Why *not* "The Lesser of Two evils"?

[Lonestar]

Mods, if this is the wrong forum please move it.

So, I'm having a philosophical difference with some lolbertarians about voting, and the "lesser of two evils." I'm of the opinion that, while the two primary candidates are often never your own ideal choice, you should always vote for the lesser of two evils.

Of course, I get a response along the lines of "No, you should vote for the candidate for you"(even if he's some statistically minor candidate).

I retorted along the lines of "That makes sense in a true multi-party system. We don't have one, so you should vote for the lesser of the two evils."

To which the response was "That's the kind of garbage the Duopoly has been feeding the American people for years. The voter should vote for the candidate best for him."

"As opposed to the one best for the country? If we had someone like, oh, Ross Perot that was in throwing distance of winning you'd have a case. Wasting your vote on someone that will get less than 1% of the vote in a close race between two candidates is idiotic."


Is this a wrong attitude to have?

[ArcturusMengsk]

Not at all. Third parties that do not have a chance of winning actually impede the democratic process, in my view, because of the spoiler effect (Ralph Nader, I'm looking at you). Of course, if Nader had had a realistic chance of winning, then it would have been fine to vote for him. But because he didn't, he indirectly contributed to Chimpus Maximus assuming power.

[RedImperator]

The American political system virtually guarantees two and only two viable national political parties. That said, a third party vote isn't necessarily a wasted vote. Historically, whenever a third party does well, one of the two major parties will adopt its positions (this is part of why successful third parties like the Progressives or the Dixiecrats typically only last an election cycle or two).

[Bounty]

Depends on whether you want practical results. Voting for the perfect candidate for you only works if everyone thinks the same and he/she has a decent chance of making it into office. I suppose that the proper "democratic" thing to do is to vote for whoever you think is best, but from a pragmatic point of view, voting for the person who is best *within the pool of viable candidates* is probably the most sensible thing to do.

The only way to change the system for the better is to shoot yourself in the foot by "wasting" your vote and hope enough people do the same as to make a difference. It's a lovely Catch-22.

[Qwerty 42]

I suppose it also depends on which election we're talking about: if it were 2000 or 1976, it might be more viable to vote for a third-party. Right now, I think it's more important to make sure Obama gets in than make a statement.

[Rye]

There's no point in voting for the person who exactly represents your views, because the majority do not play it that way. Plus I'd just be writing in Richard M Nixon all the time.

[Sriad]

Mods, if this is the wrong forum please move it.

So, I'm having a philosophical difference with some lolbertarians about voting, and the "lesser of two evils." I'm of the opinion that, while the two primary candidates are often never your own ideal choice, you should always vote for the lesser of two evils.

Of course, I get a response along the lines of "No, you should vote for the candidate for you"(even if he's some statistically minor candidate).

I retorted along the lines of "That makes sense in a true multi-party system. We don't have one, so you should vote for the lesser of the two evils."

To which the response was "That's the kind of garbage the Duopoly has been feeding the American people for years. The voter should vote for the candidate best for him."

"As opposed to the one best for the country? If we had someone like, oh, Ross Perot that was in throwing distance of winning you'd have a case. Wasting your vote on someone that will get less than 1% of the vote in a close race between two candidates is idiotic."


Is this a wrong attitude to have?

It depends. For the reasons RI outlined, voting for a third party candidate can have benefits, and the sad fact is that in USA electoral college elections, individual votes will really only matter in a handful of states.

Sure, if you meet someone who voted for Nader in Florida in 2000 (or NM, IA, WI) you are morally required to punch them in the cock. But someone who (like myself) voted Nader in Colorado? In 2000 it wasn't up for grabs, and still would have gone Bush if 120% of third-party voters got behind Gore. In 2004 I voted Kerry because CO was only leaning Bush, and this year with Colorado an official Swing State I wouldn't vote anyone but Obama if a sack of money was dangling under my nose. But someone voting in a state where either candidate is going to win by 10+ points is "throwing their vote away" no matter who they vote for. In that case, voting for a third party candidate in hopes that some of their positions will be adopted by D or R might be valid.

[Winston Blake]

Not at all. Third parties that do not have a chance of winning actually impede the democratic process, in my view, because of the spoiler effect

...in America. Preferential voting addresses the spoiler effect - and Australia does have a lot of minor parties. A third-party vote isn't a waste - or at least, not as much of a waste as... in America. Said lolbertarians should probably campaign for a change to preferential voting... in America.

[Posner]

The chances of your individual vote being the pivot point in a national election are vanishingly small. So small that if your only goal is to effect the outcome of the election instead of voting out of civic duty or to express yourself, you might as well stay home. One can campaign for a candidate and affect many people's vote, but assuming that you don't campaign or convince anyone to change their vote (most people don't) then the only thing you really have control over is whether or not you vote. If you decide to vote, then you might as well vote for whoever you think is best. For most people, that is still going to be one of two candidates, because of the information costs of other candidates if nothing else. I was thinking of voting Libertarian because I believe in civil liberties and the strict separation of church and state. Problem is that Bob Barr is that he is just another Republican who wanted to put on a sideshow. Although I think Obama is weak in many areas, of all the candidates I have looked at I think he is the best. So yes, even I am voting for the lesser of evils; the difference is I delude myself into thinking that I was more open minded about the whole thing. Obama 2008!

[Darth Wong]

Any intelligent ethics system takes probable outcomes into account (the others are extremist ideal systems and are quite frankly better-suited to simple minded people).

If the probable outcome of a third-party vote is to make that party strong enough to sway votes at the federal level, and you think this would be a good outcome (presumably because it weakens both members of the duopoly), then you should vote for that outcome. If, on the other hand, the probable outcome of a third-party vote is to simply hand victory to the greater of two evils in a two-party system, then it would be unethical to choose that action.

Of course, you can't predict the future. But polling can give you something to work with.

[Posner]

Any intelligent ethics system takes probable outcomes into account (the others are extremist ideal systems and are quite frankly better-suited to simple minded people).

If the probable outcome of a third-party vote is to make that party strong enough to sway votes at the federal level, and you think this would be a good outcome (presumably because it weakens both members of the duopoly), then you should vote for that outcome. If, on the other hand, the probable outcome of a third-party vote is to simply hand victory to the greater of two evils in a two-party system, then it would be unethical to choose that action.

I agree with you, Nader in 2000 has become a cliche of the greater of two evils winning. We can blame Nader for running, but would you blame a person for voting for him? The probable outcome of a third party candidate doing well is to spoil the lesser of two evils, but the probable outcome of the individual deciding to vote for a third party candidate is that nothing will change.

[Ariphaos]

The lesser of two evils in this case is fighting for a hopeless outcome when you could instead attempt to influence the decisions of those you -can- help get elected more directly.

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

Would a third party candidate have a chance at all in the american political climate?

[Coyote]

Any intelligent ethics system takes probable outcomes into account ...

If the probable outcome of a third-party vote is to make that party strong enough to sway votes at the federal level, and you think this would be a good outcome (presumably because it weakens both members of the duopoly), then you should vote for that outcome. If, on the other hand, the probable outcome of a third-party vote is to simply hand victory to the greater of two evils in a two-party system, then it would be unethical to choose that action...

Ahh, but that means actually having to consider the results and weight benefits vs. costs-- it negates the ease and comfort of a one-size-fits-all boilerplate technique that can be applied without thinking. And we all know what a dangerous path that leads down!

The problem with much of the political process in general is that it works great when people do what is needed: take the time to learn about what's going on and make informed decisions...

[General Zod]

Would a third party candidate have a chance at all in the american political climate?

Third party candidates have had some success in "smaller" political posts, but for anything approaching a national level they're pretty much SOL in favor of the two major parties.

[ArcturusMengsk]

Would a third party candidate have a chance at all in the american political climate?

That depends on the climate. The most obvious example is Ross Perot, who at times led both Bush and Clinton in the polls in '93 before dropping out (and subsequently rejoining) the campaign. Another example is Robert M. LaFollette, who ran on the Progressive ticket several times and picked up electoral votes each time.

Theodore Roosevelt actually garnered a substantially greater number of electoral votes than President Taft in the 1912 election while running as a Progressive, but seeing as he'd already been a Republican President I don't think that quite counts. The Dixiecrats always ran strongly in the South, but generally had little hope ever to actually win outside that region.

[ArcturusMengsk]

Pardon me, LaFollette only ran in 1924, but he did win his home state of Wisconsin and 17% of the national vote. Eugene V. Debs was the candidate for several Socialist parties in different national elections and won quite a few votes every time, though he carried no states.

[Coyote]

Would a third party candidate have a chance at all in the american political climate?

Recently, Ross Perot comes to mind, but he did that by basically aping one of the foundations of the Republican Party, not by bringing any truly new ideas to the field.

New parties have almost zero chance of forming beyond a handful of grassroots positions-- if a new party forms and it has a good idea, it'll quickly be adapted to the Big Two, leaving only extremist positions left to be picked over by whacko parties like the Communist Party of the United States, the American Socialist Party, the American Nazi Party, the Constitutionalists, etc.

A third party can form only by splitting up either the Dems or the Repubs. The biggest opportunity for split is in the Republican Party right now, since there are many elements in the Republican Party that in the long run are incompatible. The "Small Government/States Rights" wing is very suspicious of the Evangelical Christian wing that sees national government power as a position from which to force certain social and cultural interests onto the masses.

Lesser possibilities for a split exist in the Democratic Party-- there is a chance that a Greens Party could form from the Democrats, but for the most part the Democratic Party is already seen as very sympathetic on environmental issues so there's not much impetus to forge a new Greens Party. So for now, the idea of a serious, motivated Greens Party is left to the position of extremists.

[Sriad]

Would a third party candidate have a chance at all in the american political climate?

If Obama and a Democratic House/Senate spectacularly fail to redress the problems established by the Neocons over the last 8 years, a third-party run might be viable in 2012. Michael Bloomburg is currently the best situated person to do so, being an independently wealthy centrists with national exposure and political experience as a popular mayor of New York.

Saying "third parties have NO chance" is not strictly true. Joe Lieberman is third party "independent democrat" and Bernie Sanders, a self titled democratic Socialist, both serve in the Senate. Ex-professional wrestler Jesse Ventura They're a trivial percentage relative to other nations where parliamentary coalitions establish artifical majorities, but third partiers are present and hold a small fraction of power at all levels of office in the US short of the presidency.

[haard]

It is worth noting, in such discussions, that Arrow's theorem states (simplified) that no voting mechanism with more than one voter and more than two alternatives will ever be completely 'fair'. You will always have to choose your imperfections - and this is before irrationality and psychology enters the equation. This is why it is trivially easy to find weak spots to trash in almost any democratic decision-making system.

[Tatterdemalion]

If the Presidential election were a Single Transferable Vote then voting for a third party would be viable, but it's not, so it isn't. In my personal opinion, any election for a single position that has more than two candidates should be done via a system that ensures the backing of at least 51% of the voters. Pipe dream of course.

[Tatterdemalion]

[self nitpick] ...and I've just realised I've bungled the terminology. My ideal would be a president elected by instant run-off vote rather than by electoral college. [/nitpick]

[Coyote]

People bag on the Electoral College, but in truth, if all we had was a direct-to-office vote by the citizens, then candidates would only really need to court, and see to the needs of, maybe 4 states with a lot of population. California, New York, Texas and Florida. Not a single one of the concerns of the other states would need to be addressed, much less thought about.

Now, some say that's little different than what happens now, but while those Big Four are indeed powerful blocs, the power is at least diffused to a number of second-tier states like Washington, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and so on that can be courted to offset a loss in other Big Four states.

True, minor states like Idaho, North Dakota, and similar such places are still throwaways, but in the greater scheme of the nation, their voices are rarely every influential to begin with, and in truth the concerns of a state like Idaho really doesn't need to demand a lot of attention at that level since we don't have a population that demands alot of resources, or a market-cornering resource that demands attention.

The Electoral College is flawed and pretty much sucks, but it does prevent a more extreme bottleneck of power that would exist otherwise. It's like Democracy itself: it's horrible, but compared to the alternatives...

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

People bag on the Electoral College, but in truth, if all we had was a direct-to-office vote by the citizens, then candidates would only really need to court, and see to the needs of, maybe 4 states with a lot of population. California, New York, Texas and Florida. Not a single one of the concerns of the other states would need to be addressed, much less thought about.

I'm not following this at all. If you went with a purely popular vote, then even if you got literally 100% of the electorate in those states, you wouldn't have enough votes. Even if we assume that those four states do contain >50% of the votes, well, let's compare how it goes down between the two systems:

Electoral college: as long as you get >50% in just these four states, congratulations; you're done. You can ignore or even spit on every last other person out there.

Popular vote: if you get >50% of the vote there, well, good job. You're halfway to being elected. Time to go to the rest of the states to pick up more votes.

[SirNitram]

Would a third party candidate have a chance at all in the american political climate?

If they began aggressively growing their third party from the municipal level up, electing members who can then assist in fundraising and recignition, increasing public opinion when acting competently, and being legitimized by a growing presense in politics in general, I suspect any Third Party could have signifigant sway in American politics.

Of course, they prefer to show up once every 4 years and whine like spoiled children no one let's them into the big debates.