Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

2016 Postmortem

Showing Original Post only (View all)


(32,640 posts)
Wed Jul 27, 2016, 10:39 AM Jul 2016

Yes, you do have an obligation to vote for the lesser of two evils. Here’s why. [View all]

Sometimes the desire for a clean conscience leads to immoral behavior.

What about the option to vote for an ideologically attractive but electorally marginal candidate? This option may be attractive for someone who desires to keep his hands clean by not lending support to candidates he finds morally reprehensible.

That’s a noble reason for action. Moral integrity is an important character trait.

But the search for a clean conscience may result in immoral behavior. If our vote is part of a set of votes that will contribute to the defeat of the realistically electable “lesser evil,” therefore electing the “more evil” candidate, then we force society to pay a high price for our clean conscience. Sometimes, our concern for feeling morally impeccable should give way to a concern for what type of society we can help to create for the sake of all, including ourselves.

If we have a duty of aid toward society, our duty becomes even more stringent when there are real prospects that a scarily unpredictable leader would take power, a candidate who, if elected, could harm society. Under such circumstances, the duty to vote for the lesser evil would be a very serious one.

47 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Don't vote for your own selfish interests. Keep the rest of the country in mind. randome Jul 2016 #1
Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2016 #2
I understand - but this makes the moral argument, not just the political one. ehrnst Jul 2016 #3
Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2016 #5
I don't think it's heavy handed to point out that inaction is also a choice of action. ehrnst Jul 2016 #11
The moral argument was lost before the race even started. Most of the Snotcicles Jul 2016 #17
Edit to add. By greater margins. nt Snotcicles Jul 2016 #19
So your moral obligation is moot. Got it. ehrnst Jul 2016 #21
Don't make an assumption about what I'll do with my vote. Snotcicles Jul 2016 #23
Right, you've been very enigmatic about that. ehrnst Jul 2016 #24
Ben Goldacre: “You cannot reason people out of a position that they did not reason themselves into.” Snotcicles Jul 2016 #28
Don't believe everything you think. ehrnst Jul 2016 #39
Why would anybody vote for... yallerdawg Jul 2016 #4
Yeah, go straight for Cthulhu! csziggy Jul 2016 #44
This all depends on your time horizons anoNY42 Jul 2016 #6
If the long-term consequences are rendered void by Trump presidency ehrnst Jul 2016 #8
Long term goals like letting Right Wingers ruin the country? Democat Jul 2016 #27
Uh anoNY42 Jul 2016 #29
You could give Greens a free broadcast hour every week for a generation whatthehey Jul 2016 #32
Think of a true third party anoNY42 Jul 2016 #33
Depends what you mean by impact whatthehey Jul 2016 #36
When it comes to presidential elections, I'm an outcome-oriented voter. MineralMan Jul 2016 #7
The old adage of letting perfection be the enemy of done. (nt) ehrnst Jul 2016 #9
Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2016 #10
At what point does my obligation to vote for the lesser of two evils Snotcicles Jul 2016 #12
When did you NOT vote for the lesser of two evils? randome Jul 2016 #14
Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2016 #15
Refusing to act when you can, to prevent the greater evil is also a moral problem. ehrnst Jul 2016 #16
See #17, nt Snotcicles Jul 2016 #18
See my response to #17, nt ehrnst Jul 2016 #22
You vote for the lesser of two evils because if you don't, THE MORE EVIL THING WINS. renie408 Jul 2016 #13
Or as Bill Maher put it, if you can't have the chicken have the fish. RonniePudding Jul 2016 #20
How about, the restaurant tells you that the menu consist of Chicken AND Fish..but we know insta8er Jul 2016 #25
So your implication is what? RonniePudding Jul 2016 #26
Universalization is a true, but limited, concern whatthehey Jul 2016 #30
I don't consider HRC an evil and neither should others. She is qualified, T is not. MichiganVote Jul 2016 #31
Mainly because Buzz cook Jul 2016 #34
So, hypothetically, one should vote for Darth Vader over Emperor Palpitine? Fiendish Thingy Jul 2016 #35
Remember how Christine "I am not a witch" O'Donnell said she would NEVER NEVER NEVER tblue37 Jul 2016 #37
At some point the shovelers of lesser evils need to help toward a better good TheKentuckian Jul 2016 #38
And sometimes you work with what you have. That's reality. ehrnst Jul 2016 #40
That starts by selecting the better good no? Also, tossing out adequate cause perfect isn't availabl uponit7771 Jul 2016 #42
+1, "Sometimes the desire for a clean conscience leads to immoral behavior" uponit7771 Jul 2016 #41
The argument here is unconvincing because it does not explain why, given that one vote will not Vattel Jul 2016 #43
Even the leader of the Bernie Delegates Network (the group leading some of the protests) democrattotheend Jul 2016 #45
No, you don't, and it's a disingenuous suggestion to begin with. Shandris Jul 2016 #46
I don't consider Clinton evil. n/t zappaman Jul 2016 #47
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Yes, you do have an oblig...»Reply #0