Lesser-evil voting

{{Short description|Politics and government}} {{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.<ref name="huffpost">{{cite web |last=Rosen |first=Sanford |title=Obama's Re-Election: The Lesser Evil? |url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/obama-reelection_b_1913745 |website=HuffPost |date=27 September 2012 |access-date=13 August 2024}}</ref>

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.<ref name="Duverger"> {{cite book | first = Maurice | last = Duverger | author-link = Maurice Duverger | chapter = Factors in a Two-Party and Multiparty System | title = Party Politics and Pressure Groups | location = New York | publisher = Thomas Y. Crowell | year = 1972 | pages = 23–32 | chapter-url = http://janda.org/c24/Readings/Duverger/Duverger.htm | quote = "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." }}</ref> Lesser-evil voting is a common strategy in plurality-based systems like first-past-the-post and ranked-choice voting (RCV),<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Dellis |first1=Arnaud |last2=Kröger |first2=Sabine |date=2023 |title=How Do People Vote Under Instant Runoff Voting? An Experiment on Complexity and Voting Behavior |url=https://www.ssrn.com/abstract=4602773 |journal=SSRN Electronic Journal |language=en |doi=10.2139/ssrn.4602773 |issn=1556-5068|url-access=subscription }}</ref> but not approval or score voting.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Merrill |first1=Samuel |last2=Nagel |first2=Jack |date=1987-06-01 |title=The Effect of Approval Balloting on Strategic Voting under Alternative Decision Rules |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055400194481/type/journal_article |journal=American Political Science Review |language=en |volume=81 |issue=2 |pages=509–524 |doi=10.2307/1961964 |issn=0003-0554 |jstor=1961964|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

== 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|date=October 2024}}

=== In France ===

==== 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 the center-right to right-wing Rally for the Republic and the "fascist" was Jean-Marie Le Pen of the far-right National Front. Chirac eventually won the second round having garnered 82% of the vote.<ref>{{cite news |title=Chirac's New Challenge |url=https://www.economist.com/news/2002/05/06/chiracs-new-challenge |newspaper=The Economist |date=6 May 2002 |access-date=13 August 2024}}</ref>

=== In the United States ===

==== Humorous References ====

In a 1972 recording, the Firesign Theater satirised the upcoming Presidential election with veiled references to candidates Nixon and McGovern in fictional character George Papoon's campaign button ("Not insane") and platform ("Guaranteed Annual Year").

In a 2004 episode of South Park, as summarized by IMDb, "Stan refuses to vote in the school mascot election because his choices are a giant douche and a turd sandwich. Unfortunately, his views on voting are seen as un-American, and he is ultimately banished from the town."<ref>{{cite web |title=Douche and Turd (Episode aired Oct 27, 2004) |url=https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0705922/ |website=IMDb |access-date=15 February 2026}}</ref>

==== Vietnam War era ==== In a 2012 op-ed piece supporting the Obama campaign, the term was used to describe the phenomenon of US liberals refusing to vote during the Vietnam War era.<ref name="huffpost" />

==== 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.<ref name=washpostdislike>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/31/a-record-number-of-americans-now-dislike-hillary-clinton/|author=Aaron Blake|title=A record number of Americans now dislike Hillary Clinton|newspaper=Washington Post|date=2016-08-31|access-date=2016-08-31}}</ref> Green Party candidate Jill Stein invoked this idea in her campaign stating, "Don't vote for the lesser evil, fight for the greater good."<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.gq.com/story/jill-stein-green-party-interview | title=Meet Jill Stein, the Other Anti-Establishment Progressive Running for President | date=26 May 2016 }}</ref> This sentiment was repeated for the next two election cycles, both of which were between presidential candidates Joe Biden (D) and Donald Trump (R).<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/24/politics/2020-poll-analysis/index.html | title= 2020 could be another 'lesser of two evils' election | website=CNN | date= 24 July 2019 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/lesser-two-evils-voters-decide-2024-rcna91077 | title= The 'lesser of two evils' voters who could decide 2024 | website=NBC News | date= 28 June 2023 }}</ref>

In 2024, the principle was invoked in the United States in an appeal to vote for any Democrat who runs against Donald Trump, even if one normally votes Republican.<ref>{{cite web |title=Republican Voters Against Trump |url=https://rvat.org/ |website=RVAT |access-date=13 August 2024}}</ref>

==== Israel-Palestine ==== {{main|Gaza war protest vote movements}}

LEV was identified, in an op-ed piece, as an inadequate reason for Muslims in the USA to vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate in the 2024 election.<ref>{{cite news |last=Bhatti |first=Sana |title=Muslims and Palestinians Weigh the Stakes in 2024 |url=https://inthesetimes.com/article/muslims-palestinians-vote-biden-2024-election-bhatti |work=In These Times |publisher=Institute for Public Affairs |date=12 August 2024 |access-date=13 August 2024}}</ref>

== Arguments for and against == === In favor === ==== "WW2 Allies Were the Lesser Evil" Argument ==== 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 Japanese internment camps and the Bombing of Dresden made the Allies morally assailable and therefore "the lesser of two evils" in the war, but he argues you should not fail to support the Allies as a result of them committing some immoral acts. Somin states, "if supporting a lesser evil in war is sometimes defensible, surely the same applies to an election."<ref name=chomskyLEV>{{cite web |last=Chomsky |first=Noam |title=Eight-Point Brief for Lesser-Evil Voting |url=https://newpol.org/eight-point-brief-lev-lesser-evil-voting/ |website=New Politics |date=18 June 2016 |access-date=13 August 2024}}</ref>

===="When both candidates have unacceptable positions, one must still vote" Argument ==== In 2024, Pope Francis advised that "One must vote. And one must choose the lesser evil. Which is the lesser evil? That lady [Kamala Harris] or that gentleman [Donald Trump]? I don’t know; each person must think and decide according to their own conscience." He referred to a Church teaching that, in a situation where both candidates hold views that are opposed to Catholic beliefs, each person must vote in accordance with his faithfully formed conscience.<ref>{{cite web |first=Ariane |last=Soubek |url=https://wherepeteris.com/pope-francis-on-us-election-vote-for-the-lesser-evil/ |title=Pope Francis on US Election: Vote for the Lesser Evil | date=14 September 2024 |access-date=15 February 2025}}</ref>

==== "Voting Demands Little Time" Argument ==== Leftist public intellectual Noam Chomsky and John Halle are critical of LEV, but ultimately defend it. Chomsky advises that despite his criticisms of LEV, there is practical utility in LEV, saying, "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", but instead as an opportunity to reduce harm or loss.<ref>Noam Chomsky and John Halle, "[https://newpol.org/eight-point-brief-lev-lesser-evil-voting/ An Eight Point Brief for LEV (Lesser Evil Voting)]," ''[https://newpol.org/about/ New Politics],'' June 15, 2016.</ref> He says in order for voting not to distract the left from non-electoral political action, "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,"<ref>{{cite web |last=Chomsky |first=Noam |title=Eight-Point Brief for Lesser-Evil Voting |url=https://newpol.org/eight-point-brief-lev-lesser-evil-voting/ |website=New Politics |date=18 June 2016 |access-date=13 August 2024}}</ref> making his argument strongly consequentialistic.

=== Against === ==== Accelerationist Argument ==== 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.<ref>{{cite video |title=Norman Finkelstein "lashes out" Harris, Trump, Noam Chomsky, Democratic Party and Republican Party. |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iF9qUGvU3E |author=India & Global Left |date=October 6, 2024 |access-date=October 6, 2024 |time=11:02}}</ref>

==== "Refusing to Vote Gives you Political Leverage" Argument ==== Journalist Glenn Greenwald argues against LEV, claiming that regularly voting for the Democrat candidate causes voters to "lose any leverage you might have over them" in the long term.<ref>{{cite web |last=Wright |first=Chris |title=Adjudicating the Chomsky-Greenwald Dispute on Lesser-Evil Voting |url=https://newpol.org/adjudicating-the-chomsky-greenwald-dispute-on-lesser-evil-voting/ |website=New Politics |date=18 October 2023 |access-date=13 August 2024}}</ref>

==== Revolutionary Spirit Argument ==== 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 revolutionary attitudes and minimizes the practical significance of voting in the short term,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.redsun.org/pcp_doc/pcp_0788.htm |title=Interview with Chairman Gonzalo |website=RedSun.org |access-date=2 September 2024}}</ref> making his argument both deontological and consequentialistic.

==== "Don't vote, it only encourages them" ====

In 1990, a Māori activist group in New Zealand urged its supporters not to participate in either the 1990 or the 1993 election of the members of Parliament. Their slogan was "Don't vote, it only encourages them." They also encouraged non-participation in the 1993 New Zealand Electoral Reform Referendum, arguing that constitutional change -- not merely an adjustment of the composition of Parliament, or in the way popular votes were counted -- was required to fulfil the promise of Tino Rangatiratanga made by the Crown in Te Tiriti o Waitangi which its representative negotiated in 1840.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Huygens |first1=Ingrid |title=Processes of Pakeha Change in response to the Treaty of Waitangi |date=2007 |publisher=University of Waikato |location=New Zealand |pages=299 |url= https://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/bitstreams/2acbbd9b-026e-49cf-b21a-bb48dce2d940/download |access-date=28 February 2026 |chapter=Appendix 1}}</ref>

==== None of the Above -- The Cure for What Ails Us ====

In 2016, Alan Grayson delivered an address to the US House of Representatives in which he argued for a "right to reject all of the candidates on the ballot... I am talking about ‘none of the above’ winning and forcing a mulligan, a do-over. We make them do it over until they get it right and give us candidates whom we want to vote for, someone who we feel will actually do a good job in leadership and make the country a better place." Among the benefits Grayson identifies, "First and most importantly, we eliminate the need, the terrible need, to try to choose between the lesser of two evils."<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Grayson |first1=Alan |title='None of the Above' -- the Cure for What Ails Us |journal=Congressional Record - House |date=16 November 2016 |pages=H6265-66 |url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Congressional_Record_-_2016-11-16.pdf |access-date=15 February 2026}}</ref>

== References == {{reflist}}

Category:Voting theory