Should you vote for your party’s candidate even if he is reprehensible?

[Bomb#20]

Sure, as soon as I get magic wand, I will do that. In the meantime, I'll act rationally and morally and use the powers that I actually possess to impact what outcomes I can.

IOW, you'll just dance to the music that's played. Good for you! Enjoy! At least you'll have plenty of company - which I expect it to be about anyway.

It's been fun!

No, I just won't act like moronic adolescent immersed in ignorant denial of reality, who winds up increasing the evil in the world by refusing to fight it in ways that are actually feasible (e.g., like every liberal who didn't vote for Hillary once the only viable option was her or Trump).

Um, speaking as a liberal who didn't vote for Hillary once the only viable option was her or Trump, exactly how did I wind up increasing the evil in the world by voting third-party? Exactly how many more Californian votes do you calculate Hillary needed in order to overcome her opponent's advantage among red-state voters?

 

[Harry Bosch]

No, I just won't act like moronic adolescent immersed in ignorant denial of reality, who winds up increasing the evil in the world by refusing to fight it in ways that are actually feasible (e.g., like every liberal who didn't vote for Hillary once the only viable option was her or Trump).

Um, speaking as a liberal who didn't vote for Hillary once the only viable option was her or Trump, exactly how did I wind up increasing the evil in the world by voting third-party? Exactly how many more Californian votes do you calculate Hillary needed in order to overcome her opponent's advantage among red-state voters?

It's pretty simple, there are four groups of eligible voters: those who voted HRC, those who voted Trump, those who didn't vote, those who voted third party. Three of those groups are part of the club that put Trump in office. I don't mean to slam you personally. I rarely disagree with you on most issues. But it has to be said that you wanted to make a statement. You wanted a moral victory. Congratulations, you did. However, the rest of us have to live in the real world and live with the consequences. It’s a statement of privilege to be able to vote for a third-party candidate and accept the consequences of a loss without much harm. Voting for a third-party candidate who had no chance of beating Trump him tells the world that you don’t care about the folks who will be most affected by his policies. You’d rather make a statement. I find it selfish.

There are more liberal minded people and moderates in the country than conservatives. And yet the conservatives have incredible power. They control every branch of government. I think that it's mostly due to the fact that their turnout is better, they are more committed, and they make their vote count.

Your vote wouldn't have changed the outcome of the election. But it put you in the club that elected Trump.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I am basically advocating for doing what causes less harm.

As third party advocates have been pointing out for years, the lesser evil is still evil. It is sad when good is always considered an unrealistic choice.

If "good" can actually win, then great. If not, then not voting for the lesser evil means that you are acting to cause an increase in evil, which is stupid and immoral.

If you vote for the lesser of two evils you are acting to cause an increase in evil, which is stupid and immoral.

 

[Harry Bosch]

If "good" can actually win, then great. If not, then not voting for the lesser evil means that you are acting to cause an increase in evil, which is stupid and immoral.

If you vote for the lesser of two evils you are acting to cause an increase in evil, which is stupid and immoral.

I disagree. I think the world is a much more dangerous place today due to you guys helping Trump to victory. The US would be far more stable if HRC had won.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

If "good" can actually win, then great. If not, then not voting for the lesser evil means that you are acting to cause an increase in evil, which is stupid and immoral.

If you vote for the lesser of two evils you are acting to cause an increase in evil, which is stupid and immoral.

I disagree. I think the world is a much more dangerous place today due to you guys helping Trump to victory. The US would be far more stable if HRC had won.

Considering that it is you, not me, that says voting 3rd party is a waste, then it is you, not me, saying that the two party candidates are both legitimate anyone else, no matter how qualified, isn't legitimate. That makes it you, not me, one of the guys helping Trump to victory.

Are you familiar with D&D? Did you know that Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil are both evil? Yes, Hillary would have been more stable and predictable.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I disagree. I think the world is a much more dangerous place today due to you guys helping Trump to victory. The US would be far more stable if HRC had won.

Considering that it is you, not me, that says voting 3rd party is a waste, then it is you, not me, saying that the two party candidates are both legitimate anyone else, no matter how qualified, isn't legitimate. That makes it you, not me, one of the guys helping Trump to victory.

Are you familiar with D&D? Did you know that Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil are both evil? Yes, Hillary would have been more stable and predictable.

Hillary better than Trump on the following:
Environment; deficit spending; women's rights; DACA; Trade; National Parks; Health Care; better safety net; support for education spending; economic development; supreme court justices; dignity; higher minimum wages; Environment; Foreign Policy; Environment (Did I say environment already).

Trump better than Trump on the following:
Saturday Night Live funnier;

Shit, I could only think of one. Maybe you could help?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, I just won't act like moronic adolescent immersed in ignorant denial of reality, who winds up increasing the evil in the world by refusing to fight it in ways that are actually feasible (e.g., like every liberal who didn't vote for Hillary once the only viable option was her or Trump).

Um, speaking as a liberal who didn't vote for Hillary once the only viable option was her or Trump, exactly how did I wind up increasing the evil in the world by voting third-party? Exactly how many more Californian votes do you calculate Hillary needed in order to overcome her opponent's advantage among red-state voters?

It's pretty simple, there are four groups of eligible voters: those who voted HRC, those who voted Trump, those who didn't vote, those who voted third party. Three of those groups are part of the club that put Trump in office. I don't mean to slam you personally. I rarely disagree with you on most issues. But it has to be said that you wanted to make a statement. You wanted a moral victory. Congratulations, you did. However, the rest of us have to live in the real world and live with the consequences. It’s a statement of privilege to be able to vote for a third-party candidate and accept the consequences of a loss without much harm. Voting for a third-party candidate who had no chance of beating Trump him tells the world that you don’t care about the folks who will be most affected by his policies. You’d rather make a statement. I find it selfish.

There are more liberal minded people and moderates in the country than conservatives. And yet the conservatives have incredible power. They control every branch of government. I think that it's mostly due to the fact that their turnout is better, they are more committed, and they make their vote count.

Your vote wouldn't have changed the outcome of the election. But it put you in the club that elected Trump.

No--it doesn't because he knew his vote didn't matter. Whatever he put on his ballot would have zero effect on the final result, thus he has 0% blame for electing His Flatulence.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If "good" can actually win, then great. If not, then not voting for the lesser evil means that you are acting to cause an increase in evil, which is stupid and immoral.

If you vote for the lesser of two evils you are acting to cause an increase in evil, which is stupid and immoral.

This depends on how you assign responsibility. There are two main camps here: Acts matter and outcomes matter.

The acts matter people do not believe you should do an evil act no matter what the situation. The outcomes matter people feel you should choose the path that leads to the best result, even if you must do something a bit evil to do so.

Some years ago I presented a deliberately extreme scenario on here: You're part of an assault team, trying to take down the madman with a nuke before he destroys the city. You reach the warehouse, the bomb is sitting there with a deadman switch. The deadman switch is being held down by a baby's bottle--and the baby is reaching for it.

You can't get to the bomb in time. There's been plenty of ordinance expended in the raid so far--the baby isn't reacting to the noise. What do you do?

The acts-matter people came up with a bunch of hail-mary proposals--and acknowledged that they would almost certainly fail. Not shooting the baby was more important to them than the city (and the baby would die anyway, so they don't even save it.) Those of us on the outcomes-matter side considered this lunacy. Taking the shot produces a situation which is equal or better than not taking it for everyone involved. If the shooter can't stand the guilt they can turn their gun around--and still aren't any worse off than if they didn't do anything.

Acts-matter morality only makes sense if the world is an inherently good place and there's always a good option. I can't understand non-religious people taking this position.

- - - Updated - - -

Trump better than Trump on the following:
Saturday Night Live funnier;

Shit, I could only think of one. Maybe you could help?

Looks like he's trying to fix the H1-B mess. (Whether he actually improves the situation or makes it worse is another matter--unfortunately, so far it looks like he's more interested in deporting foreigners than actually addressing the issues.)

 

[laughing dog]

If "good" can actually win, then great. If not, then not voting for the lesser evil means that you are acting to cause an increase in evil, which is stupid and immoral.

If you vote for the lesser of two evils you are acting to cause an increase in evil, which is stupid and immoral.

This is such a childish and illogical response for a number of reasons.

First, most political candidates are not evil. Not even Trump. And I happen to think Trump is pretty much a piece of shit as a human being and as a POTUS.

Second, it ought to obvious that if the choice is between the lesser of two bad candidates, electing the one who will cause the least damage is a rational course of action.

Third, the condescending squawking from the supporters of fringe candidates is simply sour grapes. After all, those supporters voted for losers as well. While they can whine about the lost opportunity of their utopia when their preferred candidate lost, they are whining over the loss of delusion.

Practically speaking, anti-Trumpers should only really be upset with supporters of fringe candidates in only those states where Trump won by a small margin that was less than the votes garnered by fringe candidates - Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennslyvannia. Of course, there are a number of states where Clinton's margin of victory over Trump was less than the fringe candidate vote total - Minnesota and Nevada come to mind (there may be more).

 

[ronburgundy]

If "good" can actually win, then great. If not, then not voting for the lesser evil means that you are acting to cause an increase in evil, which is stupid and immoral.

If you vote for the lesser of two evils you are acting to cause an increase in evil, which is stupid and immoral.

Completely illogical. When either lesser evil or greater evil are the only possible outcomes then supporting lesser evil reduces evil compared to the sole alternative, and failing to support the lesser evil inherently supports the greater evil and thus increases evil compared to the sole alternative outcome.

 

[Elixir]

If "good" can actually win, then great. If not, then not voting for the lesser evil means that you are acting to cause an increase in evil, which is stupid and immoral.

If you vote for the lesser of two evils you are acting to cause an increase in evil, which is stupid and immoral.

Completely illogical. When either lesser evil or greater evil are the only possible outcomes then supporting lesser evil reduces evil compared to the sole alternative, and failing to support the lesser evil inherently supports the greater evil and thus increases evil compared to the sole alternative outcome.

...unless you're a conservo-libertarian. I believe the rationale goes like this:
"Since we're doomed to evil - either lesser or greater - the only ethical option is to vote for someone who has zero chance of winning in order to make a statement of such profound power and depth that it will serve to unseat evil ... sometime in the future."

Of course there are a host of flies in that ointment, but I'll leave it someone else to meticulously pull the wings off them.

 

[Bomb#20]

No, I just won't act like moronic adolescent immersed in ignorant denial of reality, who winds up increasing the evil in the world by refusing to fight it in ways that are actually feasible (e.g., like every liberal who didn't vote for Hillary once the only viable option was her or Trump).

Um, speaking as a liberal who didn't vote for Hillary once the only viable option was her or Trump, exactly how did I wind up increasing the evil in the world by voting third-party? Exactly how many more Californian votes do you calculate Hillary needed in order to overcome her opponent's advantage among red-state voters?

It's pretty simple, there are four groups of eligible voters: those who voted HRC, those who voted Trump, those who didn't vote, those who voted third party. Three of those groups are part of the club that put Trump in office. I don't mean to slam you personally. I rarely disagree with you on most issues. But it has to be said that you wanted to make a statement. You wanted a moral victory. Congratulations, you did. However, the rest of us have to live in the real world and live with the consequences. It’s a statement of privilege to be able to vote for a third-party candidate and accept the consequences of a loss without much harm. Voting for a third-party candidate who had no chance of beating Trump him tells the world that you don’t care about the folks who will be most affected by his policies. You’d rather make a statement. I find it selfish.

That's illogical. You define me as responsible for the consequences the rest of you have to live with even though you can't show any causal mechanism by which my actions led to those consequences, on the basis of membership in some nonexistent "club" that you just made up, whose "members" are whoever you say they are. If you get to play that game, so do I. I'll just make up a different "club", define different people as members, lump you in the same "club" with a lot of Trump supporters, and hold you responsible for Trump. Hmm, let me think...

Lots of racists voted for Trump, yes? A racist is a lumper -- a person who judges his neighbor by defining him to be part of a group and considering what he thinks of people in that group in general rather than by what he knows about his neighbor. As you've just proven, you're a lumper too. Since racists are in the lumper "club" and you're in the "lumper" club, Trump is your fault. See how easy it is?

So explain why you think voting third-party in California have any consequences for the real world to live with. You want to blame people like me, answer the bloody question! Exactly how many more Californian votes do you calculate Hillary needed in order to overcome her opponent's advantage among red-state voters?

 

[laughing dog]

If "good" can actually win, then great. If not, then not voting for the lesser evil means that you are acting to cause an increase in evil, which is stupid and immoral.

If you vote for the lesser of two evils you are acting to cause an increase in evil, which is stupid and immoral.

Completely illogical. When either lesser evil or greater evil are the only possible outcomes then supporting lesser evil reduces evil compared to the sole alternative, and failing to support the lesser evil inherently supports the greater evil and thus increases evil compared to the sole alternative outcome.

There are two flaws in your argument. 1st, you assume rationality and logic is relevant. Second, and most importantly, by not voting for the lesser of two "evils", it gives such people a false sense of security because they feel that they are not part of the problem - it is not their fault or responsibility to deal with choices they do not wish to make. Of course, it is childish and illogical, but it does permit they to engage in swarmy condescension while embarrassing themselves.

 

[ronburgundy]

Completely illogical. When either lesser evil or greater evil are the only possible outcomes then supporting lesser evil reduces evil compared to the sole alternative, and failing to support the lesser evil inherently supports the greater evil and thus increases evil compared to the sole alternative outcome.

There are two flaws in your argument. 1st, you assume rationality and logic is relevant. Second, and most importantly, by not voting for the lesser of two "evils", it gives such people a false sense of security because they feel that they are not part of the problem - it is not their fault or responsibility to deal with choices they do not wish to make. Of course, it is childish and illogical, but it does permit they to engage in swarmy condescension while embarrassing themselves.

To be clear, those are not "flaws with [my] argument", but rather reasons why irrational people will dismiss the sound logic of my argument in favor of whatever makes them feel good and so they can pretend they are not responsible for the consequences of their choice.

 

[ronburgundy]

So explain why you think voting third-party in California have any consequences for the real world to live with. You want to blame people like me, answer the bloody question! Exactly how many more Californian votes do you calculate Hillary needed in order to overcome her opponent's advantage among red-state voters?

I know this isn't to me, but my post triggered the exchange.
I should have clarified in my first post that "every" referred to all those living in a State where the outcome could have possibly gone either way. For those in a state like CA, it is more complicated, but it isn't as simple as claiming no possible effect on the outcome.
First, the only reason your action had no effect is that most liberals in CA didn't not act as you did and voted for Hillary, even if they thought she was very far from ideal. IOW, had more people did exactly as you did, then Trump would have won CA, which could easily had made the difference if just 100,000 people in Michigan had not acted as you did. It isn't just the actual but potential consequences of an action that determine its morality. In general, the "what if everyone acted that way?" argument is a valid consideration for how one should act. Imagine some asshole closes his eyes and runs a red light, but no one is hurt because everyone else at that intersection keeps their eyes open and avoids a collision. Now imagine another asshole does the same thing a block away, but 2 other people also did it and a deadly wreck is caused. Is the first guy any less of an immoral asshole than the others?

Now, a counter to this is that you knew for certain that most other libs in CA wouldn't act like you, so you knew there would be no effect. But you cannot know that. You knew most others did not want Trump and preferred Hillary, but could not know how many would act like you because they assumed, like you, that their action would have no impact. In fact, that is almost certainly how Trump won WI, MI, and PA, and thus the election. His margins there were so small that it is almost certain that the outcome was changed by people just like you who assumed other voters in their State would elect Hillary, so they decided either not to vote, vote 3rd party, or even vote Trump as some sort of protest against the Dems or so they could pretend they are not responsible for anything that happened as a result.

Finally, there is the issue of whether your choice even in CA did have an impact. Well, it did impact the popular vote, and if just a fraction of all the left-leaners in Blue states who didn't vote Hillary had done so, she would have won the popular vote by 10 million instead of 2. That could have shifted what happened with the electoral votes, and even if not, might have tempered Trump's actions in office. Also, there are the many CA liberals who not only didn't vote Hillary but publicly attacked her during the general and advocated for liberals everywhere not to vote for her in the general. This is true of individual average people advancing that stance on twitter, as well as famous idiots like Colin Kaepernick and Susan Sarandon, and leftist political organizations such as BLM.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

If "good" can actually win, then great. If not, then not voting for the lesser evil means that you are acting to cause an increase in evil, which is stupid and immoral.

If you vote for the lesser of two evils you are acting to cause an increase in evil, which is stupid and immoral.

Completely illogical. When either lesser evil or greater evil are the only possible outcomes then supporting lesser evil reduces evil compared to the sole alternative, and failing to support the lesser evil inherently supports the greater evil and thus increases evil compared to the sole alternative outcome.

If you vote for someone you admit is the lesser evil, you are voting for someone you admit is evil. You are saying the choice is "get worse faster or get worse slower." If the choice is get worse faster or get worse slower, you are choosing that things get worse either way. If you are choosing to increase evil a little bit or increase evil a lot, you are still choosing to increase evil.

Therefore, if I say that choosing lesser evil is still increasing evil, you misuse the words "completely illogical."

Making things worse slowly is making things worse, just as making things worse quickly is making things worse. The only completely illogical position is "since I want to decrease evil, I will never vote for an actually good candidate." That is your position, and that is the position that lead to Trump v. Clinton. When you endorse the two party system, you endorse Trump.

 

[Elixir]

If you vote for someone you admit is the lesser evil, you are voting for someone you admit is evil.

You are voting against the greater evil.

You are saying the choice is "get worse faster or get worse slower."

Nope. The current situation is a great example. It would be a breath of fresh air and a big improvement to have mere "evil" in the WH.

The only completely illogical position is "since I want to decrease evil, I will never vote for an actually good candidate." That is your position, and that is the position that lead to Trump v. Clinton. When you endorse the two party system, you endorse Trump.

That might apply in a non-competitive state in a national election (e.g. California) but your generalization fails as a rule.

 

[abaddon]

Most Americans want a third major party. When do people expect that to happen?

If third party voters "do the moral thing" and vote for the lesser of two evils ... and if they win ... then will Americans have a better chance to get what they want: "Majority of Americans want third political party"

Or, is voting for the lesser of two evils being the tool of "the lesser", and perpetuating a fucked choice forever?

 

[Elixir]

Most Americans want a third major party. When do people expect that to happen?

Oh, come on. It's bad enough already, and now you want us to choose the least of THREE evils??? Jason will go apoplectic.

 

[laughing dog]

Completely illogical. When either lesser evil or greater evil are the only possible outcomes then supporting lesser evil reduces evil compared to the sole alternative, and failing to support the lesser evil inherently supports the greater evil and thus increases evil compared to the sole alternative outcome.

If you vote for someone you admit is the lesser evil, you are voting for someone you admit is evil. You are saying the choice is "get worse faster or get worse slower." If the choice is get worse faster or get worse slower, you are choosing that things get worse either way. If you are choosing to increase evil a little bit or increase evil a lot, you are still choosing to increase evil.

And by essentially abstaining from the process through voting for fringe candidates, you are insuring that "evil" increases. In fact, you are signalling you don't care by how much "evil" increases. Which is either really childish or really petty if you bother to think about it.