posted
I tried writing out a complictaed argument for this, but it's just not gelling. So I'll more or less just state it. I think that knowingly voting for the lesser of two evils is not just irresponsible, but actually an immoral abdication of the fundamental responsibility of a citizen of a democractic society.
I think people deflect their failure to live up to their responsibility in large part by focusing on one specific election. They take each vote as an isolated ooccurence and fail to see that voting in a democratic society is part of an ongoing process with both historical and future implications.
We live in a country where, because of choices made by both the major political parties, there is a good chance that George Bush could be re-elected. If that's not a reason to vote your conscience, I don't know what is.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe it just means you are a pessimist and that is how you express your preferences. Now it happens that I believe an argument could be made for pessimism being immoral. Just wonder if you would feel the same if Tom had written it rather than m_p_h. How is it different from "the candidate I support may not be perfect, but he reflects my values more than the other."
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think that knowingly voting for the lesser of two evils is not just irresponsible, but actually an immoral abdication of the fundamental responsibility of a citizen of a democractic society.
So, which do you feel is immoral, feeling that it's a choice between two evils, or actually voting if you feel that way? Or voting for the lesser instead of the greater? Or just voting for Bush?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was going to vote my conscience until a couple of recent events caused me to realize that my conscience requires me to vote for George W. Bush.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Part of the problem is that, in many elections (I would say this one), even the third party options are "evils". I'll be voting the lesser of 7 or 8 evils.
The only option (aside from not voting at all, which just sends the message that you are lazy and don't care what the parties do) is writing in someone. That is essentially a protest vote. The question is, are you willing to accept whoever the rest of America deems should rule you in order to make that protest?
Truthfully, I don't see much reason to think that protest helps much, unless many many others are doing the same. I think a better strategy would be help campaign for someone you actually do like in the primaries (get involved and all that), but then vote among the candidates you are actually offered.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it truly is the lesser of two evils (which is really just a phrase and few people when they actually think about it will actually call the other side "evil") then it is your moral responsibility to prevent the greater evil from coming to power.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
porter, I tihnk it's imoral to vote for someone you honestly think is going to do a bad job. If people are voting for President Bush (or Senator Kerry) honestly believe that they have reasons to believe that their candidate is going to do a good job, I might question their discernment, but not their morality.
It's the people who go into a vote saying to themselves "I have no faith in the person I'm voting for, but I've got to vote for him because at least he's not as bad as the other guy." that I'm talking about.
---
P.S. I posted this because of your remark, but it's coming out of a discussion I had with friends a couple of weeks ago. I'm not trying to attack you at all. Also, in past threads, I'm pretty sure I've torn into Democrats because of Al Gore and John Kerry much more than I've done to Republicans for George Bush, even though I actually (for a very brief period) volunteered for the McCain campaign in 2000.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure I'm following. Are you referring to voting for the lesser of 2 evils rather than voting for a 3rd party candidate that you feel is better qualified, but has no chance of winning?
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you have no faith in a candidate, then how can you have faith that they'll be better than the other one?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing I think might help make my position clearer is that I'm coming from a social/group dynamics perspective. That is, I'm not viewing voting as just a question of individual ethics, but also as a group influence/mythological thing.
I'm seeing this as an application of the Prisoner's Dilemma, although it's one of the special cases with a payoff matrix different from the classical one in that link.
Here's it's most positive in the both cooperate condition, so it'd look more like
posted
For me, the analysis is simple. What do I think the effect of my vote will be? Which vote has the greatest potential for the greatest good?
I don't vote as part of a group. My vote is mine. All mine. I'll vote for who I decide to vote for, and I'll ask you to do the same.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Uh, which vote has the greatest potential for the greatest good is implicitly a group consideration.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
At the present, I'm voting for Bush. Though if Kerry would decide to vote his conscience with respect to abortion, I might give him a fair shake. There really isn't a 3rd party or write in that I really feel passionately about.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It takes into consideration what the rest of the group is doing, but it is not a group decision.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
zgator, I'm saying that the democratic system breaks down when people willingly vote for people that they think will do a bad job. Right now, I think that American democracy is broken, in large part because people do this.
The very idea that a third-party candidate has no chance of winning is predicated on the idea that the large majority of people will do this. The idea that a third-party candidate has no chance of winning fuels people's acceptance of voting for the lesser of two evils. It's a vicious circle.
The only way to break it is to live up to the responsibilities that accompany having the right to vote and to have enough other people also go along with this to change the cultural mythology to introduce a tipping point that fuels more people who are willing to vote for a choice they actually could support. It's a different self-feeding cycle with, I think, a much better result.
I'm not encouraging people to vote for any specific candidate, nor am I telling them that them not voting immorally is going to signigicantly change this election, or even the next one. However, in maybe 16 or 20 years, we could see real change in our messed up political process.
On the other hand, as long as you continue voting for the lesser of two evils, you will have candidates who neither have great credentials nor even care about what you'd actually like them to do. Things will change, in that they will continue to get worse.
Already, we hold 10 year olds to a higher standard in terms of honesty and good behavior than we do the leaders of our country. We're heading for the edge of a cliff. Voting for the guy who is going to take us there slower doesn't seem to me to be a moral decision. Maybe other people see it differently.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see what you are saying now. It really is like the prisoner's dilema. If everybody keeps on the way things are (snitching on their friends or voting for the worst of two evils), then everybody loses. But if a small group changes (doesn't snitch or votes for 3rd party candidate), then that group gets screwed even more. The only way that it can get better is if a certain percentage of the people change (stop snitching, vote vore the candidate they really want).
But, since I don't believe that enough people are going to vote for the candidates they actually want, I'm not going to either. I don't want to be the one that gets screwed. I *am* voting for the lesser of two evils.
That's what I'm doing. You do what you want.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
porter, I'm not trying to stop you from voting for who you want to. I can't. I don't have that right. Hoever, I do have the right to view people who are voting for the lesser of two evils to be a large part of what's wrong with American politics. That's what I'm expressing here.
If politics in this country continue to decline, a large part of the blame rests on the shoulders of these people (on your shoulders in you are one of these people). I guess, if I can't persuade you to not vote for someone who you think will make a bad leader, I should at leeast be able to expect you to acknowledge your responsibility for the poor state of American political culture.
Your vote is your own. I guess I'm asking you to own the effects of that vote.
On the other hand, my assessment could be wrong. I'm more than willing to entertain that possibility. However, if you agree with my decription, than you should be aware of how empty saying "Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos." is.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The idea that "I'm not going to do what I know is the right thing, because if I did, I would get a bad result." is a major part of why I think that this is immoral. Putting a concern on the personal outcomes of an action as opposed to it's rightness is for me an immoral thing,
posted
Incidently, can anyone name any possible candidate that a majority people would not consider an evil?
I'd wager that more often than not the only way we can get a 50% or more consensus is by having at least some of the people compromise, and select a candidate that is "the lesser of two evils" to them.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres, You can try to derail this thread all you want by throwing people up that both sides could agree on. I'm not all that interested in it, as it completely misses the point.
There is a huge difference between compromising between people who you basically think would do a pretty good job to support the one that you personally think might do a less good job and supporting someone that you think won't do a good job solely because you think the other guy will do a worse one. That you are equating them without even blinking to me is a sign of exactly what I'm talking about.
People don't have faith in our candidates. What's even worse is that the current way people vote effectively removes accountability from the people who get elected.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Putting a concern on the personal outcomes of an action as opposed to it's rightness is for me an immoral thing,
What about doing something that you are convinced will hurt yourself and other people? Is that immoral?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: If everyone (including the protest voters) voted their conscience then the protest vote would be well represented and the two party system would be modified.
"If A then B" is always true if A is false, even though it's pretty meaninglesss. Since everyone is not going to "vote their conscience" this fall (admit it, you know they won't), then this statment really becomes meaningless.
quote: The idea that "I'm not going to do what I know is the right thing, because if I did, I would get a bad result." is a major part of why I think that this is immoral. Putting a concern on the personal outcomes of an action as opposed to it's rightness is for me an immoral thing,
The probable results of an action are a large part of what determines if something is right or wrong, IMO.
edit: and it's not "personal outcome" that makes people vote for the lesser of 2 evils -- its the outcome for the entire country.
posted
I don't think it's beside the point at all. I think almost all candidates will be considered to be someone who would do a poor job by a majority of Americans. It's a matter of our skepticism towards politicians, the media (and opponents) playing up any faults in any candidate, and genuine disagreement towards what is good and bad.
If this is the case, were nobody to vote for "a lesser of two evils," nobody could get the votes necessary to win the majority. Expecting them to wait for candidates that a majority has faith in may be unrealistic.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
saxon, That's a tricky one. You're going to make me write out some of the stuff I was thinking about in my first post.
Basically, it depends on which type of moral system you're working under. My argument tied the absolutist (voting for a "bad" choice is always wrong because the right to vote intrinsically carries with it the responsibility to use this vote well) together with the utilitarian (this will lead to a net bad result).
I'm mostly a utilitarian by inclination when it comes to social systems such as politics, but I knew that other people would resonate more to the absolutist interpretation, which is also a much easier case to make (e.g. if you're going to be punished for not sending the Jews to the concentration camp and your resistance will have no effect other than to get you and your family tortured, it's still not ok to send the Jews to the camps).
From utilitarian standpoint, I see it more of a question of boundary and potentials (which are traditionally two of the weakest aspects of any utilitarian system) than of a defined, measurable system.
If you take each individual vote (both in time and by person) as a closed system, then the lesser of two evils is the appropriate choice. However, part of my argument is that doing this is a misuse of utilitarianism. The boundaries are far too restrictive. Instead each vote should be seen as part of dynamic process that is connected with all other votes. Each vote not only affects that specific election, but also plays a role in determining the structure of future elections.
This is where the question of potentialities comes in.
quote:Not playing to win is like sleeping with your sister. Sure, she's a great piece of tail with a blouse full of goodies, but it's just illegal. -Topper Harley, Hotshots
When you acknowledge the role that each vote plays in determining the rules of future votes, you have to include the possible payoffs in these future votes in your analysis of the present one.
In this case, I'm making the argument that the only acceptable potential payoffs are not part of the game nor will they become part of the game if it's continued to be played by the current rules. Porter's right. Most people will not be voting their conscience in this election. However, the thing that I'm saying is that the people who do vote their conscience are adding to the possibility that in future elections, more people will vote their conscience, while the people who knowingly vote for the lesser of two evils lessen this possibility.
In this case, the immorality is acting against he long run best interest by not even trying to achieve the acceptable payoff matrix in future votes and instead focusing on more short-terms goals in the current election.
Dynamic utilitarianism, especially that which isn't subject to a Baysesian analysis, is an extremely tricky system to work under. That's one of the reasons why I feel confident that it does a better job of representing the real world than most other systems.
posted
Tres, And I do. The idea that all candidates will be seen as "bad" by a majority of the electorate isn't a reflection of reality. It's a consequence (and axiom) of the current political system.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, yes, it is a consequence of the current political system. But regardless of WHY people think their options are bad, what else do you expect them to do about, given that they do think this way? How can you complain about them voting for the guy they dislike the least if they are only given people they dislike as options?
What does "vote your conscience" mean? I know of no candidates in this election who I'd have confidence in. Does this mean I should not vote?
posted
Alexa -- no, but math or logic is a useful tool for describing the real world. That's all I was trying to do.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:In this case, the immorality is acting against he long run best interest by not even trying to achieve the acceptable payoff matrix in future votes and instead focusing on more short-terms goals in the current election.
Does it change the balance at all if you feel that not working toward the best possible future may help avert short term disaster?
Let's make it more concrete and more extreme. Mr. Adams, Mr. Baker, and Mr. Carlsbad are running for office. Mr. Adams and Mr. Baker are the majority party candidates. Mr. Carlsbad is a third party candidate. Joe Bloggs really wishes that Mr. Carlsbad would win, and also thinks that voting for Mr. Carlsbad would help push the third party's agenda more to the forefront of politics, making it more likely that a third party candidate will win in the future. Joe thinks that if Mr. Baker is elected, all members of Mr. Adams' party will be executed. Joe thinks that Mr. Adams is corrupt and would be a bad political leader, but thinks that at least people wouldn't be killed. Joe thinks that if he votes for Mr. Carlsbad, Mr. Baker is likely going to win. If Joe votes for Mr. Adams, is that immoral?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Part of the problem, as I see it, is that people on both sides of the divide can point to a recent election (1992, 2000) where the presidency was decided because of 3rd party candidates diluting the strength of one side or the other.
There are many people that think that either Clinton or W. Bush are the worst thing to happen to American politics in a long time, and are not willing to see something like that happen again.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
saxon, Sure that would change the utilitarian argument. However, if it ever got to that point, Joe would likely be better served by employing extra-political means, quite possibly including armed rebellion. Such choices in an election would mean that the democracy (I'm assuming a rights-based democracy/republic here) had already failed and the focus should be on replacing the entire government, not on the election.
Right now, our democracy is just sick, not dead, as it would be in your example, so different standards attach.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope, not even minorly acceptable, MrSquicky. You are saying that a complete failure of politics -- violence&chaos overrunning society -- is preferable to a minor (and if the goal is sane, short-term) compromise of ones ideals. And for what? The right to pretend that the evil which follows isn't ones fault? The desire to pretend that someone else will toss the "evil ones" out of power? In the hope that for some mystical magical reason, the folks who dirty their hands with the overthrow will present the mantle of power over to those with hands as "clean" as ones own? What makes you think that your political party strategy is any different from that of those who support AlQaeda?
Let's suppose that you are correct, and your "Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice" political party is able to seize the reins of power. What in your political party's actions would make you think that your favored politicians would be any less evil than the Saudi religious police who prevented the "evil of men seeing improperly dressed girls" by stopping firefighters from saving the lives of 15 schoolgirls, caused preventable injuries to at least some of the 50 other casualties, and beat at least some of those "improperly dressed" girls to prevent them from escaping death or injury?
posted
In my probably naive opinion I think everyone should vote for the person who's political platform is most in line with their own personal beliefs, even if that person is a 3rd party candidate with the potential to "drain" votes from one of the 2 major players. I'm tired of the media only offering the 2 major players. I was talking with my sis in law today who didn't even know about the party and candidate I am looking at. She hadn't heard of anyone other than Bush and Kerry.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
so correct me if i'm wrong, but it seems that this whole discussion is about how to get the best representation of a society's concernes expressed through their government, and how a 2-party system doesn't do a very good job of giving people candidates they really support. if that is the problem, why are you trying to solve it through wishing people would vote differently? should you be thinking about how the system itself could be changed to accommodate a broader variety of views? instead of debating the morality of voting pragmatically, why don't we debate structural changes that could be made to the government that would make 3rd, 4th, and 5th parties more viable? Can't any decision be framed as being either a choice for something that you like or against something you don't? this whole discussion is taking place in this hypothetical world where it is possible for people to vote for a perfect candidate. You want to talk about cultural morality, take this situation for an example: everyone in the country who feels that either of the two candidates we have to choose from has some undesirable traits decides to write in the person they feel would be the best president. inevitably, the vast majority of the country would end up writing people in, and they would probably all write in different people (or martin sheen), and we'd end up with a president chosen by the 1% of the electorate who really loved one of the candidates. is this somehow better?
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
kernin, My concern is about 1) what I see as an inexcusable failure of the responsibility inherent in living in a democratic society and 2) affecting the motivations of people such that they choose to stop regarding themselves as trapped by having to vote for the lesser of two evils. Systemic change won;t really be useful nor will it ever occur until such time as people's motivations and engagement in the political process undergo serious reorganizations. As it is, no one is forcing the situation to be as it is. America is one of the freest countries in the world in terms of changin the way the political process goes. There is no one oppressing people in order to continue on this way. Instead, people have options to remedy this situation. They just choose not to use or even recognize these options.
I think it's Gatorade that has a commerical out now that illustrates this point. It's obstensively a tribute to Mia Haam and it opens with a little girl saying "Thank you for opening the door."
Now here's the thing. Across the world, women and little girls are actively and vigorously oppressed. In the last Olympics, we had an Iraqi women competing who was constantly received threats of being raped and/or killed because she was behaving "immodestly". That's oppression.
You know what the door holding American girls back from playing sports was/is? They're not being actively encouraged. It's absurd. The little girl's thanks could be more accurately rewritten "Thanks for supplying me with a reason to do this thing that I didn't have enough will to do on my own." Any girl (assuming adequate SES) who wanted to play soccer pre-Mia Haam could have, no problems. There was no one who would shoot them or beat them or rape them or whatever for doing so. They didn't choose to. That's why they didn't.
We have free speech, but social controls keep people from saying anything of importance. We have the most advanced and unfettered media of communication the world has ever seen, and we use them for no good purpose. Americans are the most affluent, powerful people to ever walk the globe, and yet we are seeing constantly increasing levels of mental and societal illnesses related to the absence of will. We have one of the most open to change political systems the world has ever seen, but we are convinced that we can't change anything.
They beat us because they are many and have tricked us into thinking that we are alone. They beat us because we put far too high a value on short-term comfort. They beat us because we define freedom as freedom from constraint and not as freedom to do so many positive things. They beat us because we are too affluent to be roused by actual threats, and the only things we "defend" against are the manufactured threats they present us.
The American public is a sleeping giant at war with itself. It can choose to wake itself or, in time, reality will serve it a harsh awakening. Until this giant wakes, however, I don't seen real change happening.
I think we had a opportunity to do drastically change our national character after 9/11. Unfortunately, those who brought their influence to bear largely didn't seize this opportunity, or, if they did, they used it to serve their own needs and not the good of the country and the world.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been thinking about this morality of voting for the lesser of two evils. There is the concern about doing the right thing now (seeing that the more "evil" doesn't get elected) and doing the right thing long term (contributing to the number of people voting for a third party or writing someone in, and therefore showing that they are not satisfied with the two main candidates).
Because of the electoral college, it is possible to be completely confident that your vote is *not* needed for your "less evil" candidate to win that electoral college. If that is the case, what is the harm in voting for someone else? You haven't hurt the outcome of the current election one bit, and you have let your disatisfaction be known. I am actually still undecided. I seem to change my mind on a nearly daily basis sometimes. But I am confident that if I end up truly disatisfied with both, I can vote for someone else and not effect my electoral college.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
