Voting for a lesser evil is often seen as sacrificing “principle” for the sake of “pragmatism.” But actually, it’s not sacrificing principle at all. It’s a very principled decision to think in terms of moral consequences. So long as you don’t consider voting as an important part of your identity (and why would it be?), you don’t compromise anything whatsoever through the exercise of strategic decision-making. Voting lesser-evil is morally acceptable not because Hillary is good (she’s horrendous), but because voting doesn’t have any moral content outside of its direct consequences.


    This objection accepts the position that voting should be strategic. But it is mistaken, in that it views “voting third-party” as necessarily advancing left-wing political goals. Here’s the important thing to remember about American elections: you either win them or you lose them. If Jill Stein gets 3% of the vote, she does not get to control 3% of the Executive Branch. She gets to control precisely the same amount as she does now: none of it. Unless there is a plausible world in which a third-party candidate could win the electoral college, no number of socialists voting for a third-party candidate will produce a useful electoral outcome. There are simply not enough socialists. Voting for a third-party presidential candidate must therefore either (1) be purely symbolic or (2) increase the likelihood of achieving left-wing outcomes even while losing.

So, we've got a new guy at work. Real interesting guy to talk to, funny as fuck. He's got a bit of a pipe dream gambit going on.

He is actively hoping that Trump turns out stronger than expected and grabs the Rust belt, but that Johnson gets into the debates and is able to take Utah and Nevada.

Crazy motherfucker is hoping that nobody will hit 270 and that the House gets to decide.

His Rational

Guy thinks that both Trump and Hillary are too dangerous to let into office, and that the slight chance that they pick Johnson is worth the chaos. (As the House is limited in selecting only from the top three vote netters).

Do I think that will work? No. Johnson wouldn't get enough votes to win. He might get enough to tip the house to Hillary, but I wouldn't hold my breath for that either.


I do think that the House getting to decide the president would probably be our best chance for meaningful electoral reform in the foreseeable future. The backlash over throwing out the entire nation's votes and handing the choice to the fucking HOUSE would be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay bigger than deciding results of a state by a group nine people who can be grudgingly respected even if you disagree with them.

posted by johnnyFive: 962 days ago