Lesser-evil voting (LEV) refers to a kind of strategic voting where a voter supports a less-preferred candidate in an election (the "lesser evil") rather than their actual favorite candidate, when this candidate is unlikely to win.[1]
Electoral systems where lesser-evil voting is forced, i.e. where it is not possible for a voter to support both their favorite candidate and a lesser-evil without causing the "greater evil" to win, are said to fail the sincere favorite criterion. As a result, such systems are subject to Duverger's law, tending to devolve into two-party systems. Lesser-evil voting is a common strategy in plurality-based systems like first-past-the-post and ranked-choice voting (RCV),[2] but not approval or score voting.[3]
In elections between only two candidates where one is mildly unpopular and the other immensely unpopular, opponents of both candidates frequently advocate lesser-evil voting. For example, in the second round of the 2002 French presidential election graffiti in Paris told people to "vote for the crook, not the fascist". The "crook" in those messages was Jacques Chirac of Rally for the Republic and the "fascist" was Jean-Marie Le Pen of the National Front. Chirac eventually won the second round having garnered 82% of the vote.[4]
In the 2016 United States presidential election, both major candidates of the major parties — Hillary Clinton (D) and Donald Trump (R) — had disapproval ratings close to 60% by August 2016.[5] Green Party candidate Jill Stein invoked this idea in her campaign stating, "Don't vote for the lesser evil, fight for the greater good".[6] Green Party votes hurt Democratic chances in 2000 and 2016.[7] [8] [9] This sentiment was repeated for the next two election cycles, both of which were between presidential candidates Joe Biden (D) and Donald Trump (R).[10] [11]
The term has been used to describe the phenomenon of US liberals refusing to vote during the Vietnam War era.
The principle has frequently been invoked in the United States as an appeal to vote for whomever is running against Donald Trump, with the Democratic Party's presidential candidate, whoever it is, being the "lesser evil".[12]
Lesser-evil voting has been frequently invoked to describe the refusal of American leftists to vote for the Democratic Party as a result of Democrat support of Israel in the Israel-Hamas War.[13] [14]
Libertarian law professor Ilya Somin argues in favor of LEV. He claims if a person refuses to support the lesser evil, this "implies that everyone who backed the Allies during World War II was wrong to do so" on grounds of the allies' injustices. For example, American internment camps made the Allies the "lesser evil" rather than morally righteous in the war, but he argues you should not fail to support the Allies as a result. Somin states, "if supporting a lesser evil in war is sometimes defensible, surely the same applies to an election".[15]
Leftist public intellectual Noam Chomsky and John Halle are critical of LEV, but still defend it. Chomsky claims LEV is largely a Hobson's choice, or gives the "illusion of choice", in the context of United States presidential elections. He argues LEV maintains "the bipartisan status quo under the guise of pragmatism". He claims it diverts "the left from actions which have the potential to be effective in advancing its agenda" including developing political organizations, street protests, and competing for office. Chomsky concludes that despite these issues with LEV, there is utility in voting for the lesser evil and that "the left should devote the minimum of time necessary to exercise the LEV choice then immediately return to pursuing goals which are not timed to the national electoral cycle".[16]
Journalist Glenn Greenwald argues against LEV, claiming that regularly voting for the Democratic candidate causes voters to "lose any leverage you might have over them" in the long term.[17]