This story is archived
The Evils of Lesser Evil Voting »
Posted by: populist 2 years, 6 months agoUnderstand this: Lesser evil voting is not courageous. It is a cowardly surrender to the disappointing two-party status quo. Voters have some remarkable opportunities to transform fine minor candidates into competitive major candidates - more honest and trustworthy people like Ron Paul, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich, for example.
Read Full Story at populistamerica.com »
Submitted By:
populist
The essays we offer are unapologetically presented for you to read & analyze. Many are offered as a similar view to ours & others simply to invite ...
Who Also Submitted:
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 166
-
populist
June 4, 2007, 7:35 a.m."Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right"
-H.L. Mencken
-
zplan
June 4, 2007, 8:19 a.m.Hats off to Mr. Joel S. Hirschhorn and Populist. The key IS a politically engaged citizen. The feeling of being powerless in voting for a minor canditate is what the ruling class banks on. I am wondering what percentage of voters have the attitude that a vote for a minor candidate won't matter. Today there is the capacity and means to see where elected officials and incumbents stand on issues and what they wish to achieve. Perhaps some (many?) voters should take a little of their TV viewing time and use it to see what their choices really are. Still, there are those who simply don't care as well.
-
palamaComment has been removed: User banned.
-
Natureboy
June 4, 2007, 9:07 a.m.History tells us that few important changes have been made in this country by the vote. From women's suffrage to the end of slavery to the end of segregation to basic rights for workers, meaningful change has been won in the streets through direct action.
So, vote if you wish, but if you wish to make the world a better place, find like-minded people and just work to make it happen. "Leaders" enjoy their positions of power by virtue of the status quo. Don't ask them to upset the apple-cart upon which they are riding high, they just won't do it.
-
Beeboppin71
June 4, 2007, 9:18 a.m.I vote for the person that I feel is most qualified for the job. It's better than not voting at all.
-
vor
June 4, 2007, 9:53 a.m.I believe the "lesser evil" view is what motivates the vast majority of voters. Certainly Limbaugh voters do not just vote Republican because they love their talking points. Instead they are baited with arguments about what the Democrats will do if they are in power. They think they are voting Republican to save the country from itself. And of course the Democratic view is the same from the opposite spectrum.
The Americans I have known in my lifetime for the most part do very little research on politics. They vote on pure feel and emotion. Neither Kerry, Gore, or Dole, was able to register emotionally with American voters. Bush certainly did, both positively and negatively. If we don't have an educated electorate how can we expect positive results from our elections?
-
Amazing1
June 4, 2007, 10:07 a.m.There are essentially two parties. The incumbents always talk about experienced, seasoned leadership. The challengers talk about bold new ideas. These phrases are used interchangeably depending on whether the Republicans or the Democrats are in or out of power.
We, as citizens, need to throw them all for a loop and vote in massive numbers for other parties, depending on what we believe is best for the country.
I also favor the "none-of-the-above" ballot. Should "none-of-the-above" receive the most votes, have a new slate of candidates or don't fill the position.
-
NelsonR
June 4, 2007, 10:32 a.m.Polictical machines have always played a major role in dictating who the candidates for elected office will be.
The two party system is in the accepted American psychi and change including a elected third party president is years away, if ever.
Then the sheep (Majority) vote for whoever makes the most promises while repeatedly failing to keep most, year after year. It's realism, nothing changes and our future elected officials will be of the same mold.
Positive side, just maybe things will change where true public servants will materialize without the need for power and greed a by product of their running for office.
-
Maple77
June 4, 2007, 12:10 p.m.Of course, what the US really needs is a more sophisticated voting system. No voting system is perfect but Instant Runoff, Approval and Range voting are all better than the tired old simplistic "who gets the most votes" system. There are good explanations of these on Wikipedia.
-
HMMace
June 4, 2007, 12:18 p.m.We are proceeding down the road to destruction.. Our crooked, greedy politicans are breeding apathy..No one has any morals..all just want more in thier pockets..Riight now, our two leaders, Bush, and Cheny are lining thier pockets with oil money, like never before in history..We now have taxation, with out representation which will lead us to revolution..Lobbiests corrupt our politicians, even before they are in office..We must start to -NEVER RE ELECT ANY POLITICAN--EVER.. because--POWER CORUPTS...
-
not2needy
June 4, 2007, 1:09 p.m.I have always voted, however, i'm not sure voting is worth the time and effort it takes anymore. Now with legislation passed regarding voting machines, it could be another way to insure the repukes a victory in 2008.
-
Truzseeker
June 4, 2007, 2:38 p.m.Another good article populist ! including follow through commentary...very well done.
-
aceofspades1
June 4, 2007, 2:54 p.m.In the most polite manner that I can answer this - voting for a minor party candidate is A LOAD OF CRAP.- while it is true that our current political scheme is on the national basis a two party system , it is important to vote for one of the major candidates even if that candidate is the lesser of two evils.
I will forever blame Ralph Nader & his misguided egotism for the asscent to the throne by King George.
Sometimes pragmatism must overcome altruism.
-
-
joel-s-hirschhorn
June 4, 2007, 4:26 p.m.Anyone who blames Nader because Bush got elected is not using all their brain power. Bush was elected because of an enormous number of conservative lesser evil voters not because of a relatively few principled voters that went with Nader. Moreover, Gore ran a lousy campaign and caused many people to not vote at all; he could not even carry his home state!!! Principled voters no longer elect presidents; every president now wins because of lesser evil voters. Pundits may talk about swing and independent voters, but it is more accurate to see the power with lesser evil voters - and candidates lie repeatedly to win over those lesser evil voters: Democrats lie to get votes from progressives; Republicans lie to get votes from conservatives and libertarians.
-
LiberalsSmell
June 4, 2007, 5:16 p.m."The core problem with lesser evil voters is that they are short term thinkers. They fail to see the repeated long term consequence of their style of voting - a system over many election cycles that persists in delivering suboptimal results. The "good" outcome in the current election (from their perspective), is the enemy of the "better" solution in the longer term (from an objective perspective). But, the real "better" solution is major reform that will never happen as long as lesser evil voting persists."
-I admire this idea but it's just unrealistic. Right now, Rudy is the only Republican with a real chance at beating Hillary. I support Newt but I will vote for Rudy over Hillary if that's what it comes down to.
-
stephen-johnson
June 4, 2007, 5:18 p.m."Voters in this presidential primary season have some remarkable opportunities to transform fine minor candidates into competitive major candidates - more honest and trustworthy people like Ron Paul, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich, for example."
minor candidate = more trustworthy
If the majority of the public ignores a candidate, then those candidates must be better, since the public is "cowardly" and "uninformed".
Interesting calculus
-
david_nwpa
June 4, 2007, 7:26 p.m.Whenever I get to the polls and am undecided about whom I am going to vote for office, I tend to do the next best thing. I push the button that allows me to write in my candidate of choice, and generally pick myself or my close family. I tied in a local election that way. TIED. The tie breaker was held at the court house and I lost. Shows that every vote matters.
I know for the coming election that I am torn between John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich. I like the things I hear from John Edwards about health care costs and education. I really like the things I have heard from Dennis Kucinich on a variety of other issues, including Iraq. Remember, when in doubt, vote your conscience, not what the crowd wants.
-
SonOfTheMask
June 4, 2007, 7:42 p.m.You can only vote for who is on the ballot...or not vote at all.
I choose to vote for the candidate who I think will make the decisions towards what I want to see in the future. That's pretty simple.
The true coward is the person who chooses not to vote at all, but then rails at voters as having embraced evil and deserve shame for exercising their privilege and civic duty to participate in our democracy.
-
david_nwpa
June 4, 2007, 8:29 p.m.Worse than voting the lesser of two evils is an uninformed electorate. Do people understand the issues when they vote? Do they understand their candidates' stands on those issues? Do people understand the importance of the vote they cast? Instead of voting for Bush-lite, or Clinton-esque, try voting for a candidate in whom you believe!
-
aceofspades1
June 4, 2007, 9:13 p.m.Populist - I think that you are being very naive in this case - voting for a candidate with no chance of winning is throwing your vote away - Do you really believe the winner pays any attention to what amounts to a protest vote on your part?
You put Bush in office as much as the Supreme Court, the corrupt Fla. officials & the yahoos who actually voted for him.
I have more contempt for you than them because you could have made a difference, instead you chose to throw your vote away. You act like a petulant child
-
EsaEngr
June 4, 2007, 9:39 p.m.While there are a few minor points of the article that I disagree with, I am happy to say that finally there is an article from Populist America that I can give a mostly positive vote for!
-
buckncindykill
June 4, 2007, 10:02 p.m.Even JFK saw the benefit of cutting taxes to increase revenue for the treasury. Happens everytime its tried. As for your 'given to the most powerful' statement, 85% of all federal income taxes are paid by the top 25% of income earners. Can I also assume then you back an alternative tax structure? Say the Fair Tax?
-
KingOfTruth
June 4, 2007, 10:10 p.m.Conveniently Forgotten Facts.
Back in 1969 a group of Black Panthers decided that a fellow black panther named Alex Rackley needed to die, as he was suspected of disloyal. Rackley was first tied to a chair. Once safely immobilized, his friends tortured him for hours by, among other things, pouring boiling water on him. When they got tired of torturing Rackley, Black Panther member, Warren Kimbo, took Rackley outside and put a bullet in his head. Rackley's body was later found floating in a river about 25 miles North of New Haven, Connecticut.
Perhaps at this point you're curious as to what happened to these Black Panthers? In 1977, that's only eight years later, only one of the killers was still in jail. The shooter, Warren Kimbro, managed to get a scholarship to Harvard and became good friends with none other than Al Gore. He later became an assistant dean at a Conneticut State College.
-
lvrofwolves
June 4, 2007, 10:11 p.m.I think it's pretty elementary- SOMEONE on the ballot IS going to be voted in, if you are not happy with the choices on the ballot, why not pick the one you think is at least the closest to your ideas, closest to who you think will do the least damage? I haven't had any firm belief in any candidate for I don't know how many years, if I could just get past all their fricken lying, if someone would just prove what they say before they are elected, is still true after, and give a sh!t about the Americans they are supposed to be working for, to show true care of our constitution-I'd have much more faith. In order not to vote for the lesser of the evils, there needs to be better choices. If you don't vote, it doesn't matter, SOMEONE will win, regardless.
The first 159 comments are shown. Show all 166 comments »
Submit a Story
Advertisement
