Voting for the Lesser of Two Evils

Saphsin

So this was a conversation between me and an anti-war activist I've been following. These days a lot of people on the left have started to hate on the concept of "voting for the lesser of two evils" so Chomsky got a lot of backlash from the left for suggesting that you should vote for Hilary Clinton if you're in a swing state to prevent a Republican Presidency (he gave the Republicans complete lack of compromise on Global Warming as one reason). Was wondering if you can give me your thoughts:

_________________

Me:

So with regards to the flack that Chomsky from the people in the comment section on your post for recommending to vote for Hilary if you live in a swing state. I don't agree with the comments. (if Sanders doesn't win the nomination, I'm going to vote for Green Party btw. I live in NJ)

I actually also talked about this with my various leftist friends and they largely agree with me. I just don't understand anti-electoral attitudes from a philosophical point of view. It has nothing to do with political or moral philosophy in my perception but about the essence of voting. Now me and many others and Chomsky don't like or appreciate the Democratic Party at all.....clearly. From what I can see, the message is suggesting that:

Voting = Support = Endorsement = Giving Power To = Giving Credit To

But I don't think of voting that way.....voting is not an action that gives any sort of "support" for whatever candidate you're voting for, either in sentiment or at face-value. I think most people think of voting this way, which is why I don't understand many of the Left who think of voting as giving power or support for the candidate party they're voting for. All voting is, is giving you the ability to slant the probability of influencing policy in a certain direction. After all, the smallest differences between candidates result in actual policy differences that affect people's lives. Chomsky is concerned about carpet bombing and global warming, which will determine the fate of the world.

"I don't want to vote for the lesser of two evils"

......Why not? It's "the lesser of two evils" even if the lesser evilism is just by a tiny margin. When I vote for the lesser of two evils, the benefit is getting the lesser of two evils, even if it's by a tiny difference (but as I said, tiny differences in policy make actual huge impact on people's lives) What are the costs? From what I can see, nothing really. No one sees my vote as a form of endorsement or a sign of giving credit because most people don't see voting that way nor is that what voting meant for. What about refraining from voting? What are the costs and benefits? The costs is that it's like a half-vote for the greater of two evils. The benefit....I don't know, you tell me. I honestly think anti-electoral attitudes silly.

_________________

Him:

It would depend on one's perspective. I can't give a long, detailed analysis now as I'm just about out the door to catch my train, but I'll put it this way:

1. Imagine people who see the dangers of high fructose corn syrup: its disastrous implications for health, its negative impact on the environment via support for Big Agribusiness, and many other issues. And yet, they would choose Coke over Pepsi saying that they think Coke tastes slightly better. Are they not contributing to precisely the issues outlined above? By using their money are they not providing material support to a system they know to be inherently corrupt and wrong? Voting is the political currency we are given by the state (as currently constituted)...in a lesser evil scenario, in my view it is the withholding of that currency, taking it out of circulation so to speak, that actually carries more weight than lining the pockets of one or the other. This is the very essence of boycott as a tactic, be it in the context of boycotts of South Africa or Israel, or of boycotting your local anti-union establishment. The function is to deprive the institution of that which keeps it operating.

2. The system of bourgeois capitalism that is US democracy fundamentally requires that people constantly express their political will through voting. Hence, the key for the ruling class is simply to maintain power by controlling all options. By voting it legitimates both the power relation, and the discourse. By not voting one is not merely striving for some abstract moral purity, but for the very concrete undermining of said power relations.

3. For me the real struggle in our current situation is about the creation of parallel institutions that are independent of the controlled political paradigm, the kind of institutions that allow food to be grown to feed the hungry, independent commodity/consumer goods production, community-controlled telecommunications infrastructure, independent infrastructure, new educational institutions not beholden to capital and the state, and myriad other examples of real intitiatives, real struggles that people are engaging in the real world. THESE are the things that will truly impact real people in their real lives, not a lesser evil vote.

_________________

Wosret

I think that the global warming thing isn't substantial, it's only about political allegiances. No matter who's in power, it doesn't stop people from reducing their consumption, waste, and going vegan. Look at the lifestyle of someone like Al Gore, and all of the money he made from peddling that shit. I don't give a shit what people say, I care how they live.

As to your point, I can't be bothered to vote, and don't think much of politics. I particularly don't like how the right tends to paint Trump as the worst possible, mainly because he's a stupid ass hole, but I think that Cruz, or Rubio would be worse. Not that I'm a fan of any of them, and would favor Hilary.

Saphsin

↪Wosret

Well I agree with what you said about Al Gore, that's the nature of the Democratic Party, a party of liars. They're all neoliberals who don't care much about Global Warming but they still compromise to a degree, even if it's only a little. It really is up to the people to make the change but things like sustaining regulations and agreeing to international demands to curb down on fossil fuel emissions has importance with regards to government, and the Republican Party absolutely never compromises on that. Look at what they were doing to the Paris Climate Agreements.

I would favor Hillary (I hate her with a passion but just in "contrast") over the other Republicans by a small margin. More because of the Democratic Party backing her Presidency and the framework to which she'll have to pass policy than anything to do with her personally.

Cruz is definitely worse than Trump and this has been reiterated by many others (you can simply google that statement and you'll get a bunch of good analysis out there). Rubio might be worse than Trump. In fact, many left activists say Trump was one of the best things that happened to the Republican Party because he's not really worse than the other candidates but he's more obvious to the public about what he's proposing, thus lifting the veil off what the Republican Party and its supporters are really like to the whole world.

Thorongil

I did that with Obama. Everyone kept saying that my state of residence was a swing state and so I voted for Obama, whom I thought vastly superior to Romney. It turns out that it was never much of a swing state, and Obama crushed Romney nationwide. Now I have a growing disillusionment with voting in general. Evil is still evil, and I think I want no part of it.

I think a Trump presidency might do the country a bit of good. The Republican establishment hates him and the Democrats obviously think he's cancer, so he actually wouldn't be able to do a whole lot in office except make more blusterous speeches. I would enjoy basking in the collective tears of glib Romney-esque people on the right as well as politically correct infantile people on the left huddled in their safe spaces. I also like his general stance on terrorism.

Clinton would only be worthwhile if she gets to nominate the next supreme court justice and forgives my student loans. Otherwise, I think she's a snake and corrupt as they come.

Wosret

I don't see the point in international green house gas reduction initiatives, the only nations that actually need to be on there are the US and China, but of course they won't, because of economic incentives. It would be drastic reductions for them, and staggering costs. It's a much more empty gesture for most other nations. I still think that waiting for top down enforcement isn't going to happen, and isn't desirable. People need to take responsibility, as the real overwhelming causes because of their incredibly high levels of consumption, demand, and waste.

I see Trump as fulfilling an ego trip, and not really predictable about what he'll actually do, or will be able to do. Rubio and Cruz on the other hand I believe them to genuinely hold certain values and positions which I am deeply opposed to.

Sir2u

What I never understood about politics is the way people vote.
A lot of people are party aligned no matter who the candidate is or even if they don't like him.
A lot of people vote for the least harmful choice.
And a lot of people just don't vote.

But why do people have to select from the candidates presented? If you don't like any of them it is possible to cast a blank or even a null vote. Enough of these could really screw up an election and there would be a need for the politicians to rethink their ways.

In the last UK general election, there were not enough people who voted for the party which I considered at the time to be something akin to the lesser of two evils for it to become the next government. I was one of those who did not vote at all - in my case, due to a lack of motivation and the perception of a lack of compelling reasons to do so. As a result, I'm stuck with a government that I think is worse than the alternatives that were on offer. But also as a result, the less evil party underwent changes of which I approve, and which, if things continue down the same path, will mean that they'll get my vote next time. So, I'm not so sure what the best outcome would've been.

I know that I really don't like the idea of a choice between Tory and Tory-Lite. So much so, that I might, if faced with such a dilemma, be inclined to go with a third option.

BC

Roses are red;
violets are blue.
Let's all vote
for a Socialist Jew.

Saphsin

↪Thorongil

I provided an argument in the OP for why we should. Because abstaining from voting is the same as a half-vote for the greater of two evils, even if that greater evilism is by a very small margin, but that small margin has tremendous impact on people's lives.

↪Sir2u

I provided an argument in the OP for why we should. You ignored it, so your post doesn't really add anything to discussion.

I provided an argument in the OP for why we should. Because abstaining from voting is the same as a half-vote for the greater of two evils, even if that greater evilism is by a very small margin, but that small margin has tremendous impact on people's lives. — Saphsin

But my reply emphasised the possibility that maintaining evil, whether the lesser or the greater, could actually be a greater evil than doing something like refusing to vote, because in the case that I brought up, I doubt whether your recommendation would've lead to the lesser evil transforming into a good. This also has tremendous impact on people's lives. It can give them hope of a better future, and cause them not to just settle for the lesser of two evils. Surely good is better than evil.

Baden

↪Saphsin

First of all, you are not responsible for an evil you did not vote for. You are for one you did. Secondly, people voting for "the lesser of two evils" could function to perpetuate a system that itself is a greater evil (e.g. the two (business) party system in the US) than an alternative. Thirdly, voting for a good candidate or party helps that party to some degree even if they don't win. Fourthly, if you vote for a lesser-evil candidate in order to stop a greater-evil candidate your vote is still almost certainly wasted (if by wasted you mean it doesn't in itself determine the outcome of the election). It's one vote. And you've just sacrificed your principles for what? (And if you want to make the "But if everyone thought that way..." argument, you could just as easily make that as a reason for voting for the good candidate over the lesser-evil candidate). In short, no matter what line of reasoning you follow, it almost never makes any sense to use your vote on a candidate you consider a bad candidate over one you consider a good candidate.

Saphsin

↪Baden

With regards to your first point:

If voting for an alternative candidate or not voting at all can actually make a difference in fighting against oppressive systems, I'm all for it. But frequently, it won't. You have to take into account the consequences of the decisions of "not voting" as well as "voting" which is the argument I was trying to make in my OP. Both actions have consequences in future policy differences from whatever candidate comes out as a result.

If I'm a citizen who is unable to have access to health insurance and I have a serious physical disorder, even if the only difference between Romney and Obama is the repeal of Obamacare and they're equally bad in almost everything else, then a Romney Presidency could lead to me losing my life. Me losing my life from a Romney Presidency would therefore, be a direct result of people not voting for Obama. Just because they didn't vote for Romney doesn't mean their actions didn't have consequences that resulted in bad policies that have effects on people's lives.

Or let's take that in principle between an actual really "good" candidate, who's not a neoliberal war hawk, and a bad candidate (instead of between two bad candidates with some differences like in the example above). If a segment of the population was too lazy to vote (or refrained from voting for another intended reason) and resulted in the bad candidate winning an election, they would be responsible for the bad candidate being in power.

The argument you started out with the principle "you are not responsible for an evil you did not vote for" is unconvincing. Refraining from voting is a form of political engagement that has consequences just like voting. Much of what you said afterwards is somewhat contingent on that first principle.

But the point you did make that was interesting to me was outlined here:

It's one vote. And you've just sacrificed your principles for what? (And if you want to make the "But if everyone thought that way..." argument, you could just as easily make that as a reason for voting for the good candidate over the lesser-evil candidate). In short, no matter what line of reasoning you follow, it almost never makes any sense to use your vote on a candidate you consider a bad candidate over one you consider a good candidate.

I never thought of it in that line of reasoning, thanks for that. I'll have to think about it, but I have a suspicion there's something wrong with it.

But I want to say this, and I'm tying this to my OP, which I felt like you didn't take full consideration of. I just don't think what you're suggesting is the necessary essence of voting. I think our relation to national elections should be (at the current moment if not the ideal) is to limit the damage they do to our credibility and to use them, in so far as possible, to help build the foundation for the kinds of protest and independent political organizing (electoral and otherwise) which will need to be directed against whichever corporate candidate wins. (see the post below for my response to Sapientia)

Saphsin

↪Sapientia

I discussed that with a friend and this is what we concluded on:

The problem with that argument is that sometimes lesser evils can be transformed to something better- we would not have had OWS, BLM, or Sanders if not for Obama.

The election of Obama, a lesser evil if there ever one was, created the conditions that allowed for more radical social movements to arise. When there are Republicans in power, it becomes much easier for any left-wing opposition to get sucked into the Democratic Party, which is viewed as a potential real alternative by the population. It's when the Democrats are in power, and expectations go unmet, that serious challenges to the bipartisan consensus can emerge.

I've seen people argue the contrary before, that when the Democratic Party are in power, their abuses are usually left unmitigated by mainstream liberals. Paul Street once made that argument, he mused that "if it was Bush who was President when Snowden revealed the surveillance policies, how many more Democrats would be protesting the streets?"

I used to have that position too. But I don't think it's born out. It wasn't exactly the case that there were massive protests against the Patriot Act, either. It's no accident, I think, that if you look at the past 100 years, the decades most characterized by radical social movements: the 30's, the 60's, and the 2010's, all were under Democratic presidents.

There are multiple factors; I think in some cases it might help to have Republicans in office. Nonetheless, if those social movements are going to go beyond the Democratic Party, there needs to be Democrats who are also targets of the movement, otherwise it will just be co-opted by the Democrats and die. See the Iraq war protests as an example. And yeah with as many cases like the NsA there are also cases like Afganistan where there weren't protests under either party's presidents. So it's complicated

↪Saphsin

I agree that lesser evils can be transformed into something better, or that they can do some good. After all, it was Tony Blair's government that introduced the minimum wage, in addition to dragging us into the Iraq war on dubious grounds. I also agree that there are many factors involved, and that it's complicated. That was basically my point: it isn't a sure thing that doing either one thing or the other will be the best course of action. But I'd rather have a Labour government under Jeremy Corbyn than a Labour government under Ed Miliband, so, in a way, I'm glad that Labour lost the last election. Jeremy Corbyn's chances of becoming leader of the Labour Party were very unlikely under the circumstances that unfolded, so any change in those events might have meant that he stood even less of a chance, and, after Ed Miliband, there could have been someone similar or worse. A good alternative is better than a mediocre alternative.

Saphsin

↪Sapientia

Of course I agree, but part of the fight to open the path of letting an ideal situation to come to fruition is to politically strategize in taking as much power as possible, it's just debatable for each circumstance about what that strategy should be. And of course, the lives of today's citizens matter.

Agustino

I think a Trump presidency might do the country a bit of good. The Republican establishment hates him and the Democrats obviously think he's cancer, so he actually wouldn't be able to do a whole lot in office except make more blusterous speeches. I would enjoy basking in the collective tears of glib Romney-esque people on the right as well as politically correct infantile people on the left huddled in their safe spaces. I also like his general stance on terrorism. — Thorongil

Agreed.

Clinton would only be worthwhile if she gets to nominate the next supreme court justice and forgives my student loans. Otherwise, I think she's a snake and corrupt as they come. — Thorongil

Haha, so if she does something good for you, she's good, otherwise she's terrible? :P I just think she's just about the worst, most immoral person I've ever seen. Never seen a bigger liar in my life. This one, you show her she lied to her face, and she just goes on denying it. Just makes me so angry.

Voting for the Lesser of Two Evils

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions