Politics news and discussion on TalkFuse.
The Logic of Voting for a Lesser Evil – and Other Writings on the Ethics of Voting
The article is a collection of links to the author’s earlier writing on the ethics of voting, prompted by an election in which many viable candidates are considered poor choices. It explores whether people have a duty to vote, whether supporting a flawed candidate can be justified when the alternative is worse, and how voters might weigh competing issues.
One featured argument says voting for the lesser evil can be morally permissible and desirable when the realistic alternatives are worse. The author challenges objections based on complicity, protest votes for candidates with no chance of winning, and the low likelihood of one vote deciding an election. The article says it does not recommend a particular candidate and notes that its collection is largely adapted from a similar post in 2024.
In short
- The post gathers writing on the moral choices voters face.
- It argues a flawed candidate may be preferable to a worse alternative.
- It also considers whether voting is a moral duty.
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
When the viable choices are all flawed, voters may still have a moral reason to support the candidate likely to cause less harm. A single vote is unlikely to decide an election, but voting collectively can shape outcomes, and refusing to choose may leave others more exposed to the worse result; protest votes can also be less effective if they cannot influence who wins.
The case against
Voting for a deeply flawed candidate can lend them legitimacy and make a voter complicit in foreseeable harms, even if the alternative seems worse. A protest vote, abstention or support for a minor candidate may instead express principled opposition, help build alternatives over time, and resist treating elections as the only way to pursue political change.