NT
Yes. (the ballots are anonymous, so there isn’t really any way to stop him if it was against the rules, but in any case, there isn’t any such rule)
There’s currently no rule against cardinals voting for themselves (since it’s a secret ballot). But in the past (from 1621-1495), the method of voting used was designed to prevent voting for yourself.
From Wikipedia:
So there is now a secret ballot, but a 2/3 majority is required. So you can vote for yourself and perhaps be the vote that tips it over the 2/3 cutoff, but that means that nearly 2/3 of the cardinals voted for you anyways.
Moved MPSIMS --> GQ.
Fascinating. Thanks for that explanation.
Another question:
If you were a cardinal, would you cast the deciding vote for yourself as Pope? I would.
On re-reading my post, I realized I made a huge typo. Cardinals were prevented from voting for themselves from 1621-1945 (not 1495).
I’m an atheist, so it’s hard to say what I would do if I were a cardinal. I guess hypothetically there’s no reason not to vote for yourself if there’s no rule against doing so. And I guess if you truly feel that God is calling you to be pope (and that you already have to have nearly 2/3 of the cardinals voting for you), then I don’t see the harm in voting for yourself. However, I also feel that (theoretically and ideally), cardinals should be humble and maybe voting for yourself isn’t in line with that. IRL, I think that’s it’s more likely than not that a cardinal would vote for themselves if they think they’re a real contender at getting the top spot.
Being an atheist is not an absolute bar to the papacy.
Can the cardinals give an empty vote or do they need to vote for someone? If I was electing the next pope I’d probably do one of two things:
-
Throw my support behind my favourite candidate with a decent chance early. If they win, then my best pick is the pope and may be grateful for the early support. OTOH, if they lose the winner might resent me for opposing them from the start.
-
Keep my options open. Vote for myself or empty as a sign that my vote is still up for grabs, which should be pretty obvious if I only get one vote.
Well, I think you also need to be a Catholic (even if you’re a closet atheist). And you need to be male. I strike out on both counts. 
One of the American cardinals explained that although you can vote for yourself you can not put yourself forward as a candidate. There is no campaigning for yourself of election speeches.
Well, since it’s a secret ballot, how would the pope-elect now that you have or have not been voting for him?
He could ask. Would you, a cardinal, lie to the Pope?
There’s no real way to know for sure of course. There’s always the possibility of promising to vote one way and actually voting another. I would be very surprised if there aren’t a lot of unofficial negotiations and deals struck in the process of electing the pope, though.
I recall reading a book about the JPI and JPII conclaves, in the year of 3 popes. Obviously people say and do things that they think enhance their chances; sort of like the old “pep talk in the locker room” from that annoying guy who uses lines like “we’re all pulling together to win, let’s go!”. But, too obvious campaigning would turn off more than it turns on. After all, a number of those guys are seriously dedicated and won’t tolerate “clique deals” that stink of political machinations. The number of Rome-based cardinals has slowly diminished, (IIRC early in the 1900’s half were Italian?) and the ones out in the real world don’t want a church percieved as introverted and self-serving.
According to the usually “anonymous sources” several candidates got a decent number, and over the ballots a choice would climb, not reach 2/3, then fade as people realized “I guess it’s not him”. Cardinal Wojtyla for example, started to get a few votes, and as people abandoned the early favourites, they began voting for him in larger numbers. He said something like, “oh, no, not me” but the cardianls eventualy decided he was the one.
Nobody’s going to twist arms and make deals with 100+ cardinals. After all, what can you offer them all?
I imagine it happens on a daily basis. They are only human.
Where the process gets political is doubtless not with candidates voting and campaigning for themselves, but with their friends campaigning on their behalf.
The successful candidate will have no way of knowing who voted for them. But they probably do have a good idea as to who has been going around suggesting their name to other cardinals. And this needn’t be overt. The smarter operators are presumably perfectly capable of discussing the matter in what appear to be general terms while leaving everyone in no doubt as to their preferred choice. It would be this, not the unknowable votes, that the new Pope might later want to reward.
And why not? Those cardinals who can sway a conclave in this way, whether because they are astute, experienced, respected, ambitious or just really devious, probably are those to whom the Pope should be giving the best jobs.
When was the last time the newly elected Pope was not previously a Cardinal?
Was it Fr Andrew Greeley’s book, “The Making of the Popes 1978”?
It’s a very good book on both conclaves, with detailed tallies of how the balloting went. It really does a good job of explaining the subtle campaigning and machinations that go into a papal election - highly recommended, if you can find a copy.
Voting for oneself can have a embarrassing result, even with secret balloting.
If in the early rounds of voting a huge majority of cardinals got one vote, it would be obvious they were voting for themselves.
If in the last round of voting the 2/3 majority was surpassed with 100% of the votes going to ‘the winner,’ then everyone would know you voted for yourself.
Awkwarrrrrrrd.
Last pope not a cardinal was Pope Urban VI in 1378.
Last pope not a priest was Pope Leo X in 1513.