When you vote for the lesser evil in a 2-party oligopoly, you are blameless for anything that party does that you disagree with. You made the best possible choice.
Normally, I'd agree with you. Except it's not a 2-party system, it just looks that way because you have two very dominant parties and the choice is always framed as such. And sure, I've even read some stories/pieces that claim that certain processes are actually biased against third parties, etc.
Truthfully, you have a few alternatives. Voting third-party, e.g. libertarian or something. Or, you could not vote at all.
Voting third party, or not voting, wastes an opportunity to vote against the greater evil. For example, Bush wouldn't have been elected in 2000 had liberal Nader votes voted for Gore instead. If a third party was dominant on voting day, only then would they be a viable choice worth voting for.
Al Gore was a participant in a White House meeting in the early years of the Clinton administration where the idea was floated of extrajudicially kidnapping a suspected terrorist, only to turn him over to a "friendly" Arab dictatorship which would undoubtedly torture him. The White House counsel was explaining to President Clinton all of the reasons that this action would be a violation of international law when Clinton turned to Gore and asked his opinion.
Gore laughed, and said, "Of course it's a violation of international law; that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass." This was persuasive to Clinton, and thus started the practice of extraordinary rendition.
In 2000, Bush was yet to advocate for torture or to be complicit in it. The same could not be said of Gore. Who was truly the lesser of two evils, as far as voters in 2000 could tell?
It's much more clearly the fault of the 622 Socialist voters than the Nader voters. Had they voted for Gore instead of David McReynolds then Gore would be in office, and unlike Nader's voter mix, it's more clear that McReynolds's voters would have been Gore voters, not Bush ones.
Following your logic, Jesse Ventura would never have been governor of Minnesota as people did not know that he was a dominant candidate on voting day but was polling in third place.
Why were the 773,713 Ventura voters wrong to vote as they did? Was it because Humphrey wasn't evil enough?
You make the best choice with the info you have. If the choice isn't clear then you make a judgment call. Good points on McReynolds and Ventura. I presume that Ventura wasn't polling way below the other candidates, like Nader was in 2000. If he was, a voter couldn't be blamed for voting for someone else deemed viable.
If we had vote ranking at the national level, like Minneapolis does, this wouldn't be an issue.
> Following the primary election in September, a poll on October 20 showed Humphrey leading 35% to Coleman (34%) and Ventura (21%)
That's pretty far behind. But I'm not going to research this because you're the one trying to make the point, and you need to defend your position that it's a useful one, not switch topics to alternative voting systems.
If people followed your suggested voting tactic then Humphrey or Coleman would have been governor. They didn't, and ended up with Ventura. Not only was he a plurality winner, but from what I can tell he was a Condorcet winner too.
The voters got who they wanted. Not what the polls said was the lesser of two evils as you would have had them choose.
Let's assume that Ventura was the best choice, ignoring his poll numbers, and Humphrey was way worse than Coleman. The defense for voting for Coleman is, recent polls showed that Ventura wasn't very viable. If Ventura then loses by one vote you can take comfort that you did the best you could. You shouldn't beat yourself up because your vote prevented a rare upset from happening. It was much more likely, given the info you had, that Coleman could beat Humphrey, so that you indirectly support Humphrey by voting for Ventura. (Keep in mind that a well conducted poll will typically have a margin of error of only 3% with high confidence. It's a "black swan event" to be off by as much as in this election. Probably the poll was flawed or voters had assessed info that postdated the poll.)
I don't like making these kinds of calls, though, which is why I support vote ranking or some other way to make third parties more viable.
Yes, of course in retrospect the poll was flawed. It doesn't matter that this is a rare event - your strategy would make it even rarer. And calling this out for being a black swan event is bizarre, as you keep bringing up another black swan event; the 2000 Presidential Election in Florida.
In the 2000 election, "Gore was leading Bush and third parties with 44-42-4 among registered voters" in late October according to one poll.
In Minn. it was Humphrey 35%, Coleman 34%, and Ventura 21%. You posited "Humphrey was way worse than Coleman". That's inverted compared to 2000. Assume that a Ventura supporter considered Coleman way worse than Humphrey.
In that case, what should the Ventura supporter do? I believe you would say to vote for Humphrey. By ignoring that advice, the Ventura supporters ended up with Ventura.
> In that case, what should the Ventura supporter do? I believe you would say to vote for Humphrey.
Yes, vote for Humphrey. If Ventura then loses by one vote, you still made the best choice with the info you had. 9 times out of 10, or whatever high percentage, the 3rd place poller would've lost even with your vote, in which case you did the best by voting for the lesser of the top 2 evils.
Perhaps Ventura won because Ventura supporters felt that Coleman and Humphrey were equally worse, in which case voting for Ventura wasn't risky.
Interesting thought experiment. What if that party you voted for, which was the lesser of two evils, then commits an act that makes them worse than the other party? Do the people that were previously "on the hook" now switch to being blameless, since, they are now technically the voters of the lesser of two evils, and you now suddenly inherit all the responsibility?
No. You made the best possible choice when you made it. That's what makes you blameless. If when you made the choice there was strong reason to believe such shift would happen, then your culpability would be less clear.
Ah ok, so next election though you should definitely vote for the party that was previously unthinkable to vote for, but is now the lesser of two evils and thus the "blameless" choice. So under your system of responsibility, as long as the parties keep one-upping each other in evilness, they can infinitely get worse and no one is ever to blame. Party A is lesser of two evils before the election but then does worse, then party B is lesser but after elected does worse, and so on and so on. Additionally, there is no way to escape this dasterdly plan because as you stated before voting for a third party is off the table because it is the absolute worst option. Yeah, I guess I see how we got to the state we're in with ideas like these.
> So under your system of responsibility, as long as the parties keep one-upping each other in evilness, they can infinitely get worse
Yes, unfortunately. We are effectively slaves, so absent a revolution (or alternative that leads to viable third parties) we don't have a choice about this.
> and no one is ever to blame.
No. Those who voted for the lesser evil are blameless for the actions they didn't support, until the next election when a new choice is made based on the info at that time. The other voters are to blame.
It's very simple: when you make the best possible righteous choice, you are blameless.
> Yes, unfortunately. We are effectively slaves, so absent a revolution (or alternative that leads to viable third parties) we don't have a choice about this.
> It's very simple: when you make the best possible righteous choice, you are blameless.
Ah, but by your own admission, the best possible choice is actually to start a revolution, not to vote for a party that is also evil. So why doesn't your unique take on morality instead assign blamelessness solely to those actively trying to start a revolution, instead of conveniently assigning blamelessness to those that vote for the lesser of two evils but perpetuate a system you admit perpetually ratchets up in evilness? Is it because its easier to tick off something on a piece of paper and tell yourself you're doing your part rather than devoting your life to actually making things better?
Seems to me that if you really want to have this black and white view where only, and I quote, those that make "the best possible righteous choice" can be blameless, then you unfortunately fall into that ... other bucket :/
You can support an end to the 2-party oligopoly and vote for the lesser evil. Doing both does greater good.
I don't support revolution, because it's not the best viable way to improve things, let alone very viable at this point. A much better way is for the good people to ostracize (as much as possible) the bad people. Imagine if Bush's daughters had disavowed love for him, over his needless violence. It may well have had an effect, and if not then at least been a consequence to him, serving as a warning to others.
Nah, you're just being lazy. I could have said the same thing during the colonies: "revolution isn't viable right now, we'd being going up against the most powerful military in history. Its a way better strategy to shun people that support the British, yeah, that'll work!"
At some point back then it would've been clear it was viable. We're obviously not anywhere near that point yet, and there are likely other better ways. We don't yet have full dictatorship, which makes the difference. For example, it would likely take less energy to gain vote ranking (or other way to make third parties viable) by protesting and striking than by revolution. If the protesters and strikers are mowed down by bullets or tanks, then you need revolution.
Party activists are more influential in the primaries. The black-and-white anti-third-party logic applies much less in those elections. The best possible choice is clearly to pick a party and get involved in its internal politics, and not wait until the general election to do anything.
Revolution from within! (Oh, wait, that's what happened with the Republican party starting in the 1980s.)
But that that's not as easy as ticking off a piece of paper and assigning blamelessness.
This is so ridiculous. It allows half the country to feel blameless by believing they're voting for the "lesser evil". You're not blameless for voting for the less-bad of two bad options. You still voting for a bad option.
Additionally, the threat of one of the major parties losing votes to a third party has been shown to influence the politics of the major party, so even if the third-party candidate doesn't win, it still may have a positive effect down the road. People don't seem to think very far down the road, unfortunately.
> You're not blameless for voting for the less-bad of two bad options. You still voting for a bad option.
There's no contradiction. You made the best viable choice. You can't be made "bad" by doing that.
That benefit of voting for a non-viable third party is outweighed by the advantage of voting for a lesser evil that can viably win. If hypothetically you were the voter that could tip the election to Gore in 2000, your best choice is to vote for him, not Nader, even if voting for Nader has some benefit. Voting for Nader could be reasonable only if Gore had no realistic chance of winning your state.
If hypothetically you could have secretly ruined votes for Bush for Palm Beach county - would you have?
Assuming your logic has merit, the benefit for you not committing voter fraud is surely outweighed by the benefit of not letting the Great Evil Bush get power, making voter fraud the best viable choice, no? Why would voter fraud be "bad"? Surely even the worst case of spending a couple of years in jail is worth the future of not having Bush in charge, right?
Are you ready to commit voter fraud for what you think is the greater good? Are you ready to torture for the greater good?
I support torture where it's clear it's the best viable choice to prevent greater violence. That may be an exceptionally rare case.
On your hypothetical I'll say only that I strongly support the The Congressional Oath of Office, namely this part:
> I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same
That said, the best ways to effect change are still legal, like general strikes and boycotts.
That's the same oath all the military torturers took, right? And the same one that Cheney swore (or affirmed)? Who says he would order the torture again?
If you'll torture for that oath then you'll commit voter fraud for that oath, and commit murder and other felonies for that oath. You'll do anything so long as you can justify it with your consequentialist ethics.
Glad to know where you stand.
Or rather don't stand, since your ethics allow you to break that oath to prevent greater violence. And you get to decide which is greater. Which is why the death of thousands in 2001 justify the torture of innocent people now. Our employed and elected torturers got to decide which of those was the greater violence, without making that information public, as it was clear to them that that was the right choice with the information they had.
No, adhering to the oath excludes torture or other violence that isn't the best choice to prevent greater violence. I haven't yet seen a 9/11 related case where the details justified torture. Clearly our "employed and elected torturers" flouted their oaths.
My ethics are rock solid and will never break the oath.
Let me get this straight. Your oath prevents you from taking untaxed intoxicating liquors across state lines, no matter what violence you might be able to prevent by doing so, or the lives you might save (it's a violation of the 21st Amendment to take that moonshine across the state line to use an emergency anesthesia for a backwoods accident where the person needs an amputation), but you believe there may be times where your oath would let you torture someone, in violation of national laws and international treaties?
That's messed up.
And you've just relied on the No True Scotsman fallacy. Obviously anyone who doesn't interpret your oath the same as you do must have flouted it. Or perhaps it's Cheney who says you flouted the oath. How do I tell again who's right?
Oliver North was photogenically insistent that selling arms to Iran, in violation of US law, in order to fund the Contras against the democratically elected Sandinista government, was part of his oath. The enemy had become "liberal politicians, gutless judges and left-handed journalists" says one biography.
I'm pretty sure he believes his ethics are "rock solid" and oath unbroken. How am I to tell if it's broken?
My oath doesn't prevent me from taking untaxed intoxicating liquors across state lines, in whatever hypothetical case in which that would do the greater good, no matter how unlikely. My oath is to my interpretation of the Constitution, its spirit, and not its literal wording. Where my interpretation differs from the wording, the wording should change. For example, if the document allowed slavery, it should be changed to disallow slavery. If the document allows <insert evil here>, it should be changed to disallow <that evil>, or that allowance should be stricken.
> And you've just relied on the No True Scotsman fallacy. Obviously anyone who doesn't interpret your oath the same as you do must have flouted it. Or perhaps it's Cheney who says you flouted the oath. How do I tell again who's right?
Just as obvious as that, except for those lacking empathy, is that some things are wrong. You needn't prove they're wrong, you need only believe they are. Do you have to seek others' say-so to tell whether it's okay to kick a toddler in the face?
Oliver North flouted his oath, because his actions didn't serve the greater good. Simply consult your own conscience to tell whether ones' oath is broken.
This is true if and only if you oppose everything evil the ones you elect try to do.
But there are a lot of folks who have turned in favor of everything Bush did as long as Obama does it. You can't hide behind "I am trying to at least get the loser on the race to the bottom" if you cheer for that party to win that deplorable sport.
