Voting for the Lesser of Two Evils
The concept of voting for the lesser of two evils is prevalent in American politics. This is the philosophy that when given two poor choices for elected office, the people vote for a candidate that they think will do the least amount of damage.
After years of supporting the candidate that always seemed to be a choice between the lesser of two evils, I have started to study this philosophy.
A few questions come to mind when thinking about the best way to cast your vote:
Is a vote for the right candidate, which may in the end, not be able to win, a wasted vote?
Or is a wasted vote one that is cast for someone that you do not believe in, and will not be the right leader for the country or state?
I have found that the ‘lesser of two evils’ philosophy is fundamentally flawed. When a voter chooses to vote for ‘evil’ it is still evil. Regardless of which of the two they vote for- they are still choosing a candidate that is inadequate for the job
When one of the options is considered the lesser or the greater evil, either choice will be to the detriment of the Country.
When we as citizens cast our vote for the lesser of two evils, what we are basically saying to the candidates is that we support them. The politicians know this, and the parties know this. They do not need to offer other alternatives because the majority will make the choice for the lesser evil, and they can then continue with business as usual.
The ultimate conclusion that I have reached is that when I am presented with two bad choices, I am not going to vote for the choice I think is “less bad”. Evil is evil, a bad choice is a bad choice. One might be slightly better than the other, but in the end they’re both going to do more harm than good. By following this school of thought – that there is a lesser evil – I would be giving into a false dichotomy.
A common response to this conclusion is that there is no such thing as a perfect candidate and therefore at the end of the day pragmatism should win out to idealism. Political pragmatism has its merit as long as decisions are always made from a fundamental set of core principles that are never compromised. Everyone must have a line that cannot be crossed. For example, if you believe that an elected official who supports/votes for authority outside that which is authorized in the Constitution should never be elected, then that is a line that cannot be crossed even in the name of pragmatism. Each voter needs to know where their line is before determining who they will or will not vote for.
Another common counter argument to not voting for the lesser of two evils is that you have to make a choice when given two poor options, because third party candidates are simply not viable. But as I began to study this philosophy I had a realization: The reality is if all the Americans that felt that they were choosing between two evils, refused to vote for the lesser evil choice, and instead voted for a third party, a third party would likely have a viable chance at winning the election.
With this in mind, in the future, I will encourage voters to break away from the mindset of voting for the lesser evil. I suspect this is the majority of Americans. Not only is this mindset a flawed way of thinking, it degrades our country and slows progress. If we ever want true change, voters need to wake up and stop voting for more of the same. We need to stop voting for the status quo!
By: Kristi Dunn
Loading ...
April 12th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
States rights! *
As far as Ross Perot is concerned, he was also great because we had an unpopular president in Bill Clinton (he got only 42-43% of the popular vote). A history textbook I once had whined about how awful it was that there was a lot of gridlock on capitol hill and that the poor, helpless states were forced to take initiative in governing themselves. OH HOW AWFUL! indeed
April 12th, 2010 at 3:22 pm
‘Vote for what you want, get what you want. Vote for the “lesser” of two evils, get evil.’
Ross Perot is the perfect example of this. He’s the reason the republican party was pretty cool from 1995 – 2000. Those bastards knew they needed the votes of people who voted for Ross Perot to win elections.
The concept of “pragmatism” itself is something that should be closer examined. Whenever we say “well normally under normal circumstances we wouldn’t normally do this, but THESE circumstances are an exception” you know the tyranny is coming. Whenever the “pragmatic choice” defies our principles, it is because there is something extremely important we don’t know. There are hundreds of examples such as there being no WMD’s or terrorists in Iraq, originally.
November 8th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
I read in two sources that Stalin only trusted one man in his entire life, Hitler. He constantly dismissed warnings by his own military intelligence that Germany was preparing an attack. He felt he had, with Hitler, finally knew someone who was of a mind as his. Once Hitler did attack, he was so discombobulated mentally that he couldn’t even issue any orders for several days.
October 28th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
“the argument is so regularly made that it defined evil down.”
I disagree. We have had the “evil vs evil” choice for the past 20 years. I define evil as those willing to violate the US Constitution and choose continual tyranny over freedom. The last time one of the 2 major parties had a presidential candidate who did not fit that description was 1984 and the re-election campaign of Ronald Reagan. He had his flaws but I would not classify him as the lesser of two evils. I would classify every candidate listed below as the lesser of 2 evils.
1. G.H.W. Bush vs Dukakis
2. G.H.W. Bush vs Clinton
3. Clinton vs Dole
4. Gore vs Bush
5. Bush vs Kerry
6. Obama vs McCain
“If the people respond in 2010 and 2012 in defense of their liberty, it could well be that the election of Obama could, ironically, be helpful to the cause of liberty. I doubt it though.”
It already has…
GW Bush was doing the same thing as Obama – running up enormous deficits, bailing out private industry, allowing the Fed to destroy our currency, implementing new socialist programs (Prescription Drugs, No Child Left behind), abusing the Constitution (The Patriot Act, Executive Orders, illegal wars).
Most Republicans were silent for the last 8 years. Now during the Obama presidency – conservatives are becoming engaged – they have been forced to “think” and “articulate” what it is they stand for and against. A President McCain would not be much different than Obama on the central issues listed above yet the “Party First” wing of the GOP would have been silent once again.
October 28th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
John,
If McCain were considering Lieberman, I’m sure he was also considering the reaction that his fellow republicans would have to him selecting a democrat as a running mate. Candidates in our party do need to realize, and I think that most do, that there is a line. To have picked Lieberman would have been a deliberate ‘up yours’ to the party base.
My comments on the evil v. evil being arrogant, immature, etc come from hearing in every cycle that that is the choice. It’s simply overstating the case to say it is. I understand that this particular discussion is addressing a theoretical line, but the argument is so regularly made that it defined evil down. I stand by my description. To argue against the evil v. evil logic is not to argue that sometimes the candidate closest to me isn’t flawed of even undesirable, just that choices need to be made. I’m not even suggesting that not voting for McCain was immature, etc, just that evil didn’t exactly apply to that candidacy and that if that were the reasoning, it would be immature. A succession of republican presidents wouldn’t necessarily be good for the party or the republic, if that succession were weak and unprincipled. I hope these high times for socialists is brief. If the people respond in 2010 and 2012 in defense of their liberty, it could well be that the election of Obama could, ironically, be helpful to the cause of liberty. I doubt it though.
October 24th, 2009 at 10:56 am
>>”That (Liberman) would have been very, very close to intolerable and may even have kept me from voting in that race, so don’t take my previous post as meaning that the republican party can nominate absolutely anyone and keep my support, at least in that particular race.”
Glad to hear that – kind of what I suspected…
So then will you also admit that sometimes the ‘lesser of two evils’ line of thought is NOT “aggrogant, overly self-righteous and immature”?
October 24th, 2009 at 12:54 am
John,
I haven’t had a ballot before me with an evil v. evil choice, but I’ve seen more than a few where my party nominated someone I’ve had serious differences of opinion and ideology with. My strategic voting argument was geared more toward executive branch races (as I assumed that the Stalin v. Hitler race would’nt be for dogcatcher). It is the executive races that I had in mind, mainly. Strategic voting can logically be employed on a much more ideological basis on legislative ones. Small majorities can be weak and can come to be defined by it’s weakest (i.e. liberal members when a republican majority) members. For this reason, a strategic voter interested in conservative, constitutional governance would be wise to support the most conservative candidates he can find in the most local races, and may even logically choose to see liberal republicans bumped from office, in a house race, that means start campaining immediately to win the seat back in just two years. In a strong republican district, the seat could easily be upgraded. A few instances of this can have the added benefit of scaring other republicans with liberal instincts to be more mindful during certain votes.
Your Lieberman scenario is interesting and I’d given that some thought. I’ll even say that I gamed that one out at the time and hadn’t come to a definitive conclusion on that. I’d have gone through the roof if McCain had pulled a stunt like that and was ticked to hear he was even considering it. That would have been very, very close to intolerable and may even have kept me from voting in that race, so don’t take my previous post as meaning that the republican party can nominate absolutely anyone and keep my support, at least in that particular race.
Tolerence of Rinoism has gotten the republican party absolutely nowhere, and party support of such people as Specter, Chafee and others has bitten us in the arse repeatedly and given us little to show for it. I would make a distinction between strategic votes for president and those for the senate and house. A president is one man, while a senator is one of 100. A strategic voter would be logical in giving each office different strategic weights. A liberal republican losing, it could be argued, could actually strenghten the republican party. The liberal republicans have ruined the brand. If a republican is going to be a greater asset to the democrats, why not let a real democrat get blamed for it and nominate a conservative the next time. This could be a reasonable strategy, and probably a good one. A strong, more principaled republican minority might stand a better chance of becoming a majority again. It would also stand a better chance of maintaining that majority.
Another theoretical I’m sure most of you have considered is the Rubio v. Crist race. Charlie Crist is of the RINO mold, we’ll all have to decide, if Crist is the nominee, if one more republican seat is worth someone who would be a natural ally of the Obama White House and a likely flipper on key issues. Would it be better to have an actual democrat in that seat, or an unreliable republican whose one vote would be equated by the Left as signalling bipartisanship all by himself?
October 23rd, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Nathan Jenks asks: “How do you define the difference between having principles and voting on issues? How does the constitution become a matter of “principle” and not simply an issue like abortion or socialized medicine?”
I wrote an article covering that very question…
http://www.rlcnef.org/liberty-not-a-left-right-issue/
October 23rd, 2009 at 2:40 pm
I would hope that the nation doesn’t devolve into promoting “biblical principles,” especially when you consider that Christians have multiple different interpretations of what the Bible says or means. I go by the NIV and I belong to no denomination. So my views on “biblical principles” would likely be different from someone else’s. But more to the point, I believe that Christ, and God, would want people to have the freedom that He gifted them with.
The problem with “biblical principles” is that it’s used as a crutch, an excuse to trample on freedoms. You personally don’t like the idea of two men or women finding love together? Well, interpret the Bible to say that such is forbidden and evil and we have to outlaw it based on your interpretation of the word of God. Aside from that not really working, it’s also overlooking such wonderful insight as to not judge your neighbors, and the idea that God will punish the sinners. In the case of crimes that hurt others, I believe in punishing the offenders. But if you’re talking about just two people who love each other, when real love is already hard enough to find? Where in the Bible does it decree that you have the right to tell them that they have no liberty to do that, and to punish them for it? Even assuming it’s a sin, God will handle the punishment. Or do you not believe in His ability to judge sinners? Is your judgment better than His?
It’s a silly notion. Better to base your principles on the core concept of “Do No Harm.” Let others be free. You are still promoting using government to take rights from the people.
To the subject at hand, I believe that you should expect a candidate to at least be reasonably close to your ideals. Otherwise, a vote for such a candidate is a wasted vote. A third party vote or a non-vote at that moment is not a wasted vote; that could only be defined as supporting someone whose positions run contrary to yours, thus giving your approval to something you actually disapprove of. I would rather let them know that I disapprove of candidates who hold liberal ideals or want to increase government. I don’t ever want them to believe I support it, otherwise we see it spiral further and further downward, a little at a time, as we watch Liberty die the death of a thousand cuts.
Only cowards allow themselves to be taken apart piece by piece until nothing is left. Those who seek to practice the freedom they say they believe in will fight back, doing whatever is necessary to regain the vitality of Liberty, and if they fail, then they can at least hold their heads high and known that her death was not due to their inaction.
October 23rd, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Kevin Posts: ‘No one is worthy of my vote’ isn’t the wisest course for someone interested in defending the Constitution.
I think you missed the point of the piece Kevin. The question is where do YOU draw the line? And then once the line is crossed – (the line that clearly indicates for YOU that you are indeed choosing between 2 “evils”) – should you choose the lesser?
I say those who do are NOT choosing the wisest course for someone interested in defending the Constitution.
I think groups like the RLC exist to influence people on where to draw that line. For most in the RLC it is not a difficult decision. For those in politics solely “to win elections” it can be an extremely difficult decision.
You may view my decision not to support John McCain in the 2008 election as aggrogant, overly self-righteous and immature. I view it as the most responsible decision I could have made given my knowledge of where our nation is and the direction it would go under a McCain administration.
(Yes, even relative to where it would go under an Obama administration)
I am curious where your line is – Given a ballot with Hitler and Stalin and then some obscure patriot like a Thomas Jefferson (who had no chance of winning) would your vote for TJ be aggrogant, overly self-righteous and immature?
Okay that was extreme…
How about if Joe Liberman switches to the GOP (As he considered doing in order to run with McCain in 2008) and somehow he was the 2012 GOP nominee against Obama – would you cast your vote for Joe?
Where is your line? – How bad (evil) would choice “A” and choice “B” have to be before you were able to say without arrogance, self-righteouness or inmaturity that I Kevin Hanley refuse to vote for the lesser of 2 evils.
You see I don’t think the argument here is over whether or not it is acceptable to not support the lesser of 2 evils – but rather how much “evil” is acceptable…
October 23rd, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Kevin,
I agree with you-
it this very argument that lead me to write this paragraph:
A common response to this conclusion is that there is no such thing as a perfect candidate and therefore at the end of the day pragmatism should win out to idealism. Political pragmatism has its merit as long as decisions are always made from a fundamental set of core principles that are never compromised. Everyone must have a line that cannot be crossed. For example, if you believe that an elected official who supports/votes for authority outside that which is authorized in the Constitution should never be elected, then that is a line that cannot be crossed even in the name of pragmatism. Each voter needs to know where their line is before determining who they will or will not vote for.
Working with candidates is certainly something we can do- helping candidates that are mostly right is also doable. But there has to be a line… That is more point…
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Kimberly-
I think you are unnecessarily blurring the line between the Bible containing a record of something (wickedness, debauchery, slavery, etc.), and supporting it. Just because something is recorded in the Bible does not mean it is supported by the Bible. Simply put, the Bible does not support slavery. So to answer your questions:
Q: “Would you support [slavery] just because it is in the Bible?
A: Absolutely not. While slavery is in the Bible, it is not supported by the Bible. In fact, it actually goes against biblical principals.
Q: “Or are you saying to pick and choose what parts of the Bible you will support?”
A: Again, absolutely not. The Bible is the infallible written word of God. One cannot simply pick and choose the parts of the Bible that they like and support those. Everything that the Bible supports (not simply contains), I support.
Q: “Would you enslave citizens if one candidate said they supported Biblical principles and part of their platform of converting all Americans to Christianity over a candidate that said they followed the Constitution instead? Where would your line be?”
A: Perhaps I am misreading this question, but I’m not quite understanding exactly what you’re asking. I’m not seeing the connection between enslaving citizens, biblical principals, and the conversion of America to Christianity. If you could clarify that would be great. Thanks!
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:47 pm
This ‘lesser of two evils’ line of thought is an aggrogant, overly self-righteous and immature one. ‘No one is worthy of my vote’ isn’t the wisest course for someone interested in defending the Constitution. It is rare to have a candidate who is in complete, or even near complete agreement with one individual voter, let alone, a winning plurality of them. I would even go so far as to say that such a candidate is imaginary.
Strategic voting is neccessary to the preservation of what liberty we have left. For those of us on the minimal goverment side of the equation to lie down and cede victory to the Left commit suicide in doing so. This is what third party voting is, MOST of the time.
I hate cliches, but this one is apt. Let’s not make the perfect the enemy of the good. A republican you agree with 80 percent of the time is your friend (generally). Exceptions can be made for the likes of Arlen Specter and others like him who are very dangerous with their ‘bi-partisan’ votes and behind-the-scenes manuevers.
Smart politics means trying to become an influential voice or faction withing a party. A party, by definition, is a coalition. I, for example, consider myself to be a Movement Conservative. At times, rare times, my faction is in the dominant positon. History is like that, it ebbs and flows. There are times when my party nominates squishy republicans. In the end I cast my vote for them because I feel that doing so is the better defense. There are times when creeping socialism is the best option available (a horrible and offensive option, no doubt). Witness our current galloping socialism. It could well turn out that a term of Obama will wake people up to the cause of Constitutional government, but it could well be the last nail in the coffin. I hope that we can not only slow the growing State, but reverse its grownth. I realize that many folks didn’t vote for McCain using the lesser of two evils line of logic (or illogic in my view). Not voting for McCain could work out to have saved our country if the people respond well in these times, or it could be the undoing of the American Experiment. My own positon was that we must first elect McCain, then we must stop him. Not an optimal, or even desirable choice, but the one in which liberty would be diminished the least. It was an adult vote because adults make choices. Mine view was that Obama was a five alarm radical to be stopped and that there was only one person on the ballot who could help me achieve that objective.
The lesser of two evils line is hyperbolic, self-servingly arrogant and immature. Grown ups make decisions. Whining about the choices you have isn’t leadership, and it isn’t in the service of defending liberty. Not voting, a positive act, is chosing the leaders that others choose for you. Consider it a protest if you will, but it is a positive act. Those who sat out, tacitly approved of Obama’s election. Those who vote third party, do so knowing that the ultimate choice of who serves us is going to be made by others. Grown ups make choices. Period. Self-righteousness will not stop the avalanche of socialism that is burying us now. While you may have important and strong disagreements with the next republican nominee, we can only endure so much more of Obama and the democrats without losing the franchise.
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:25 pm
“How do you define the difference between having principles and voting on issues? How does the constitution become a matter of “principle” and not simply an issue like abortion or socialized medicine?”
The Constitution is a filter. Every issue can be put through it which will assure the greatest freedom for all citizens. The Constitution is not there to limit people, it exists to limit the power of government. A philosophy sadly forgotten in current times. Today, some groups try use it to limit people’s individual freedoms. There is not a single issue that cannot be answered by the Constitution. The discrepancy comes into play when you start viewing it from either the government side (let’s force people to do this or that) or the individual’s side (allowing people the greatest freedom with the least government intrusion into their lives).
So the difference becomes clear when one votes according to Constitutional principles. The issues become secondary as the Constitution can address them. But, you do raise a good point since today we focus on a handful of issues and try to filter those issues through public opinion rather than through the Constitution. This is an improper approach to government and ultimately takes freedom away from people while continuing to grant the government more power.
-Kimberly
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:09 pm
No no no we are not moving on to another topic unless my question gets an answer. I shall remind you of it…
How do you define the difference between having principles and voting on issues? How does the constitution become a matter of “principle” and not simply an issue like abortion or socialized medicine?
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:01 pm
There are many good biblical principles, but there are a great number of stories in the bible about wickedness, debauchery, slavery, and other things we would find abhorrent. The bible gives support to slavery – a most anti-freedom, abhorrent institution. Would you support that just because it is in the Bible? Or are you saying to pick and choose what parts of the Bible you will support?
Would you enslave citizens because one candidate said they supported Biblical principles which included a platform of converting all Americans to Christianity over a candidate that said they followed the Constitution instead? Where would your line be?
“Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.” – Thomas Jefferson (Notes on Virginia, 1782; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 363.)
-Kimberly
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:26 am
Kristi-
I think for me, the difference would be some of the issues that Nathan brought up – specifically those which violate biblical principals (i.e. abortion). If all three candidates were in opposition to biblical principals on such matters, I would refrain from voting. I could not, in good conscience, vote for a person who is openly supportive of things which the Bible explicitly condemns. However, if there were at least one candidate who held to biblical principals on biblical issues I would vote for that candidate.
October 23rd, 2009 at 10:48 am
Is it not true that most people who vote really only vote for a few of their favorite platforms be it abortion or the right to bear arms or socialized medicine, etc? How do you define the difference between having principles and voting on issues? How does the constitution become a matter of “principle” and not simply an issue like abortion or socialized medicine?
October 23rd, 2009 at 10:24 am
Brandon(Brother in Law!),
In my opinion, I would say that if there is not a man (or woman) of principle in the race that refraining from voting is an option.
That said, I also think that when the people that stand up for these principles see that there is not a good candidate in the race that they should attempt to find a candidate to run that they can believe in…
What are your thoughts on that answer?
~ Kristi
October 23rd, 2009 at 10:16 am
What happens if the third party representative is nothing more than a third manifestation of evil? In this situation, should one choose the lesser of THREE evils? Or, is it ever o.k. to refrain from voting in order to avoid choosing evil?
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:01 pm
The thing about evil is that the people must get their fill of it before they are motivated to fight for liberty.