# Hillary: "Vote your conscience" **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [July 25, 2016, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-vote-your-conscience/760842 "2016-07-25T12:21:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2016, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-vote-your-conscience/760842/41 "2016-07-25T19:25:19Z")
I’m probably going to vote for Hillary purely because a Trump presidency scares me, but sentiments like the ones in this thread insisting that people are wrong to actually vote for a candidate that represents them and against a ‘normal level’ evil candidate like Hillary over a ‘WTF level’ evil candidate like Trump incline me way more to voting Libertarian (and I don’t even like the Libertarians, but at least they’re not supporting the status quo). ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2016, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-vote-your-conscience/760842/42 "2016-07-25T19:45:14Z")
Because people disagree about the different possible moral imperative and implications of voting, you’re considering helping to elect a strongman dictator, **Pantastic**? \_(ツ)\_/¯ There is room for disagreement about what it means to vote one’s conscience, just like there is room for disagreement about almost all matters of morality. If you want to contend that you can think Trump is evil and still not vote for Hillary as an act of conscience, you have some options. You could deny that one is morally obligated to “do unto others” when it comes to voting, for example, and therefore you are not obligated to ask what would happen if everyone did as you do. Or you could argue that, if American democracy survives Trump, then stopping voting for the lesser of two evils will be good in the long-run even if bad in the short-term by some underpants gnome logic of how not voting or voting for a third party in a presidential election will bring about that result. There are probably other ways. I assume **SenorBeef** chooses one of those. But what you cannot do, logically, is say that there is no moral/conscience argument for choosing the lesser of two evils–there is an obvious one, namely, t_hat it is the lesser of two evils_. You also cannot attribute real world effect to one’s vote by speaking in aggregate terms (i.e., the symbolic effect of a bunch of people abstaining from voting) but then ignore the aggregate effects of lots of people doing so (i.e., arguing that no single vote matters). Those are bad arguments, and the people making them should feel bad. But the worst argument of all is that random people on the internet expressed some views you disagree with so you’ll somehow punish or react to them by taking a secret act that they’ll never learn about in November. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2016, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-vote-your-conscience/760842/43 "2016-07-25T21:42:31Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Because people disagree about the different possible moral imperative and implications of voting, you’re considering helping to elect a strongman dictator, **Pantastic**? \_(ツ)\_/¯ Because people claim stuff that’s emotionally manipulative and logically complete nonsense like the above, I’m reconsidering whether to do what they’re trying to manipulate me to even though it’s the course of action I was originally planning. > [@](#): > > You could deny that one is morally obligated to “do unto others” when it comes to voting, for example, and therefore you are not obligated to ask what would happen if everyone did as you do. Seriously, think about this stuff before you write it. If I vote for Johnson instead of either the really evil guy or the evil establishment woman, and everyone did as I do, then Johnson WOULD WIN. > [@](#): > > But what you cannot do, logically, is say that there is no moral/conscience argument for choosing the lesser of two evils–there is an obvious one, namely, t_hat it is the lesser of two evils_. There is no valid argument, because it relies on a false dichotomy. I reject your implication that the only valid choices are the two evils, especially since in actual practice what your argument means is that I can never vote against the Status Quo. > [@](#): > > You also cannot attribute real world effect to one’s vote by speaking in aggregate terms (i.e., the symbolic effect of a bunch of people abstaining from voting) but then ignore the aggregate effects of lots of people doing so (i.e., arguing that no single vote matters). At no point in the last twenty years have I argued in favor of abstaining from voting. You are seriously barking up the wrong tree with your response, especially since I explicitly stated what my (non-abstaining) plan was in the post you’re responding to. > [@](#): > > But the worst argument of all is that random people on the internet expressed some views you disagree with so you’ll somehow punish or react to them by taking a secret act that they’ll never learn about in November. No, the worst argument is the one that relies on emotional manipulation instead of any kind of reasoned thought in an attempt to coerce me into doing what you want. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2016, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-vote-your-conscience/760842/44 "2016-07-25T22:08:48Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Very few people actually think believe in Hillary as the best possible presidential candidate. In 2016, Hillary Clinton is in my mind undoubtedly the best possible presidential candidate. Sanders was not, because he could not beat her. Obama faced the same circumstances, and won. Clinton improved her game since then, and Sanders did not do well enough among sufficient numbers of Democrats to win. No Republican who entered the race was more qualified than Clinton.\* The third party candidates are all jokes; I doubt very much that, if the same level of scrutiny were placed any of them, any would be viable candidates; in fact their viabilty such as it is would probably be substantially less even than they seem right now. Clinton has solid credentials. She is highly intelligent, she is calm and rational, and if anything is much more honest than your average politician, and far less corrupt than average as well. Is she perfect? Hardly. But so what, we’re electing a human for President, not a fantasy. ETA: \*and it should be obvious that Trump is absolutely, totally unacceptable. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2016, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-vote-your-conscience/760842/45 "2016-07-25T23:58:34Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > Seriously, think about this stuff before you write it. If I vote for Johnson instead of either the really evil guy or the evil establishment woman, and everyone did as I do, then Johnson WOULD WIN. . . . At no point in the last twenty years have I argued in favor of abstaining from voting. You are seriously barking up the wrong tree with your response, especially since I explicitly stated what my (non-abstaining) plan was in the post you’re responding to. You wrongly assume every paragraph in my post is about you. > [@Pantastic](#): > > There is no valid argument, because it relies on a false dichotomy. I reject your implication that the only valid choices are the two evils, especially since in actual practice what your argument means is that I can never vote against the Status Quo. A false dichotomy is a fallacy that involves falsely limited alternatives when there are other options. Even if you misunderstood me to be saying that " the only valid choices are the two evils" (and I expressly said otherwise!), that isn’t an example of a false dichotomy. I wouldn’t be ignoring the third option, I would be arguing that that option was immoral. And as for “I can never vote against the Status Quo,” that premise is logically valid, but factually nonsensical. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2016, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-vote-your-conscience/760842/46 "2016-07-26T00:21:04Z")
> [@galen\_ubal](#): > > Fuck me, but I’m getting sick of people pining for some perfect Hollywood candidate, Martin Sheen declaiming in Latin. Guess what? Not gonna happen. I now need him to speak, in Latin, to the DNC. Nobody (Republican) or few (Democratic) would understand him, but he’s freakin’ Martin Sheen! Charlie couldn’t understand it, Emilio, well, who care what he thinks, but Faddah Ray? He could sell it. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2016, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-vote-your-conscience/760842/47 "2016-07-26T05:42:47Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > So “vote for the lesser of two evils” and “vote your conscience” have the exact same meaning to you then? My conscience tell me that I should minimise evil wherever I can, and to the extent I can. Does your conscience tell you something different? ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2016, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-vote-your-conscience/760842/48 "2016-07-26T05:57:03Z")
As I’ve said 4 or 5 times now, if “vote your conscience” means “buy into the system and feel compelled to vote for the less evil candidate”, it’s a meaningless phrase. Voting for the least evil is the standard advice. “Vote your conscience” is meant to contradict that standard advice. If it doesn’t, there’s no point in having such a concept/phrase. My conscience tells me that while voting for the lesser of two evils might have the best short term option, buying into the system where that’s considered the norm - and beyond that, moral obligation - is what gets us two evils to pick from each time. Being complicit in that system creates a greater evil. My conscience tells me not to be a tool in creating this situation by voting for evil. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2016, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-vote-your-conscience/760842/49 "2016-07-26T06:02:54Z")
Voting my conscience means Clinton. Voting Johnson when you supported Sanders shows you’re voting for whoever, since they have no issues in common. And it specifically says vote, so staying home isn’t an option. The states where a Green Party candidate may make it in are generally doing well for Clinton anyways. And, SenorBeef–what are your moral reasons for not voting Clinton, if not claims of her own immorality? My main thing at this point is that all the crap I’ve heard about her seems to not be true. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2016, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-vote-your-conscience/760842/50 "2016-07-26T06:08:37Z")
Ms Clinton is not the ideal candidate of my dreams. Although Bernie has a few good ideas, I don’t know that he’d be a better President. Any Democrat would be better than the lackluster Republican field. And Trump is active Evil. (Not just non-sexy, non-cute or non-hip.) My conscience is quite clear that voting for Clinton is the best choice this year. Bernie agrees–I just heard him say so. Those who quibble at “The System” seem to awaken from a stupor every four years & realize that neither of the Presidential candidates makes their nipples tingle. They really ought to pay attention to all candidates for all offices–even in the “off” years. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2016, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-vote-your-conscience/760842/51 "2016-07-26T06:48:19Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > As I’ve said 4 or 5 times now, if “vote your conscience” means “buy into the system and feel compelled to vote for the less evil candidate”, it’s a meaningless phrase. Voting for the least evil is the standard advice. “Vote your conscience” is meant to contradict that standard advice. If it doesn’t, there’s no point in having such a concept/phrase. > > My conscience tells me that while voting for the lesser of two evils might have the best short term option, buying into the system where that’s considered the norm - and beyond that, moral obligation - is what gets us two evils to pick from each time. Being complicit in that system creates a greater evil. My conscience tells me not to be a tool in creating this situation by voting for evil. You will ALWAYS be voting for the lesser of evils, as there will never be a candidate who agrees with you 100%. There will always be issues where they aren’t doing what you consider to be the right thing. Democracy can’t function in any other way. Since it’s multiple people working together, it will always involve compromise. And compromise means that you won’t always get what you want. Who you vote for won’t change this. It’s the nature of choice. As long as you are picking between candidates and/or collections of issues, you will be voting for the lesser of evils. And not voting would not only be ignoring what was said, but will have zero bearing on how the system is operating. Half the country doesn’t vote, and that doesn’t change anything. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2016, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-vote-your-conscience/760842/52 "2016-07-26T06:54:42Z")
A candidate that agrees with you 99% is evil? No, there is a wide range of candidates that aren’t evil. I voted for Obama twice, and I don’t believe he’s an evil. He was a disappointment, certainly, in how much he maintained the status quo, but I believe he’s a good person who was in it to do his best to serve the American people, and largely succeeded within his power. If Obama had the option of a third term, I would vote for him a third time, and I wouldn’t be voting for an evil. So no, you’re wrong, you don’t always have to vote for evil. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2016, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-vote-your-conscience/760842/53 "2016-07-26T07:10:01Z")
Hillary Clinton is not evil. Suggesting that she is is utterly ridiculous. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2016, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-vote-your-conscience/760842/54 "2016-07-26T07:51:01Z")
“The lesser of two evils” is a colloquial term that people use to denote the least-bad choice. Whether or not you consider the person actually evil is obviously subjective. But when you say “I don’t like either option, but I think this option is much worse”, you’re saying the other option is the lesser of two evils. I don’t think Hillary will make a good president. Some very significant portion of her voter base agrees, and yet they’re pressured with “But Trump is worse! You have to vote for the lesser of two evils!” **BigT** is saying that anyone that isn’t your absolute ideal candidate is an evil that you have to choose. That simply isn’t true. There’s a huge gap between “this candidate is absolutely perfect” and “we have our differences, but I can support this candidate in good faith and good conscience and I believe they’ll do a good job” - the idea that the lack of a perfect candidate means you’re always choosing the lesser of two evils is silly. It completely ignores the possibility of a good but not perfect candidate. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2016, 8:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-vote-your-conscience/760842/55 "2016-07-26T08:34:13Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > A candidate that agrees with you 99% is evil? No, but given the massively oversimplified choice that you’re presented with at an election, there’s always _some_ element of holding your nose with respect to the candidate that you plump for. Of these two candidates, I prefer A to B even though, yeah, I can find plenty to criticise in candidate A, and it disappoints me that I have to vote for a candidate who espouses certain of his policies. Conversely there’s one or two things about Candidate B that I quite like, but they are not enough to overcome my distaste for his stance on such-and-such an issue. Of the two candidates I prefer A/A is better than B/A is less awful than B [these are all the same statement, basically] so I vote for A. My conscience tells me that that’s how I should vote, since A is the better choice for the republic. I can conceive of a circumstance where my conscience tells me that I can’t vote for A or B. If both A and B are committed to policies which are fundamentally unconscionable. A proposes to round up Muslims and put them in concentration camps, for example, and B proposes to round up Jews and put them in concentration camps. I can’t endorse either of those positions, not even for want of a better choice. But it really has to be that extreme. Whatever else it means, “vote your conscience” absolutely does _not_ mean “abdicate civic responsiblity and let others make the difficult choices that you consider yourself too sensitive to make, while complaining about the fact that you’re not being offered an option that you actually like”. And, if it _is_ that extreme, my conscience is not going to be satisfied with simply not voting; that’s not an adequate response when faced with an electoral choice between two forms of unconscionable evil. I have to find some other way to work to bring about meaningful change so that the republic is not destroyed by its own depraved politics, whether that’s organisation with like-minded people, or activism, or civil disobedience, or _something_. ---
**Author:** ![wolfman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a8b319/32.png) [@wolfman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfman)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2016, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-vote-your-conscience/760842/56 "2016-07-26T12:08:08Z")
My conscience isn’t that short sighted. My conscience understands the importance of the long game, and the future beyond 4/8 years. My conscience is capable of understanding beyond and basal reaction " OHH Muslim boogeyman must vote Trump" or “OHH Trump boogeyman must vote Clinton”. And that all boils down to my conscience deciding I will never cast a vote that continues the cycle of unprincipled, blindly ambitious, power-for-me-whatever-I have-to pretend-to-believe, entrenched power/money/influence trading among the elite bullshit. Whatever influence my vote has my conscience will be spending against supporting the system that shits out someone like Hilary and Donald and says “Hah, now you have no choice”. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2016, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-vote-your-conscience/760842/57 "2016-07-26T12:31:18Z")
> [@wolfman](#): > > My conscience isn’t that short sighted. My conscience understands the importance of the long game, and the future beyond 4/8 years. My conscience is capable of understanding beyond and basal reaction " OHH Muslim boogeyman must vote Trump" or “OHH Trump boogeyman must vote Clinton”. And that all boils down to my conscience deciding I will never cast a vote that continues the cycle of unprincipled, blindly ambitious, power-for-me-whatever-I have-to pretend-to-believe, entrenched power/money/influence trading among the elite bullshit. Whatever influence my vote has my conscience will be spending against supporting the system that shits out someone like Hilary and Donald and says “Hah, now you have no choice”. Voting third party won’t count–unless there’s a hugely successful 3rd party candidate. (Is there?) Not voting won’t count. Voting for Trump counts as a vote for racism, xenophobia & fear. How\* are \*you going to effect change? There are certainly things you could be doing–please let us know! (Since the beginning of the Republic, how many poor men have become President?) ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2016, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-vote-your-conscience/760842/58 "2016-07-26T12:38:42Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > A candidate that agrees with you 99% is **evi** l? > > No, there is a wide range of candidates that aren’t **evil**. I voted for Obama twice, and I don’t believe he’s an **evil**. … If Obama had the option of a third term, I would vote for him a third time, and I wouldn’t be voting for an **evil**. > > So no, you’re wrong, you don’t always have to vote for **evil**. > [@SenorBeef](#): > > “The lesser of two evils” is **a colloquial term** that people use to denote the least-bad choice. I think you need to decide whether you are using the word “evil” literally or colloquially. The argue the term literally in one post, and in your very next post you argue that it is not a literal phrase, literally made my head explode. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2016, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-vote-your-conscience/760842/59 "2016-07-26T12:41:18Z")
The parties never actually have to get anything you want done if you’ll support them even when they don’t. Republicans have been promising to ban abortion for 40 years but no one is seriously trying to do anything about it - but people will still vote republican for that reason. If the vote goes something like Trump 40, Clinton 37, Stein 5, the democrats would actually have reason to start doing something to get those people to vote for them. If you’ll vote for them regardless you don’t. Of course this is a particularly dangerous cycle to make that sort of statement. But then again it could go the other way - with the republican party completely imploding, a freshly motivated democratic party who actually wants to do something on the progressive agenda might find itself in power in the next cycle. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2016, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-vote-your-conscience/760842/60 "2016-07-26T12:46:45Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I think you need to decide whether you are using the word “evil” literally or colloquially. The argue the term literally in one post, and in your very next post you argue that it is not a literal phrase, literally made my head explode. I’m using it the same way both times. I was responding to a poster who said that anytime you didn’t have your dream 100% perfect candidate, you were always choosing the lesser of two evils. And I said that’s an excluded middle - there’s a whole lot between someone you dislike/think would be bad (which would be the lesser evil) and the mythical perfect candidate. He’s saying that you’re always choosing the lesser of two evils - choosing between two candidates you don’t really want - and I disagree. In other words, you can vote for a candidate you actually support, rather than accepting the lesser of two evils. He’s not perfect, but I overall supported Obama - I did not feel as though I was voting for the lesser of two evils. If I were to vote Clinton, I certainly would. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-vote-your-conscience/760842.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-vote-your-conscience/760842.md?page=4)