politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: Why Voting for the Lesser of Two Evils Is a Waste of Your Vote
Source:
Reason
URL Source: https://reason.com/archives/2016/05 ... -for-the-lesser-of-two-evils-i
Published: May 18, 2016
Author: Jeffrey A. Singer
Post Date: 2016-05-20 08:33:23 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 2745
Comments: 27
Although my personal political philosophy is libertarian, like most people, over the years I have surrendered to the binary choice our two-party system gives us when casting my vote in presidential elections. I almost always find myself settling for a "lesser of two evils," but the "evil" is not so great as to prevent me from rationalizing what amounts to, by my vote, an endorsement or affirmation of the candidate. Because at least rhetorically, the Republican party candidate promises a greater commitment to limited, constitutional government, entitlement reform, tackling the national debt, and a belief in the benefits of free trade, I have voted for the Republican candidate for president ever since Ronald Reagan. The Republicans repeatedly disappoint on matters of foreign policy, seeing the US as world policeman. But the Democrats fare little better on foreign policy—sometimes even worse. So foreign policy as a vote-determining factor between the two major parties tended to be a wash for me. I often profoundly disagree with the Republicans on many of the "culture war" and so-called social issues, but I have had confidence that our Constitution and judiciary will defend against any overreach by Republicans in that area. So as a matter of practicality, I have tended to base my vote on the differences between the two major party candidates on matters of economic liberty and commitment to the principles of federalism and limited government. I recognize the politicians in both political parties have differing promises but similar results: bigger government, greater debt, less individual liberty. But I use the party platforms and the candidates' rhetoric to help in my rationalization (some would say self-delusion) that I am voting for someone who will, at best, move things in a better direction or, at worst, be a lesser of two evils that I can live with. I still wish to participate in the electoral process. Choosing not to vote is always an option. But I prefer to express my opinion in a less passive manner. Not voting certainly provides the satisfaction of knowing that I did not sanction or legitimize the offerings of the two major parties. But that satisfaction is only personal and private. I want to more actively make my views known. Using the following chain of logic, I have found a positive way to express myself through, what I believe, is the most effective allocation of my vote in November: 1) According to Professor Ilya Somin in Democracy and Political Ignorance,my vote has, on average, a roughly 1 in 60 million chance of being the decisive vote in the Presidential election. (It might be a great as 1 in 10 million in my relatively small state of Arizona. It would have a roughly 1 in a billion chance of being decisive if I lived in California.) 2) If I vote for the lesser of evils and hold my nose, my vote is blended in with millions of others—there is no way to register my dissatisfaction with the choices the two major parties have given me. There is no way to separate those who voted for a lesser of two evils from those who voted because they actually LIKED the candidate. 3) If I vote for the Libertarian party candidate, I am directly affecting the vote total of that candidate. Because that candidate will get fewer total votes than the major party candidates, when all votes are totaled up, I will have had a greater effect on raising the total percentage of votes for the Libertarian candidate. If the Libertarian candidate garners say, 5 percent of the vote as opposed to 1 percent, then my vote made a greater impact in making a statement than it would have if it was folded in with the 40 or 50 million voters who voted for a major party candidate. 4) If the Libertarian candidate gets say, 5 percent of the vote, then that clearly means that 5 percent of the voters chose a candidate that they KNEW had absolutely no chance of winning, rather than choosing the lesser of two evils. What's more, they chose the candidate with the most pro-freedom, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights program. That sends a clear message. Therefore: 5) By casting my vote for the Libertarian presidential candidate, my vote is actually more meaningful and makes more of a statement. My conclusion: Voting for the lesser of two evils is statistically and strategically wasting my vote. I will vote Libertarian for president this year. This rationale does not necessarily apply to how I will vote in the down ballot races, where my vote has a greater numerical impact, I have a greater ability to directly communicate my views, and I might have less marked dissatisfaction with many of the candidates. I offer my line of reasoning as a guide to others who might be agonizing over their decision this year. I've voted for Republicans for president before. No more.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
The libertine talking about lesser evil is hilarious. Libertines by definition are amoral. Fag boy gay johnson is for amnesty, murdering kids and men suckimf dick. Gay johnson should repent of his evil.
It's a severe mentally programmed condition you can get help for.
When Romney was the Republican candidate we were told to "hold our nose" and vote for him. The same with McCain. The same with Dole. Now that Trump is the candidate we're told that's a wasted vote.
I let go of my nose starting in 2004 and have never regretted it. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. All quite sound - except that the candidate with the most pro-freedom, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights program is the Constitution Party candidate: abortion, open borders, and "gay" "marriage" have nothing to do with freedom nor the Constitution. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. For sure it will against REP overreach but as we have seen over the fast few decades NOT against liberal, leftist over reach. Secular progressive judges have been shredding the Constitution and making law from the bench since at least RvW. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Then why don't you become more active in local REP Party activities that would have even a greater impact on the REP Party nomination for the top of the ticket. Libertarian is BS and a total waste of a vote. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Who says he doesn't - or that doing so is inconsistent with voting third-party in the general election? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. But it is inconsistent based on the logical put forth by the author. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
No it's not - if he wants the most pro-freedom, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights program, he can work to get that from the GOP in the primary, and if that fails then vote for the third party that offers it in the general election. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Thank you for agreeing with what I said. The author did not say this. He did not speak to working in the local Party only voting in the local election. You may have the last word on this.. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
That doesn't make it inconsistent with what he did say, contrary to your claim. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. That doesn't make it inconsistent with what he did say, contrary to your claim. By conscious omission it does. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Not discussing the topics that interest you is not "conscious omission." A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. C'mon, you are better than that. The author was talking about his "logical" alternative to voting in the national election and comes up with voting libertarian over becoming involved at the local party level (or any other of a number of options). It wasn't that he didn't discuss that option, as is true with all of the other options that he didn't discuss, but he cited what he called the most logical choice, the one that he made after given it his most critical thought on the subject In other words, he wasn't thinking very clearly at all when he made that choice. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
No puzzle there - by the time the general election rolls around it's too late for party involvement to help. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Since this thread is about liberaltarian we should play the liberaltarian anthem. Non auro, sed ferro, recuperando est patria
That's not it. Here it is: A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. The words that inspired Jorge Arbusto as he launched Operation Iraqi Freedom. Conservatives have long held a different view: Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains on their own appetites—in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity;—in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption;—in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there is without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters. (Edmund Burke, A Letter From Mr. Burke To A Member Of The National Assembly, 1791.) When the GOP was a conservative party it instinctively knew to avoid such follies, as it did in 1919. When it became a liberaltarian party it embraced folly, and now that Trump has defeated the liberaltarian GOPe establishment the liberaltarian are going ape. Non auro, sed ferro, recuperando est patria
Spelling mistakes aside - that song doesn't even make my top 10 libertarian/freedom songs. (In no particular order) Sunshine - Jonathan Edwards original song and lyrics Beatles - Taxman / Stevie Ray Vaughan & Double Trouble The Rascals - People Got To Be Free Tom Petty and The Heartbreakers - I Won't Back Down (lyrics) “The Guns of Brixton” by The Clash / With Lyrics Long Haired Country Boy Charlie Daniels Band w/ Lyrics Rush-Freewill (With Lyrics) Creedence Clearwater Revival - Fortunate Son Tom Sawyer by: Rush I'd Rather Die Than Be Your Slave (PokerFace) As a (l)ibertarian, I have plenty of issues with the (L)ibertarian Party platform, open borders and abortion being the main thing. I have been considering voting Constitution Party as a "protest" vote. They are on the ballot here in Michigan. This is code for.... Vote for the 6% popular Paultard... or I'll act like an asshole. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
You own the franchise Sparky. Sparky, you have issues with everyone and everything!
The only problem with your quip is that I'm not a Paultard. I'm just a regular asshole that happens to respect Stones site... unlike you agenda assholes. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Whatever the GOP is now, it's not libertarian by any sane person's definition of the term. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. And where they aren't they can be written in. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
#2. To: Deckard (#0)
Although my personal political philosophy is libertarian ...
#3. To: Deckard (#0)
"My conclusion: Voting for the lesser of two evils is statistically and strategically wasting my vote."
#4. To: misterwhite (#3)
When Romney was the Republican candidate we were told to "hold our nose" and vote for him. The same with McCain.
#5. To: Deckard (#0)
my vote has, on average, a roughly 1 in 60 million chance of being the decisive vote in the Presidential election. [...] the voters chose a candidate that they KNEW had absolutely no chance of winning, rather than choosing the lesser of two evils. What's more, they chose the candidate with the most pro-freedom, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights program.
#6. To: Deckard, All (#0)
.....but I have had confidence that our Constitution and judiciary will defend against any overreach by Republicans in that area.
#7. To: Deckard (#0)
This rationale does not necessarily apply to how I will vote in the down ballot races, where my vote has a greater numerical impact, I have a greater ability to directly communicate my views, and I might have less marked dissatisfaction with many of the candidates.
#8. To: SOSO (#7)
Then why don't you become more active in local REP Party activities that would have even a greater impact on the REP Party nomination for the top of the ticket.
#9. To: ConservingFreedom (#8)
- or that doing so is inconsistent with voting third-party in the general election?
#10. To: SOSO (#9)
it is inconsistent based on the logical put forth by the author.
#11. To: ConservingFreedom (#10)
No it's not - if he wants the most pro-freedom, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights program, he can work to get that from the GOP in the primary, and if that fails then vote for the third party that offers it in the general election.
#12. To: SOSO (#11)
The author did not say this.
#13. To: ConservingFreedom (#12)
The author did not say this.
#14. To: SOSO (#13)
conscious omission
#15. To: ConservingFreedom (#14)
Not discussing the topics that interest you is not "conscious omission."
#16. To: SOSO (#15)
The author was talking about his "logical" alternative to voting in the national election and comes up with voting libertarian over becoming involved at the local party level
#17. To: A K A Stone (#1)
The libertine talking about lesser evil is hilarious. Libertines by definition are amoral. Fag boy gay johnson is for amnesty, murdering kids and men suckimf dick. Gay johnson should repent of his evil.
#18. To: nativist nationalist (#17)
the liberaltarian anthem
#19. To: ConservingFreedom (#18)
People Got To Be Free
#20. To: nativist nationalist (#17)
(Edited)
Since this thread is about liberaltarian we should play the liberaltarian anthem.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#21. To: ConservingFreedom (#5)
All quite sound - except that the candidate with the most pro-freedom, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights program is the Constitution Party candidate: abortion, open borders, and "gay" "marriage" have nothing to do with freedom nor the Constitution.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#22. To: Deckard (#0)
Why Voting for the Lesser of Two Evils Is a Waste of Your Vote
#23. To: GrandIsland (#22)
I'll act like an asshole.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#24. To: Deckard (#21)
As a (l)ibertarian, I have plenty of issues with the (L)ibertarian Party platform
#25. To: Deckard (#23)
You own the franchise Sparky.
#26. To: nativist nationalist (#19)
When it became a liberaltarian party
#27. To: Deckard (#21)
They are on the ballot here in Michigan.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]