“The lesser of two evils”- a phrase that hints at two unfavorable choices, but one being slightly more terrible than the other. If I asked you to think of an example of choosing between the lesser of two evils, an overwhelming amount of you would probably not have to hesitate. In fact, I think I don’t even have to mention where exactly I’m going with this because you probably already know.
With each of the presidential candidates being historically unpopular amongst the American public (for good reasons), it is likely that despite viewing each of the candidates in a negative light, many people will still cast a vote in their favor. Sure, they may still be bad, but at the moral pulpit of our decision making lies the argument that they are still simply less bad. With partisanship pulling us in one direction, but morality pulling us in another, many voters have found themselves at a crossroad between what seems like an unsettling vote, regardless. With less devout voters committed to ensuring that the candidate of their choice ends up in the Oval Office, voters are faced with many options. Yet, this also raises another question: Is choosing between the lesser of two evils the best choice we have?
In my opinion, I think it’s disheartening that in a nation comprised of well over 300 million people with access to some of the best education and opportunities on the globe, these two candidates are the most “representative” of our holistic nation. If these are the two most “qualified” individuals we can put forth to potentially serve a position that only 44 others have ever had the privilege of holding in the history of the United States of America, then America needs a wake-up call. We can do better.
The lesser of two evils, for many, marks a tactical voting rationale in which they chose to give the person whom they believe to be the least-bad candidate their vote. The premise of this is simple; one is more detrimental than the other. For those who pose the argument that “the lesser of two evils is still evil”, voting for a third party candidate may seem to be a viable option. The Framers of our Constitution never intended for two major parties; Democrat or Republican, Left versus Right, Candidate A or Candidate B. In the Federalist paper 10, Alexander Hamilton warned of political factions and expressed fear of the two-party system that we have come to embody, as well as the negative implications that this holds. In retrospect, the nature of the winner-take-all system and the repression that this instills amongst third party candidates holds inevitable repercussions that revert us back to the Lesser of Two Evils Theory. Voting for a third party candidate, while they may be more favorable to some, is esentially handing a vote to their least-favorite candidate from one of the two major parties.
Many voters will make the choice to stay home this election. In reality, this is the worst and least proactive option there is. The choices we make today will come to affect our country down the road. Ultimately, I do support voting for the candidate considered to be the least atrocious. Sure it may be unsettling, or even painful to check their name off on the ballad, but I think we are all better from it. Not that we will have the greatest president in our country’s history type of better, but it is still just as important as ever that we use our voice and our vote.
