Another thread reminded me of this concept, and I thought it would be interesting to see what everybody else thought of it. For people who haven't heard the term: If you're unhappy with both the Republican and Democrat choice, would you choose one because they are "less bad"? Or would you go ahead and vote for someone else, to make a point? I personally think the best action is to vote for who you truly want. Even though I couldn't vote last election, this is why I am against voting for the lesser of two evils. I was more neoconservative at the time, but now as a libertarian I dislike both Obama and McCain as presidential choices. Although I guess I disliked McCain a "little less" and he surely was the lesser of two evils, he would not have gotten my vote (at least with my current beliefs). If he got elected, the Republican party would not have its recent libertarian-bent. Slowly, they're returning to lower government principles. The mood of the country is changing to oppose government. If McCain got elected, because he's "conservative" (but not really), people would call for more government. But thankfully, people are waking up and are starting to see politicians as "the ruling class" and not just Republicans and Democrats. Looks like I got a little off topic there, I like to rant. But another reason which is on topic: I believe that voting for a third party voices your opinion. I'm a huge Ron Paul supporter, so let's say he doesn't get the nomination. If I write him in, and hundreds of thousands or millions of people do the same, then it's sending the message to the Republicans "you're not low government enough to get my vote". Sorry for focusing so much on MY experiences, but this could very well apply to liberals too, or many independents.
If I were forced between two candidates who held vastly different views than my own, I'd select the lesser of two evils. But in elections like this, there couldn't be much more contrast between the candidates, and ultimately I'm going with whoever has the best chance against Obama. In other words, I'm not going with a lesser of the two evils, as in my view (because in reality the "lesser of the two evils" is subjective) there is only one "evil" this time around.
People should always vote for who it is they'd want to vote for. Write it in...this whole "lesser of two evils" and "anyone but candidate x" is counter-productive.
But it's well known that voting for someone who's likely going to lose is not much different than voting for the guy you don't want. In my case, I'd like to see RP in 2012, but I know it's likely that Romney or Perry will represent the GOP next election. I'm not a huge fan of either, but I wouldn't object to either taking the place of my first choice, should it come to that. In addition, I'd really like to see just about anyone other than Obama. So a couple guys who I support to some extent will suffice in comparison to a guy who has practically no support from myself.
Well, I personally see Romney and Perry as "the establishment" and I'm sick of people like them, and I think we need to keep the Ron Paul Revolution going and not support them. If Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination, it will plant the seeds, I'm counting on that.
I hear you, but if it becomes clearly evident that there will be no Paul Administration in 2012 (that has a nice ring to it ), then it becomes a question of a GOP candidate or four more years of the Obama admin. Currently, a random Republican is still giving Obama competition. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...ident_obama_vs_republican_candidate-1745.html
There aren't any candidates who fully embody my ideals, not even Ron Paul, so basically all my choices are the "lesser of two evils", so to speak. If Ron Paul has no chance to win come election time (very likely), I am going to vote for the Republican candidate because Obama is a radical leftist buffoon with a cult of personality that I find extremely disturbing. Obamacare was the last straw for a lot of people.
I'm only seventy-years old so I've never had an opportunity to vote for someone I really wanted to see as President. I've always vote for the lesser evil but sometimes I had to drop down to the lesser of three or four evils.
As I mentioned though, I feel like another Republican would be similar to John McCain. If a Republican I don't like becomes president, then the necessary changes won't occur in the Republican party. I want the Republican platform to change into low government, anti-interventionism, and protection of civil liberties.
Lesser of two evils is the way most decisions are made in life. Typically unrealistic choices must be discarded or tossed to the sideline or propped up by the use of plan Bs. For instance, most people will not pursue their careers as artists for too long unless they get early success or have some way to support themselves. Political contests tend to be winner-take-all, meaning that any effort used for unrealistic choices is truly a waste. I guess it could give you a good feeling... but it's bittersweet, as anyone who keeps a family in poverty to pursue an unlikely acting career will eventually realize. Another problem with avoiding lesser evils in politics is that politics at the higher levels (state, federal... and actually most localities) requires coalition (technically all relationships with more than two people are full of coalitions). Coalition practically means compromise. I'm a liberal. Let's pretend (quite a stretch) that all self-described liberals agree with the exact same policy prescriptions. We still make up 20% or so of the population. How likely is it that a politician who fully supports the liberal platform will be elected (unless his opponent is a transparent fascist)? From a purist Kantian perspective, I could see how voting for the lesser evil is still somehow "wrong." But since actions (and inactions) have consequences, you do have to deal with the fact that by using a vote for an unlikely choice, you give up your vote as help for the lesser evil... and thus you do help the greater evil. So from a utilitarian standpoint, voting for the lesser evil is the only good option.
