The Evils of Lesser Evil Voting
Published June 27, 2007
Condemn American progressives for voting enthusiastically for Democrats and the inevitable response is something like "just imagine how much worse voting for Republicans would be." Similarly, many true conservatives and Libertarians see voting for Republicans as a necessary evil. With many progressives regretting giving Democrats a majority in Congress and many conservatives regretting putting George W. Bush in the White House, it is timely to refute lesser evil logic.
Inevitably, lesser evil voters face personal disappointment and some shame. Politicians that receive lesser evil votes do not perform according to the values and principles that the lesser evil voter holds dear. These voters must accept responsibility for putting ineffective, dishonest and corrupt politicians in office. Though they may be lesser evils, they remain evils.
All too often lesser evil voters avoid shame and regret and prevent painful cognitive dissonance by deluding themselves that the politician they helped put in office is really not so bad after all. Corrosive lesser evil voting erodes one's principles as pragmatism replaces idealism. This makes the next cycle of lesser evil voting easier.
Lesser evil voting helps stabilize America's two-party duopoly that greatly restricts true political competition. Third party and independent candidates - and minor Democratic and Republican candidates in primaries - are defeated by massive numbers of lesser evil voters. Despite authentically having the political goals that mesh with many voters on the left or right, these minor "best" candidates fall victim to lesser evil voting. Lesser evil voters are addicted to a self-fulfilling prophesy. They think "If I vote for a minor candidate they will lose anyway." They ensure this outcome though their lesser evil voting. The truly wasted vote is the unprincipled lesser evil vote.
Effective representative democracy requires politically engaged citizens that vote. Lesser-evil voters support the current two-party system with its terribly low voter turnout and chronic dishonesty and corruption. Lesser evil voters help put into office disappointing politicians, not the best people that would restore American democracy and show more citizens that voting is valuable. Lesser evil voters demonstrate the validity of turned-off citizens' view that it really does not matter which major party wins office.
Politicians knowingly market themselves to lesser evil voters by constructing phony sales pitches, especially to certain audiences outside of their more certain base constituents. Democrats make themselves look more progressive than they really are, and Republicans make themselves look more conservative than they really are. Lesser evil voters are phony, and they produce a phony political system. Lesser evil voters contribute mightily to the travesty of our political system that no sane person respects and has confidence in.
- The Evils of Lesser Evil Voting
- Published: June 27, 2007
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Politics
- Filed Under: Politics: Elections and Candidates, Politics: Government, Politics: Law and Rights, Politics: Policy, Politics: U.S.
- Writer: Joel S. Hirschhorn
- Joel S. Hirschhorn's BC Writer page
- Joel S. Hirschhorn's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Lesser evil voting is caused by our vote-for-only-one Plurality Voting system. People in Florida 2000 who voted for Nader but preferred Gore over Bush were "punished" by getting Bush.
A simple change to the voting rules would make it possible for voters to vote for their favorite candidate without fear that doing so would cause their least-preferred candidate to win. Just change the instructions to "vote for one OR MORE", and Count All the Votes! With these rules in Florida 2000, voters could have voted for Nader AND Gore, and Gore would likely have won by tens of thousands of votes.
This rule change is being proposed for Colorado elections in 2008.
Existing voting machines can handle this voting rule, because "vote for two," "vote for three," etc. elections are fairly commonplace for multiple at-large seats on city councils.
A common objection is that "vote for one or more" violates the principle of "one person, one vote." Actually, that principle was first stated in the 1960's in connection with civil rights legislation. It has nothing to do with how many candidates a voter may vote for on one ballot. Rather, it means that state legislators and US congress members should represent roughly equal numbers of people.
"Vote for one or more" doesn't give some voters more power than others. Everyone casts one ballot. There will be only one winner. Votes cast for non-winners are moot - they neither help nor hurt the winner. However, minor candidates should get much better vote returns, because voters have no reason NOT to vote for minor candidates if they like them better than the frontrunners.
I strongly agree with Jan's point. Often an honest assessment of the election is that there are two front runners and one of them is the 'lesser evil' to the voter. It is in the voters interest to vote for that lesser evil to prevent the worse result of their 'greater evil' winning. But that should be no reason that they cannot ALSO vote for everyone they like better!
Joel,
Is this not just a glass is half full/empty situation?
Voting for the lesser of two evils could be looked at as voting for the better candidate of those that you think will win.
The truth is that most third party candidates tend to be one trick ponies. They have one main message and seem to formulate responses to all of the other issues in order to seem qualified.
I think the real problem is not lesser of two voting but an uninformed voting population. Because we tend to vote on sound bites, we ignore people of substance. Ever so often we do end up with someone who is substantive like BushI (who rode in on Regan's 8yr flag waving stint) and Clinton (who had glitz and marrow) but the trend is that we go for the guy with the most stimulating slogans.
Just a thought.
Montana For Obama!
- MCH
I don't think Jan's idea is necessarily the best solution. In Australia, preferential voting has not eliminated lesser evil voting, though it has empowered more people to vote for smaller parties.
What you really need are systems for greater public participation in decisions. That way you don't have to worry as much about who you elect.
It is impossible to do justice to such a complex subject in a paragraph or two. However I will throw out a few things. It seems to me that we would all benefit from a thorough examination of the basic political questions undertaken at the most fundamental level possible. To start at the source, the assumptions underlying poltical liberalism from Locke to LaFolette are not unimpeachable. For centuries, European civilization has been in a trajectory taking the mind away from God and the Universal and toward the individual human person and the Particular. Liberalism, while a major advance in that direction as compared to its predecessors, still harbors many features of the old, Universalist way of thinking. There is much in the "underside" of political liberalism which encourages, shall we say, normativity, all its pronouncements on the subject of individual freedom notwithstanding. Liberalism, historically, is fundamentally a religious category; all types who fail to correspond to the model (in this case, Protestant, hard-working-types, sometimes called homo economicus) are marginalized. The further they deviate from the model the more they are marginalized. No modification of the basic system that has managed to occur in the three centuries subsequent to its inception has altered the basic paradigm inherent in the model. To attempt to reform such a basically confused system at this late date in its lifespan and in our civilization in general is, it seems to me, strongly contraindicated. That's enough of a chunk to consider for now.
why settle for a lesser Evil?
and i have always found that when i have no one i would like to really vote for, there is always someone that i want to vote against!
i don't feel bad about that...i DO completely agree that more political Parties who stood up for what they think is Important and thus forcing a broader consensus for passed Legislation would be a good thing...until then, i register as an Independent and make what i think are the best Choices possible to fulfill my civic Duty...
Excelsior?
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/64705)
The lesser evil voter is still voting for evil. Always has and always will. Personally, I don't vote when I cannot vote FOR someone.