@evan
I'm torn between "usually lesser" and "usually not at all". "Always lesser" is out of the question, since that would make costless to follow the greater evil shifting the center and prompting the greater evil to be even worse to differentiate, leading to a very bad spiral.
We're seeing that in Denmark where I'm from, where Social Democrats are basically nationalist conservatives at this point, fielding racist, inhuman and worker-hostile policies to try and capture right-wing votes.
The framing is broken. Voting isn’t about sharing your preferences, it’s about deciding who’s in charge, so there are no lesser evils.
If your preferred candidate can’t win, then a vote for them is wasted. (Unless you have a voting system that automatically discards it, such as IRV or other ranked voting, in which case that top vote didn’t matter and only your next choice does.)
Fundamentally, the best candidate who can win is the best candidate. They’re not an “evil”, much less a “lesser” one. This nonsensical terminology depends upon the lie that your preferred candidate is good and everyone else is evil.
@evan I'd say always vote for the lesser of two evils, until parallel power structures capable of taking care of people have been built. Then we have the luxury of telling both the greater and lesser evil to kindly fuck off.
@evan
Sorry but your poll doesn't represent me. Why can't I vote for the greater of the two evils?
And if that sounds strange to you, you have to admit that, regardless your opinion, half the people vote for it.
Vote for a candidate promising an inadequate increase in social benefits over one promising cuts? Yes, if those are the only two choices.
Vote for a less-transphobic candidate over a more-transphobic one? Abstain, if those are the only two choices.
Also, thank $DIETY that I live in a country where more than two parties send representatives to Parliament (plus independents), so our politics aren't a choice between two evils.
@evan Generally, given that it's a binary choice and that the existence of a lesser evil candidate suggests that there's at least a somewhat noticeable difference between the two, even if neither of them is ideal, then vote for the lesser evil to at least prevent some of the damage that could be done. Because, objectively, the choice is going to be made regardless of whether you personally vote or not, and abstaining is just giving away whatever influence you have over the end result without contributing to any improvement. (Clearly voting isn't the only power we have as people, and we should be actively making our voices heard outside of elections too, that's a given.)
All in all, things are not always black and white, though. For example if both candidates are against a marginalized group of people, but one of them will be less harmful in another area. On paper, yes, the lesser evil is going to cause less damage, but on the other hand, asking people to cast a vote for someone who actively threatens their human rights, or the ones of their loved one's, isn't an easy demand to make. Several different factors can play into this, from privilege to how someone is affected on a personal level, the specific electoral system, as well as the possible consequences, so going with usually lesser here.
I did always lesser. At least in the US, you basically have two choices and one is actively anti-democracy. I don't like it but I've got to work with the system we've got. At least at national and state level, lesser of the two is best because of the consequences.
I wish I lived in a country with more viable parties and a system of proportional representation.
My answer would be different if I did not live in the US. If I was anywhere else, I probably would be in a Green Party.
@evan Usually lesser, because there are rare situations where participating at all in a farcical process, and thereby legitimizing it, does more damage than the difference between the two choices. For example, if the opposition has just been banned, boycotting the election may be warranted.
This is definitely not the case in the USA right now, please vote US people; but it's not difficult to imagine near-future situations where US democracy has become too degraded to vote in.
@evan Hey, I’m sorry 😢
I didn’t mean it like that. In my head it was about politics, and at least in my country you can always vote blank to show that you are not happy with any candidate. But I didn’t realise my comment could be seen as an complaint about your poll.
@evan You could change to a preference-based proportionally representative system of voting. Then rather than voting for either evil, you could rank your favourite candidates highest on the ballot and give the two evil ones your lowest preferences (obviously with the most evil one on the bottom of the ballot).
In general, one ought to choose the lesser evil, but it may occur that all choices are so gravely wrong that they are disqualified; it would be unethical to choose any one of them.
For instance, if I have 3 candidates, one promising to seize the Alaskan panhandle; another to annex the Danish half of Hans Island; and the third to conquer the Turks and Caicos — then I ought to spoil my ballot.
This is ultimately a question of the limits of #utilitarian ethics.
@evan It depends on what one's deepest political beliefs are: not just what one opposes but what one believes is ethically unacceptable.
That is to say, what's ethical in the thought experiment depends on how one considers those issues. E.g., some voters consider anti-union to be unacceptable, others merely bad, others want to weaken unions.
I also think there is an ethical difference between actively supporting someone (donations, volunteering) and choosing to vote for the least bad.
@mpjgregoire yeah, it is interesting. I should have been clear that these are my priorities. You can consider instead, two candidates with N odious positions, and 1 position where they disagree.
w/r/t actively participating, I think that's a big question. If you really think electing B instead of A would prevent harm, how much support is OK?
@evan There are candidates whom I disagree with — I believe that if the policies they favour were enacted we would be worse off — but whom I nevertheless think are decent, intelligent, honourable people. So long as their policies fall into the bad but not disqualifying basket (or would not worsen the status quo) then I think it would be ethical to donate to such candidates. After all, maybe they're right and I'm wrong...
Add comment