Lesser-evil voting

For lesser-evil voting from the standpoint of electoral systems and voter strategy, see sincere favorite criterion and Strategic voting § Lesser evil voting.

Lesser-evil voting (LEV) refers to a kind of strategic voting where a voter supports a less-preferred candidate in an election (the "lesser evil") rather than their actual favorite candidate, when this candidate is unlikely to win. ^[1]

Electoral systems where lesser-evil voting is forced, i.e., where it is not possible for a voter to support both their favorite candidate and a lesser-evil without causing the "greater evil" to win, necessarily fail the sincere favorite criterion. If the incentive is sufficiently severe, such methods are also subject to Duverger's law, tending to devolve into two-party systems. ^[2] Lesser-evil voting is a common strategy in plurality-based systems like first-past-the-post and ranked-choice voting (RCV), ^[3] but not approval or score voting. ^[4]

Applications of the concept

The concept of "lesser evil" voting (LEV) can be seen as a form of the minimax strategy ("minimize maximum loss") where voters, when faced with two or more candidates, choose the one they perceive as the most likely to do harm and vote for the one most likely to defeat him, or the "lesser evil."^{[ citation needed ]}

2002 presidential election

In the second round of the 2002 French presidential election, graffiti in Paris told people to "vote for the crook, not the fascist." The "crook" in those messages was Jacques Chirac of Rally for the Republic and the "fascist" was Jean-Marie Le Pen of the National Front. Chirac eventually won the second round having garnered 82% of the vote. ^[5]

In the United States

Further information: Lesser of two evils principle § In modern elections

Vietnam War era

The term has been used to describe the phenomenon of US liberals refusing to vote during the Vietnam War era. ^[1]

2016, 2020, and 2024 presidential elections

In the 2016 United States presidential election, both major candidates of the major parties — Hillary Clinton (D) and Donald Trump (R) — had disapproval ratings close to 60% by August 2016. ^[6] Green Party candidate Jill Stein invoked this idea in her campaign stating, "Don't vote for the lesser evil, fight for the greater good." ^[7] Green Party votes hurt Democratic chances in 2000 and 2016. ^{[8] [9] [10]} This sentiment was repeated for the next two election cycles, both of which were between presidential candidates Joe Biden (D) and Donald Trump (R), until the Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election. ^{[11] [12]}

The principle has frequently been invoked in the United States as an appeal to vote for whomever is running against Donald Trump, with the Democratic Party's presidential candidate, whoever it is, being the "lesser evil." ^[13]

Israel-Palestine

LEV has been frequently invoked to contextualize the refusal of American leftists to vote for the Democratic Party as a result of Democrat support of Israel in the Israel-Hamas War. ^{[14] [15]}

Prominent commentary

Noam Chomsky advises "voting should not be viewed as a form of personal self-expression or moral judgement directed in retaliation towards major party candidates who fail to reflect our values, or of a corrupt system designed to limit choices to those acceptable to corporate elites" rather as an opportunity to reduce harm or loss. ^[16]

Pope Francis advises that among the two most likely candidates, ^[17] "lesser evil" is the most likely "greater good", ^[18] for the "common good". ^[19]

Arguments for and against

In favor

Libertarian law professor Ilya Somin argues in favor of LEV. He claims if a person refuses to support the lesser evil, this "implies that everyone who backed the Allies during World War II was wrong to do so" on grounds of the allies' injustices. For example, American internment camps made the Allies the "lesser evil" rather than morally righteous in the war, but he argues you should not fail to support the Allies as a result. Somin states, "if supporting a lesser evil in war is sometimes defensible, surely the same applies to an election." ^[20]

Leftist public intellectual Noam Chomsky and John Halle are critical of LEV, but still defend it. Chomsky claims LEV is largely a Hobson's choice, or gives the "illusion of choice," in the context of United States presidential elections. He argues LEV maintains "the bipartisan status quo under the guise of pragmatism." He claims it diverts "the left from actions which have the potential to be effective in advancing its agenda" including developing political organizations, street protests, and competing for office. Chomsky concludes that despite these issues with LEV, there is practical utility in LEV and that "the left should devote the minimum of time necessary to exercise the LEV choice then immediately return to pursuing goals which are not timed to the national electoral cycle." ^[21]

Against

Historian and former Noam Chomsky student Norman Finkelstein criticized Chomsky's view that one should engage in LEV because it demands so little time. Speaking on the 2016 election, Finkelstein claimed that had Hillary won, "there would not have been the most significant mass movement in modern American history," referring to the rise of the progressive left during Trump's presidency. He said when the Democratic Party comes into power, they "neutralize the opposition" using slogans such as "give them a chance," which does not hold true of how the left speaks of the Republican Party. "So the prospects and possibilities for real opposition—they significantly increase when there is a Trump-like figure in power." Overall, Finkelstein's claim is that allowing the Republican candidate to win can be beneficial in creating a progressive left reaction which, in the long-term, outweighs the negative impact of Republicans gaining power in the short-term. ^[22]

Journalist Glenn Greenwald argues against LEV, claiming that regularly voting for the Democratic candidate causes voters to "lose any leverage you might have over them" in the long term. ^[23]

Chairman Gonzalo of the Shining Path (the Communist Party of Peru) argues against all forms of voting including LEV when one is unsatisfied with the current system, claiming elections are revisionist and opportunist, and that voting "means nothing except allowing the renewal of authorities of this old and rotting order." Gonzalo emphasizes the symbolic importance of rejecting elections in facilitating revolution, rather than the practical significance of voting in the short term. ^[24]

See also

• Lesser of two evils principle
• Strategic voting
• Civic engagement

References

1. Rosen, Sanford (27 September 2012). "Obama's Re-Election: The Lesser Evil?". HuffPost. Retrieved 13 August 2024.
2. Duverger, Maurice (1972). "Factors in a Two-Party and Multiparty System". Party Politics and Pressure Groups. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell. pp. 23–32. a majority vote on one ballot is conducive to a two-party system ... a majority vote on two ballots is conducive to a multiparty system, inclined toward forming coalitions.
3. Dellis, Arnaud; Kröger, Sabine (2023). "How Do People Vote Under Instant Runoff Voting? An Experiment on Complexity and Voting Behavior". SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.4602773. ISSN   1556-5068.
4. Merrill, Samuel; Nagel, Jack (1987-06-01). "The Effect of Approval Balloting on Strategic Voting under Alternative Decision Rules". American Political Science Review. 81 (2): 509–524. doi:10.2307/1961964. ISSN   0003-0554. JSTOR   1961964.
5. "Chirac's New Challenge". The Economist. 6 May 2002. Retrieved 13 August 2024.
6. Aaron Blake (2016-08-31). "A record number of Americans now dislike Hillary Clinton". Washington Post. Retrieved 2016-08-31.
7. "Meet Jill Stein, the Other Anti-Establishment Progressive Running for President". 26 May 2016.
8. "Did Ralph Nader Spoil Al Gore's Presidential Bid? A Ballot-Level Study of Green and Reform Party Voters in the 2000 Presidential Election" . Retrieved 30 March 2023.
9. "Jill Stein cost Hillary dearly in 2016. Democrats are still writing off her successor". Politico .
10. "Green Party candidate Jill Stein got more votes than Trump's victory margin in 3 key states". December 2016.
11. "2020 could be another 'lesser of two evils' election". CNN . 24 July 2019.
12. "The 'lesser of two evils' voters who could decide 2024". NBC News . 28 June 2023.
13. "Republican Voters Against Trump". RVAT. Retrieved 13 August 2024.
14. Bhatti, Sana (12 August 2024). "Muslims and Palestinians Weigh the Stakes in 2024". In These Times. Institute for Public Affairs. Retrieved 13 August 2024.
15. Nassar, Tamara (8 October 2020). "US Elections and Lesser Evil Genocide: Steven Salaita". The Electronic Intifada. Retrieved 13 August 2024.
16. Noam Chomsky and John Halle, "An Eight Point Brief for LEV (Lesser Evil Voting)," New Politics, June 15, 2016.
17. Pope urges Catholics to pick 'lesser evil' between Trump and Harris
18. The pope said to vote for the 'lesser of two evils.'
19. Pope Francis on US Election: Vote for the Lesser Evil
20. Somin, Ilya (27 July 2016). "The Logic of Voting for a Lesser Evil". The Washington Post. Retrieved 13 August 2024.
21. Chomsky, Noam (18 June 2016). "Eight-Point Brief for Lesser-Evil Voting". New Politics. Retrieved 13 August 2024.
22. India & Global Left (October 6, 2024). Norman Finkelstein "lashes out" Harris, Trump, Noam Chomsky, Democratic Party and Republican Party. Event occurs at 11:02. Retrieved October 6, 2024.
23. Wright, Chris (18 October 2023). "Adjudicating the Chomsky-Greenwald Dispute on Lesser-Evil Voting". New Politics. Retrieved 13 August 2024.
24. "Interview with Chairman Gonzalo". RedSun.org. Retrieved 2 September 2024.