ForWhichItStood.org

Recently, I wrote a letter to the editor of my school newspaper about the lesser of two evils. While I think I got my point across, I was unable to go into much detail because of the 450 word limit that was put in place. In this post I hope to further expand on the thinking that went behind the article.

If you live in America, chances are you’ve often heard of the term the “lesser evil.” In politics especially, people are constantly referencing “the lesser of two evils.” The philosophy is this, essentially; when given two poor choices for a leader (the president), people (the voters) chose the candidate who they think will do the least damage. This school of thought is not restricted to our current election where voters “must” chose between McCain or Obama; this way of thinking has existed for at least a century. Unfortunately, mainstream America followings this voting philosophy. The problem with voting for the lesser evil is that this philosophy is fundamentally flawed.

When a voter votes for what they consider the “lesser evil,” they’re still voting for evil. Evil is evil is evil. Regardless of which of the two they vote for, they’re still choosing a candidate they feel is inadequate for the position. When one of the options is considered either the lesser or greater evil, both choices will hurt the country. In such – this is essentially the definition of such a philosophy. In such a situation, we cannot expect overall improvement; rather, we will experience backwards progress. Instead of solving problems and bettering our once-great nation, with a lesser evil in a leadership position, we will be creating more problems than we are solving. This collectively results in negative progress; perhaps some problems may be worked out; some solutions might be found; however, these solutions will either be inadequate or overshadowed by newer, direr problems that the new administration would create. The result of electing either “evil” is a nation that decays.

When presented with two bad choices, do not vote for the choice you think is less bad. Evil is evil, wrong is wrong, a bad choice is a bad choice. One might be slightly better than the other, but in the end they’re both going to do more harm than good. By following this school of thought - that there is a lesser evil - you’re giving in to a false dichotomy. The truth is you do have a choice. You can chose between more than two in such a situation, which should void the lesser evil philosophy.

In modern politics, people often have to choice between a Republican presidential candidate and a Democratic presidential candidate, often when they dislike both choices. In such a situation, rather than choosing the lesser evil, the voter could choice to vote for a third party. Many Americans would rather vote for a third party candidate, but fear that such a vote would be a wasted vote. The reality is if all Americans that thought this way voted for a third party, a third party would likely have a viable chance at winning the election. Moreover, if we are to peacefully reform the electoral process, it probably will not happen overnight. Gradually, we will gain a foothold.

In reality, the Republicans and Democrats have duopoly on the political system. One of the few instances in which they work together is when they work together to keep third parties out of the system. If you’re a candidate for a third party, it is extremely difficult to be listed on state ballots and nearly impossible to appear in the political debates. The reason for this is because the two major parties are the ones who set the standards for entrance into the debates, which they set ridiculously high. By doing so, they make the chance of a third party appearing to discuss issues virtually nil.

I encourage voters to break away from the mindset of voting for the lesser evil. I suspect this is the majority of Americans. Not only is this mindset a flawed way of thinking, it degrades our country, slows progress, and only strengthens the two parties’ hold on the system. If we ever want true change, voters need to wake up and stop voting for more of the same. We need to stop voting for the status quo. As voters ,we need to choose a new party, such as the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, or Independents. We need to demand a change to the electoral system; we need to destroy the duopoly’s grasp on how things are run. Rather than have a two party system, we need a three party system, a four party system; we need a system that allows equal access to an infinite amount of parties. Voters should vote for a candidate who truly represents their values and ideology, rather than a candidate who is, allegedly, “less evil.”]

In modern times, most politicians will tell people what they want to hear, rather than what the candidates themselves believe. I suspect that one of the main reasons the two leading parties try so savagely to keep other parties out of the debates is to keep their voices from being heard; by having the opinions of third parties heard, the Republicrats would be forced to address issues of real importance. Rarely do we hear a “viable” candidate address issues such as sound money, smaller government, non-interventionism, abolition of victimless crimes or returning to a Constitutional government. Were a third party to directly confront a candidate of either the Republicans or the Democrats with such issues, voters would likely see through the shallowness of the candidates of the Democrats and Republicans.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. Voting for the lesser evil is a vote for the status quo; it is a vote for backwards progress, and it is a vote for a candidate you dislike. A system that is restricted to a duopoly is a broken system, and the first step towards fixing such a problem is to stop voting for the lesser evil and to begin voting for a candidate who represents the values one holds dear.