That’s absolutely not the long term effect of voting for the lesser evil.
That’s the effect of more people voting for the greater evil.
Under first-past-the-post systems, as long as there are other people who support the greater evil, and evil’s willing to use its power to increase its influence (whether that’s removing anti-bias laws that restrict the press, raising limits on campaign donations, or more directly, things like gerrymandering), you’ll get the shift towards evil from voting for the lesser evil, as the lesser evil will chase after the voters who vote for evil.
However, plenty of people notice that, and post memes like this one that encourage voting for a third party with no hope of winning or not voting at all, which only serves to accelerate the effect, as the lesser evil has to attract an even greater share of the evil demographic’s vote to have any hope of winning. People say that voting third-party demonstrates to the lesser evil that it’s worth courting non-evil voters, but that can’t have any effect until the next election, and in the meantime, you’re stuck with maximum evil for a whole term, and the hurdles to overcome grow larger.
The best hope is to start campaigning for a third party or non-evil candidate for the lesser evil party immediately after an election instead of leaving it until right before an election, as that hopefully gives enough time for support to grow enough that the lesser evil party will see non-evil as a meaningful demographic that’s worth aligning with. It’s not guaranteed to work, but if it doesn’t, either evil is genuinely a majority and the democratic thing is to be evil, or the system isn’t a democracy, and there’s no way to remove evil by voting, so alternatives need to be considered.
So this image is positing that “left” is lesser evil and “right” is greater evil.
Just before line two, the greater evil has won. Because more people voted for the greater evil.
If more people had voted for the lesser evil, lines two through four would be reversed, and the result would be less evil.
Of course, the whole thing presumes that bOtH sIdEs are some unacceptable level of evil. Now, don’t get me wrong, there are problems that need resolving, regardless of what kind of politics is involved. How and whether those problems get solved depends heavily on what kind of politics is involved.
That assumes they’re adjusting based on votes, and I don’t think they are. I think they chasing the window of public discourse on social issues (which is largely fabricated to start with) and moving as far right as they think they can get away with on governance
if the votes don’t matter our society should just get more extreme in both directions and not one, unless the votes only matter for either the left or the right in which case voting would either benefit the left or weaken the right
Yeah. This whole thing is a shell game to hide the fact that OP is gaming the candidate pool and ignoring the knock-on effects from the worst candidate being shut out every time.
Completely flawed.
It’s the long term effect of voting for a lesser evil that knows it can get away with being shitty as long as it’s better than the greater evil.
…and here’s the short term effects of failing to resist the greater evil:
Voter apathy just handed us another 4 years of Trump. The lesser evil is looking pretty fucking good right now.
The Left is looking as good as it always did. Look there instead.
You have to go back regardless so why push for an earlier stop?
Because it’s a two party system and voting third party isn’t how you change that.
Good luck explaining electoral politics to accelerationists, their political philosophy relies on not understanding that their methods only ever lead to more and more pain. The whole point is to make things intolerable to the point of revolution. Which would be very bloody in this country.
You’re right things are so peaceful in America today. Children aren’t getting shot in schools, black people aren’t getting beaten to death, millions aren’t dying from poverty or preventable health issues, etc.
This is like arguing killing a ceo is immoral because it’s violent while letting slide the people they kill through policy.
You’re right things are so peaceful in America today. Children aren’t getting shot in schools, black people aren’t getting beaten to death, millions aren’t dying from poverty or preventable health issues, etc.
And letting the greater evil win sure helps all of those issues, doesn’t it?
The greater evil always wins when you vote the lesser evil, can you not see the diagram in OPs post?
voting
third partyisn’t how you changethatanything.FTFY
This is precisely the kind of apathy to civic duty that won 4 more years of Trump (but this time with house, Senate and a stacked Scotus!).
The thing with voting rights is you have to use it or you lose it. Pray you don’t lose it between now and the next one.
Lol, “civic duty”.
I’m not even American, homie. And believe me: even a less underdeveloped democratic system than the US won’t save us from fascism. Direct action and organizing will.
Nothing I said assumed you were American. Your philosophy on voting led to Americans not voting and the situation they face right now (which effects other countries too, you know!)
Furthermore, no one here believes you give half a shit about direct action and organising because if you can’t even motivate yourself to get off the couch and write on a piece of paper once every 3-4 years then there’s no way you’re doing anything meaningful the rest of the time besides spreading apathy on online echo chambers.
Nothing I said assumed you were American.
I beg to differ. Your last paragraph especially.
Your philosophy on voting led to Americans not voting and the situation they face right now
[Citation needed]
Furthermore, no one here believes you give half a shit about direct action and organising
Good thing I don’t depend on what strangers on the internet believe of me.
because if you can’t even motivate yourself to get off the couch and write on a piece of paper once every 3-4 years then there’s no way you’re doing anything meaningful the rest of the time besides spreading apathy on online echo chambers.
Nothing I said suggests assumed I didn’t vote.
Also: how does that make sense? I claim that voting is neither necessary nor sufficient for progressive change and you immediately jump to the conclusion that I don’t vote and therefore I can’t be organizing, because voting is somehow important again and I don’t do it, so I can’t be organizing?
That’s like me saying “watching sports won’t make you healthy. Exercise does.” and you claim that I don’t watch sports and since I’m so lazy that I supposedly don’t watch sports, I can’t be exercising.
Voting lets us pick a weaker enemy.
So we should vote for the more evil?
No, you should vote for a different lesser evil that they prefer even though it will be even less effective
No, you should band together and grind the system that only presents evil options to a halt.
That is something you do outside of electoral politics. You will not achieve that by not voting for the lesser evil.
Voting for the lesser evil can enable this strategy to be more effective. Is it easier to organize against the system in the streets today or in a future where the military enforces the president’s whims via emergency powers? I think the answer is fairly obvious.
Lesser evil voting is a rational response to a broken system, but it also isn’t mutually exclusive with fighting against that system in other ways. And I believe it’s even synergistic in many cases.
Very altruistic and yet completely unrealistic.
Be real.
No you do both. Voting is the hedge if the “tear down the system” plan doesn’t work. It hasn’t worked here for 250+ years and a civil war, but it is because of voting and labor action and protests we have made any progress.
Fuck no. You don’t get to pull out “less effective” within a day of Pelosi shuffling a 74 year old cancer patient into the most critical committee position for fighting Trump. That’s exactly the effectiveness you get with Democratic establishment habitual losers.
The Democrats having practically negative effectiveness is still infinitely more effective.
Obviously voting for dems isn’t going to produce the fundamental changes we need, neither is voting third party or not voting.
Dems will at best slightly slow our descent into fascism. That gives us slightly more time to build dual power and engage in direct action.
We’re far behind, and need every second of time we can squeeze in.
The Democratic establishment has absolutely dominated Democratic policy and messaging for at at least 50 years now. The Republicans have a super majority in the Supreme Court, the House, the Senate, the Presidency, the majority of state governors, and an astounding majority of state legislators.
Establishment Democrats couldn’t possibly be bigger losers. You don’t think that maybe it’s time to review Democratic strategy and leadership?
The establishment loves to scapegoat progressives but, Kamala ran and lost on the most centrist strategy arguably possible. The only thing remotely progressive about her was her race and gender. That’s the neoliberal way, to run a token candidate that doesn’t even have the support of her own demographics.
The biggest delusion in Democratic politics is the idea that voters all sit on a left to right spectrum with victory going to whichever side captures the middle. It was a poor model in the 90s, and it’s disastrously wrong today.
It would be a ‘critical position for fighting Trump’ if you hadn’t voted Trump in.
The “habitual losers” won last time around.
Who voted Trump in? You got the centrist campaign of your dreams in Harris and Trump won the popular vote after gaining in every key demographic. The American people voted Trump in because the Democratic party is completely out of touch.
The left isn’t telling Democrats how to get our votes. Progressives are the most reliable voters in the country. We’re telling the Democrats how to reach the vast majority of apolitical Americans who pay attention for a month or two every four years. That’s exactly the group that voted Trump in.
When people have limited choices to vote on, voting for a or b does not make them like a or b.
It just means it’s a “boiling the frog situation” when gradually changing the goalposts makes people not notice the real issues.
The average American really has not changed that much from the past generations, but the candidates that are allowed to run in either party have drifted rightward.
If I want to vote for green, and I can choose only on a greyscale, my interpretation of which shade of gray might be closest to green might be a personal choice, highly disputed.
Yes, what shade of grey is closest to green is unclear, but there are only two shades of grey that can win. I’d be ecstatic about dumping my shade of grey if anybody could explain how it would bring us closer to green.
Don’t say that without proposing a better solution.
Are you suggesting that a feeling of moral superiority while things get worse isn’t a better solution???
Their only solution is wait until enough people become leftists to have a successful revolution. They’ll say it with a straight face like it’s a realistic near-term plan.
The better solution people have been proposing (and one recently enacted) is promptly met with jail time. Everybody knows what it is but can’t say it without risking getting banned or arrested.
In a two-party FTTP system, we really have no choice. Not voting for the “lesser evil” benefits the “greater evil,” every time.
Honestly the dems have been so worthless that I dont care about them anymore. There hasnt been a real primary in almost 2 decades. They are probably gonna loose again anyways since they hate winning
Pelosi winning over AOC put the nail in the coffin. It there’s a new left party I’ll be voting for them.
Fixed
No, this is the long term effect of voting for “eLeCtAbLe” politicians in primaries. Putting a centrist in the general to run against the right in hopes of pulling voters from the right DOES NOT FUCKING WORK. Can we please finally accept that and move on?
Putting a centrist in the general to run against the right in hopes of pulling voters from the right DOES NOT FUCKING WORK.
Which is why the DNC keeps doing it. They’d rather hand the country to fascists than let a leftist into office. Hence OP’s post.
then why don’t far left candidates work in europe?
“have things gotten bad enough for you all to see it our way yet?” “no?” “ok we’ll be here doing absolutely nothing until you’re ready to accept our system of power over the current one”
why would i rely on or work with rEVoLuTiOnArY leftists, when the closest thing to a plan thats ever presented is allowing things to deteriorate until people are suffering enough to follow them?
This reminds me of when Trump used the Sharpie to extend the NOAA circle on that map
To all the MFer here claiming “we have no other choice!” “Third parties spoil elections!”, etc.: you’re not getting it:
The solution is not to disengage, but rather to start building up true political power by mass organizing.
Primaries. Fucking people need to show up for the primaries. I usually only see people coming out and bitching about their shitty choices in the general. It doesn’t help that Americans really like to vote for incumbents, and that the fucking parties really like to only support incumbents.
- What primaries? The dems had primaries?
- As if the Dems would have let Bernie won
- (Most important point): Telling people they acted wrong doesn’t address any systemic issue.
- Non-sequitur much?
I see you only like voting for the president and don’t care about all the down ballot choices. That’s too bad.
I don’t have he ability to vote for a president.
Again, a non-sequituron your part.
You keep using that word…
I said “organize!” You said “but primaries!” How is that not a non-sequitur?
Edit: I said “what primaries?” And that liberal democracies are systemically flawed and you claim that I only vote for Presidents. Again: how is that connected in any way?
Quite amazing isn’t it how hard it is for workers to “unite”. But then at the same time in the years after the great depression, when communism still might have seemed an experiment worth trying, you get people easily giving in to fascism instead.
I know, I know, Reichstag fire etc. But fascist movements were not unique to Germany and even in socially conscious Britain the communist party never got traction.
In short, I think historically speaking people in the Western world are a bit “right of centre”, esp concerning scapegoating foreigners and seeing something ‘natural’ in monopolies being built.
One interpretation of what we’re seeing is the slow natural death of the left leaning post war social consensus, which was in some sense “artificially” created by the circumstances of the war, and we’re now returning to the historic right leaning trend last seen at the end of the Victorian era.
Obviously it’s not like people don’t dislike the downsides to being “right of centre” but I’ve often found that, given the chance to mull the idea of a much more socialist country, people are surprisingly resistant to governments having the kind of monopoly that many companies do. I don’t know, perhaps they’ve seen companies rise and fall, but once you give power to a government there’s no going back?
(I’m not talking about your average Fox news intoxicated American, my experience is with regular working people in Britain, Germany, Italy etc)
My take is that there are a lot of people on the Left who would rather lose every election than compromise any of their principles. They consider this noble, but I consider it foolish at best and criminal at worst. Actual human beings are going to die because Donald Trump won the election.
Yep. It’s great that they can signal their virtue and ideological purity. What sucks is that they can’t show solidarity to actually help people nationally. If they even help people locally. Attacking the people they could reason with. Ignoring/enabling the really bad people. And admonishing the rest of us. Accusing us of enabling genocide for trying to do things that will actually see the less people killed. What were we thinking!
The genocide in Gaza was terrible. Now we get to have one in Gaza, and Ukraine, and parts of the USA.
deleted by creator
Oh! Suddenly I’m not wrong for not voting because it was a choice between evil and evil? Very weird how that works out. I told you motherfuckers from the get-go, but yall didn’t want to listen
Downvote all you want. The choices are a farse, and the majority fell for it hook, line, and sinker
not voting at all is worse than voting evil or lesser evil
This is absolutely correct. Not voting shows that one is completely fine with either/any candidate- and are willing to trust that everyone else will do the right thing for them.
Regardless of were or not this is what they actually think, this is the result.
disagree
thats why you are part of the problem, and not the solution.
Disagree
No, you’re still very much wrong for choosing “more evil” in the choice between “evil” and “more evil”. Keep patting yourself on the back for supporting Trump.
I didn’t choose. I don’t really understand how that’s hard to wrap your head around, but good attempt your propagandist
You’ve already been told this ad infinitum, but for those who haven’t:
This person (and all other willing non voters) supported the Trump campaign through inaction. There were exactly 2 possible results of the presidential election. There was no “none of the above” option, every single eligible voter steered the ship in one of two ways: towards Trump or towards Harris. This is a mathematical fact that results from having a FPTP voting system. You will never have more than 2 possible outcomes.
The idea that “I didn’t vote so I’m not responsible! I didn’t check the ‘Trump’ box!” Is a fantasy created so they don’t have to take responsibility for their actions. They may not have supported Trump as much as a red hat voting for him, but they definitely provided Trump more electoral support than Harris and that says quite a bit.
Maybe don’t scream “hey look everyone! I’m not an asshole!” immediately after doing some asshole shit? Have a nice day.
Take your own advice
It’s your right not to choose. However not choosing means you didn’t engage with the system. Just accepting the outcome whatever it may be. Those who vote third-party also throw their votes away. Not helping anyone in the end. But at least they can say they tried to send a signal. Even if such signals are ignored.
You choose not to choose.
That’s the lamest choice available.
You’re the lamest choice available
deleted by creator
Just because a meme supports an ideology you believe in doesn’t exempt you from the consequences of your actions-
You’re still wrong.
That’s the pot calling the kettle black
You have to assume the system will survive any efforts against it and act accordingly.
voting is harm reduction and yes you are wrong for not telling those in charge of the orphan crushing machine to dial it back a notch especially when the odds aren’t in your favour.
Participating in western liberal democracy doesn’t prevent anyone from building systems that undermine it.
It also doesn’t stop it
^last sentence
Say the orphan crushing machine crushes 100 orphans an hour.
Influencing the orphan crushing machine does not impact your ability to try to destroy the orphan crushing machine.
You can influence the orphan crushing machine towards crushing 99 orphans an hour.
In what possible scenario should I not take that action. It doesn’t stop the orphan crushing machine, but if it takes us a year to destroy the orphan crushing machine, that’s 8,700 orphans we saved from getting crushed.
Hey everyone, I found the greater evil.
Turns out it was just ignorance and a lack of personal responsibility this whole time!
Wow. You got my whole person figured from one comment on the internet. That’s an impressive talent.
Please explain how
I voted to make the system get worse slightly slower while I work on non-electoral direct action
Is worse than
I abstained from an action that could make the system get worse slightly slower while I work on non-electoral direct action
Even if both evils are equal, they are the same. You chose to take an action that’s at best the same as the other option.
