campaign Reform Act that prevented electioneering communication within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions. A lower court ruled that Citizens United could not advertise a movie critical of Hillary Clinton and could not show it on television within 30 days of the Democratic primaries. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that freedom of speech prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation.

These three cases were all decided by a narrow margin. Tomorrow we will look at a few more 5-4 decisions from the Supreme Court. As you can see from these cases, the next president will be able to shape future court rulings on a variety of issues through the people that he or she put on the Supreme Court. The next justices that the next president puts on the court will have a profound impact on America.

During the election of 1994, leaders in the Republican Party put together something they called the Contract with America. It was written by Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey and included many policy ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation. It included a list of eight reforms the Republicans promised to enact, and ten bills they promised to introduce and vote on if they were made the majority following the election. They were successful. Republicans won 54 House seats and 9 Senate seats.

Last week Donald Trump released his Contract with the American Voter. He has six measures to clean up corruption and special interest. This includes, term limits, a hiring freeze, and a 5-year-ban on government officials becoming lobbyists.

It also has seven actions to protect American workers. The list includes withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an attempt to renegotiate NAFTA, and directing the Secretary of the Treasury to label China a currency manipulator.

Donald Trump also promised on his first day in office to take a number of actions to restore security and the constitutional rule of law. They include comments he has made in the past about suspending immigration from terror-prone regions until vetting can be done safely. He would also cancel funding to Sanctuary Cities. Finally, he puts forth ten bills that would be introduced into Congress that would address issues like middle class tax relief, Obamacare, and illegal immigration.

The question that went through my mind as I read through all of these proposals was the same question I was asked on air when I explained what was in the Contract with the American Voter. Callers wanted to know why he didn’t bring this up in the debate. Good question. Wouldn’t you have rather hear a discussion about these proposals than all the back and forth about the two candidate’s character? Talking about these issues now a week before the election may be too late.