And if the options are between Dr. Mike Varshavski and a rabid dog, then you choose Dr. Mike.
As you change the options, the choices change. Sometimes one will be above the line, sometimes neither will, sometimes both will.
Well, let’s take a parallel situation.
You’re a high school student and your friend Billy was turned down by Sally. He’s already gone around to the rest of the football team and gotten them all on board to go drag her into the lockers and have sex with her against her will.
It’s gonna happen, whether you participate or not…!
So…you should participate? You should not participate?
You’re free to give the argument that, somehow, other people making bad and wrong moves means that you should become complicit and a co-conspirator. Yes, Sally is getting raped. No, you shouldn’t participate. You should work to ensure that Billy and the others are punished and that future offenses don’t happen, if there’s no way to stop the event and it really is going to happen no matter what. Figure out the thing that you can actually accomplish that actually moves the ball the right direction and work towards that.
And, @crowmanyclouds, if you’re going to compare Trump to a cute baby lemur…wait, what?
Let’s not imagine conversations that were never had. There’s things that I really did write, and there’s things that I did not. I’d prefer that you restrain yourself to the former.
No one disagrees with the abstract idea that in theory there is some hypothetical scenario where you should abstain. If you and two wolves are voting on whether they should start by eating your feet or your head first, run instead of voting.
The question is whether any of the people who, when faced with Trump and Biden/Kamala, decided to abstain were being reasonable or not.
Yes, if Kamala Harris was equally vile to Trump, they’d be right. In the real world, where there is a huge gulf between Harris and Trump, they’re horribly unreasonable.
The concept of voting in a US presidential election is not so complicated that it needs an analogy for us to grok it. Furthermore neither of these analogies even match the situation and the last one is unnecessarily offensive.
We get 1/152,000,000th of a choice among a handful of candidates. Whether this is worth it or not is besides the point of the OP. My point is that with 152M voters and 2 (or 20) candidates – no one is getting what they want. It is naive to think that the candidate you intend to vote for should be anything but a compromise of your principles.
I often feel that we (myself included) often underestimate the scope and range of voters we are compromising with and, as a result, are disappointed with our options.
Then what was really added to the topic by saying that many other people will still vote between the bad options, when I’d already exactly addressed that point in the very text that you initially quoted?
You must have had some point.
Personally, I read it to imply that somehow, someway that excuses participation. A sort of special pleading. But if not, then I’m not seeing what you were trying to argue.
I had a middle school football coach that sort of summed it up. His take was that if we could get 3-4 yards out of each play, we’d get first downs and eventually win the game. No need for big plays, no need for anything extraordinary, just consistent motion toward the goal line in small increments.
Get the three yards. Or one, but try not to go backward, and have faith that every now and then, you’ll get five or ten yards as well.
No, not in your quotes, but there is a little thing called:
In context, the OP is continuing a discussion that was about people who didn’t vote for the Democrats (abstaining, voting for Jill Stein, or outright voting for Trump to send the Dems a message):
If all that you’re saying is that, in a ballot between Hitler wearing a fake mustache and Hitler wearing a sombrero, you’d abstain, flee, or fight - then fine, I doubt anyone here disagrees with you. But the conversation isn’t about spherical electoral candidates in a vacuum. In context, it’s about whether the Democrats are such shitty candidates that you may as well vote Trump or just throw away your vote, or whether that’s not the case at all.
And unfortunately it often means choosing between garbage and trash.
I get criticized for this, but I decided a dozen years ago to not vote for the lesser of two evils but to only vote for a person if they were not a complete disaster, and I agreed with their positions on most things. This means that, if I don’t like either of the two major candidates, I won’t vote for either of them, and will vote third-party or do a write-in. Example: I can’t stand Hillary Clinton, and I can’t stand Trump, so I did a write-in in 2016. Some people say I am “throwing my vote away.” Perhaps. But I just don’t wanna play the lesser-of-two-evils game anymore.
One of the hallmarks of a Trump administration is that he actively works against the interests of his supporters all while saying the opposite. I don’t think most of them are getting what they want. Based on dropping approval scores, some of them are figuring it out.
And sure, low-information voters are satisfied. No surprise there. Ignorance has always been a recipe for happiness.
I was saying your analogies don’t work here. In the first case a doctor is getting hired and in the second case I don’t know who the football team represents, let alone me and Sally. If your point is that your options are choosing among two Hitlers, then just say that. So then the follow-up question can be: ‘What will you do instead of voting?’
My point is that they aren’t both Hitlers. We get an opportunity to move the needle a tiny bit: 1/152M-th. When you vote you support a tiny slice of the candidate. Pick the slice that you agree with and bump the needle.
There is a good, brief article in the New Left Review issue 145Jan/Feb 2024 titled “On Lesser Evilism” that is worth reading for anyone who wishes to seriously consider the problem rather than just react.
All sides can learn from it.
Finlayson is looking at British politics but her arguments and insights are more broadly applicable. I am not sure if this link is paywalled. (NLR 145, January–February 2024)Lorna Finlayson, On Lesser Evilism, NLR 145, January–February 2024
As a voter, I have a responsibility to express which candidate will best serve the interests of the constituency of which I’m a member (civic duty theory)
As a voter, politicians exist to serve me, and their reward is my vote. If they don’t cater to my preferences, they don’t get my vote (consumerist politics theory).
Or phrased another way:
I’m going to try for the best outcome available under the circumstances.
If I can’t get exactly what I want, le deluge.
The US has a binary-choice voting system, meaning that the “lesser evil” is just a pessimistic rephrasing of “better candidate.” They are two sides of exactly the same coin, which is the only coin you can spend. If you don’t choose the “lesser evil” then you are explicitly refusing to choose the greater good.
Of course that’s your business if you choose. It’s your vote. But don’t expect any head-pats for the virtue of satisfying your own sense of strategic sophistication or moral purity at the expense of others’ suffering.
I’m talking about general elections of course. In primary and local elections people should get rowdy, throw tantrums, do whatever is necessary to get the best candidate on the ballot. That’s where a real difference can be made. But in the general election it will always be about choosing the lesser evil, and everyone who doesn’t want more evil needs to come to terms with the fact that nobody ever gets their own personal ideal outcome.
Well said. The time to be idealistic is in the upstream end, getting truly good candidates into and past the primaries.
And doing so by dint of far more personal effort than merely voting.
By the time it’s down to the general election and especially the US presidential election, we each need to make a clear-eyed assessment of which big party candidate will harm the world more, then vote for the other one.
With luck it’ll be obvious, and one of them will in fact be force for some good in the world. Then again 77 million Americans faced that simple test last year & still got it wrong; grossly wrong.
