In only 47 days, Americans will elect the next president of the United States.
Yet in a nation of 330 million people with 1,195 registered presidential candidates according to Ballotpedia, only two candidates have a realistic chance at winning the election. Despite a 2018 study from Gallup that found 57% of Americans believe a third party is needed, Rasmussen Reports found that 34% of voters will cast their ballots for the “lesser of two evils” this election.
The “lesser of two evils” principle asserts that voters should elect a viable major party candidate who, although flawed in his or her own right, will prevent a far worse alternative from rising to power. The problem with this principle is that there is no benefit for the voter, because once the opposing candidate is defeated, there is nothing that the winning candidate is obliged to do except maintain power.
When the focus shifts to electing practical lesser evils rather than the best candidate, elections become a zero-sum game. When the most “electable” candidate, rather than the best candidate, is put forward, the election becomes a cynical, divisive, and oftentimes personal rivalry between two candidates and their supporters, rather than a rightful exercise in self-government that pursues truth first. In the end, no one truly benefits.
While most people have accepted the “lesser of two evils” principle, it seems odd that such a system exists in a nation as large and diverse as the United States. The U.S. has long embodied many characteristics of market capitalism, in which individuals make decisions that benefit them through the free exchange of goods and services. These great principles of market capitalism offer an appealing alternative to the zero-sum game of the “lesser of two evils” principle.
Instead of merely stopping the other side, citizens should actively seek alternatives when the major parties fail to preserve their liberty or properly understand the limits of government. While the satisfaction of buying a new iPhone is a net benefit in the electronics market, voters should view the increased liberty and better governance as the net benefits to voting for the candidates who best preserve their individual rights.
Unlike the zero-sum nature of lesser-evil politics, a market approach to elections would benefit everyone by giving them access to greater choice and higher quality. If we embrace this concept in elections, one of two things are likely to happen: either the major party candidates will incorporate the best of the third party proposals to remain viable or better alternatives to the major parties arise. Either way, every American will benefit from greater variety and quality of candidates by having better options to defend their liberty and principles.
As students of Hillsdale College and as American citizens, we must vote for the candidate with the best vision to promote the principles of liberty, embracing the market of ideas and candidates not only in lip service, but also in action.
Voting for the candidate who vows to end state-funded abortion, endless wars, mass incarceration, cancel culture, the administrative state, and legalized plunder of any form are far more important than voting for the most “electable” person. Voting for the candidate who appoints originalist judges, supports free speech and religious freedom, and protects the right to bear arms and form a militia is a net benefit for the American people. On the contrary, arguing that your major party candidate is not as bad as the other option does nothing to advance these noble causes, but instead traps us in a zero-sum game.
Americans have voted for the “lesser of two evils” for many years, yet argue that unpopular major party candidates need a little more time and a bit of help, as every election is framed as the most important election of a generation. However, the issue is not whether a major party candidate is effective at defending liberty, but rather why he or she is entitled to a position by virtue of his party affiliation. Instead of blind acceptance, we must be open to alternative candidates who might better preserve the principles of liberty.
I believe that Americans are capable of reconsidering their support of the “lesser of two evils” principle. According to a Feb. 2020 article from the Washington Post, independent voters outnumber registered Republicans by a margin of 29.09% to 28.87% in the 31 states that require voters to register by party. Only four years ago, 39.35% of Hillsdale students said they planned to vote for a candidate not named Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, compared to 43.41% of respondents who planned to vote for Donald Trump, according to an Oct. 2016 survey published in the Collegian. If these trends hold, then we will be well on our way to voting for the principles of liberty in net-beneficial candidates, escaping the zero-sum game of the “lesser of two evils” system.
As Hillsdale students, pursuing truth and defending liberty should not just happen in the classroom. We should take this spirit into the voting booth, aligning our vote with these higher goals. Instead of voting based on fear or allegiance to party, we should reject the zero-sum game of the lesser-evil principle by voting for the candidate who best preserves individual rights and liberty, regardless of party affiliation or “electability.”
Thomas Curro is a sophomore studying politics.
