Lesser-evil voting


Lesser-evil voting refers to a kind of strategic voting where a voter supports a less-preferred candidate in an election rather than their actual favorite candidate, when this candidate is unlikely to win.
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. Lesser-evil voting is a common strategy in plurality-based systems like first-past-the-post and ranked-choice voting (RCV), but not approval or score voting.

Applications of the concept

The concept of "lesser evil" voting can be seen as a form of the minimax strategy 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."

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 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.

In the United States

Vietnam War era

The term has been used to describe the phenomenon of Liberalism in [the United States|US liberals] refusing to vote during the Vietnam War era.

2016, 2020, and 2024 presidential elections

In the 2016 [United States presidential election], both major candidates of the major parties — Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump — had disapproval ratings close to 60% by August 2016. Green Party candidate Jill Stein invoked this idea in her campaign stating, "Don't vote for the lesser evil, fight for the greater good." Green Party votes hurt Democratic chances in 2000 and 2016. This sentiment was repeated for the next two election cycles, both of which were between presidential candidates Joe Biden and Donald Trump, until the withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election, at which point Kamala Harris was considered by many the new lesser evil.
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."

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 Gaza war.

Prominent commentary

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.
Pope Francis advised that among the two most likely candidates, "lesser evil" is the most likely "greater good" for the "common good".

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."

"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. 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," 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.

"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.

Revolutionary Spirit Argument

Chairman Gonzalo of the Shining Path 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, making his argument both deontological and consequentialistic.