| Part of thePolitics series |
| Voting |
|---|
_(cropped).svg) |
Balloting |
 Politics portal |
Lesser-evil voting (LEV) refers to a kind ofstrategic 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 thesincere favorite criterion. If the incentive is sufficiently severe, such methods are also subject toDuverger's law, tending to devolve intotwo-party systems.[2] Lesser-evil voting is a common strategy in plurality-based systems likefirst-past-the-post andranked-choice voting (RCV),[3] but notapproval orscore voting.[4]
The concept of "lesser evil" voting (LEV) can be seen as a form of theminimax 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]
In the second round of the2002 French presidential election, graffiti in Paris told people to "vote for the crook, not the fascist." The "crook" in those messages wasJacques Chirac ofRally for the Republic and the "fascist" wasJean-Marie Le Pen of theNational Front. Chirac eventually won the second round having garnered 82% of the vote.[5]
The term has been used to describe the phenomenon ofUS liberals refusing to vote during theVietnam War era.[1]
In the2016 United States presidential election, both major candidates of the major parties —Hillary Clinton (D) andDonald Trump (R) — had disapproval ratings close to 60% by August 2016.[6] Green Party candidateJill 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 candidatesJoe Biden (D) and Donald Trump (R), until thewithdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election,[11][12] at which pointKamala Harris (D) was considered by many the new lesser evil.[citation needed]
The principle has frequently been invoked in the United States as an appeal to vote for whomever is running againstDonald Trump, with theDemocratic Party's presidential candidate, whoever it is, being the "lesser evil."[13]
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 theGaza war.[14][15][better source needed]
Chomsky claims LEV is largely aHobson's choice, or gives the "illusion of choice," in the context ofUnited 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.[16]
Pope Francis advised that among the two most likely candidates,[17] "lesser evil" is the most likely "greater good"[18] for the "common good".[19][clarification needed]
Libertarian law professorIlya 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 duringWorld War II was wrong to do so" on grounds of the allies' injustices. For example,American Japanese internment camps and theBombing 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."[16]
Leftist public intellectualNoam 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 toreduce harm or loss.[20] 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,"[21] making his argument stronglyconsequentialistic.
Historian and formerNoam Chomsky studentNorman 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 hadHillary won, "there would not have been the most significant mass movement in modern American history," referring to the rise of theprogressive left duringTrump's presidency. He said when theDemocratic 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 theRepublican 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]
JournalistGlenn 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.[23]
Chairman Gonzalo of theShining Path (the Communist Party of Peru) argues against all forms of voting including LEV when one is unsatisfied with the current system, claiming elections arerevisionist andopportunist, 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,[24] making his argument bothdeontological andconsequentialistic.
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.