It's 2025, Is Voting Lesser Evil: Pragmatic Consequentialism or Harmful and Idealistic?

Some voters are opportunistic and full of shit, my goal is by the end to explain who and why. Voting for the lesser evil in elections embodies a complex ethical choice that weighs immediate harm reduction against long-term moral integrity, with perspectives varying based on philosophical frameworks and political realities. While consequentialists often view it as a pragmatic strategy to minimize suffering, deontologists and critics argue it compromises principles and perpetuates systemic flaws, though evidence from historical patterns suggests nuance in its effectiveness. 

Consequentialism tends to frame lesser evil voting as pragmatic for averting greater harms, but deontology sees it as harmful by violating absolute duties, with research indicating that repeated compromises erode ethical standards over time. 

Studies and electoral analyses suggest that in high-stakes scenarios, such as threats to democracy or vulnerable groups, lesser evil voting can occasionally prevent immediate crises, yet critics highlight its role in sustaining duopolies and stifling reform, pointing to controversies like third-party marginalization. 

Philosophers, activists, and voters debate its idealism, with some emphasizing empathy for those facing limited options while others argue it idealistically assumes short-term fixes without addressing root causes, urging a balanced consideration of both sides. 

From a consequentialist standpoint, voting for the lesser evil appears pragmatic because it prioritizes outcomes, such as preventing policies that could cause widespread suffering, over the intrinsic qualities of the act itself. Rooted in utilitarianism, suggesting that in imperfect systems like the U.S. winner-take-all elections, supporting a flawed but less harmful candidate mitigates predictable negatives, as supported by discussions in sources like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on consequentialism. However, this hedging acknowledges uncertainties in forecasting exact impacts, leaning toward strategic action while recognizing that not all consequences are foreseeable. 

In opposition, deontological ethics critiques lesser evil voting as harmful and idealistic, insisting that moral duties prohibit endorsing any wrongdoing, even to avoid worse alternatives. This perspective, drawing from Kantian principles, argues that such votes violate integrity by intending or enabling evil, treating others as means to ends, as elaborated in deontological summaries emphasizing agent-centered duties. It promotes empathy for principled abstention or third-party support, suggesting that true ethics demand adherence to norms despite risks, though thresholds may allow exceptions in extreme cases. 

Broader philosophical traditions, including virtue ethics and Eastern concepts like dharma and karma, further complicate the debate by viewing lesser evil choices as disruptions to moral balance, yielding negative long-term repercussions. In practice, factors like the spoiler effect reinforce fears driving such voting, but historical evidence shows it maintains status quo systems, as seen in critiques of U.S. elections where fear perpetuates duopolies. This underscores the need for diplomatic consideration of all viewpoints, acknowledging the complexity without absolute certainty. 

The ethical debate surrounding voting for the lesser evil in democratic elections encapsulates a profound tension between immediate pragmatic action and long-term idealistic commitment, drawing on centuries-old philosophical traditions to interrogate whether such choices minimize harm or inadvertently sustain systemic corruption. At its core, this dilemma reflects the clash between consequentialist and deontological ethics, with the former advocating for decisions based on outcomes and the latter insisting on adherence to absolute moral principles regardless of results. Consequentialism, as a family of theories where the rightness of an act depends solely on its consequences, posits that voting for the lesser evil is a rational strategy to maximize overall good or minimize suffering, particularly in binary electoral systems where alternatives risk enabling greater harms. Classic utilitarianism, a prominent strand, evaluates actions by their ability to produce the greatest net good, measured in terms of pleasure minus pain or preference satisfaction, and applies this impartially across all affected parties. In voting contexts, this translates to supporting a flawed candidate if their policies are projected to cause less detriment than the opponent's, such as averting economic collapse or protecting marginalized communities, even if it involves uncomfortable compromises. Proponents argue this approach acknowledges the imperfections of real-world politics, where ideal options are scarce, and emphasizes agent-neutral evaluations that prioritize collective welfare over personal purity. However, criticisms arise from issues like demandingness, where constant maximization leaves no room for optional acts, and epistemological challenges in predicting all outcomes, leading variants like rule consequentialism to advocate following general principles that typically yield the best results, such as voting strategically to prevent authoritarian shifts. 

Deontological ethics, by contrast, challenges the consequentialist approach by asserting that certain actions are inherently wrong, even if they yield better outcomes, because they violate absolute duties or compromise personal integrity. Rooted in Kantian imperatives, this view holds that voting for any evil, lesser or not, risks treating individuals as means to an end such as endorsing policies that harm innocents to prevent greater harms elsewhere which undermines moral autonomy and universal principles. Deontologists argue that integrity demands fidelity to one's values, prohibiting compromises that taint one's agency through intention or direct causation of wrongdoing, and they invoke doctrines like double effect to distinguish between intending evil and merely foreseeing it. In electoral contexts, this manifests as a refusal to support a candidate with flawed character or policies, viewing such a vote as complicit in corruption and a failure to uphold duties like non-maleficence. The banality of evil, as conceptualized by Hannah Arendt, further amplifies this critique, portraying routine lesser evil voting as passive conformity that normalizes oppression through thoughtless participation in flawed systems, allowing incremental evils to evolve unchecked without active malice. This perspective sees lesser evil voting not as pragmatic but as harmful idealism, where the idealistic belief in short-term fixes erodes ethical standards and perpetuates a cycle of moral surrender, driven by fear rather than principled judgment. Historical analyses reinforce this, showing how fear-based voter psychology creates self-fulfilling prophecies that marginalize third parties and entrench duopolies, denying alternatives the support needed for growth and reform. 

Beyond these core frameworks, alternative philosophical lenses enrich the analysis, incorporating Eastern traditions and virtue ethics to question the binary of pragmatism versus idealism. Concepts like dharma emphasize righteous action for societal good, suggesting that votes motivated by fear or compromise yield negative karmic consequences, while karma underscores the intentional repercussions of choices, viewing lesser evil support as impure and self-defeating. Virtue ethics, drawing on the golden mean or Zhongyong, critiques such voting for failing to achieve balanced moral harmony, prioritizing internal spiritual purity over flawed external engagement. Practices like wu wei (non-action) or the Middle Way advocate detachment from corrupt dualisms, proposing principled withdrawal as a path to true change rather than participation that legitimizes degradation. These views align with critiques of lesser evil voting as unprincipled, highlighting how it disrupts ethical equilibrium and fosters long-term decay. Socialist perspectives further condemn it as a bourgeois trap, rooted in pragmatism that aligns workers with capitalist interests, undermining class independence and delaying revolutionary change by endorsing neoliberal figures who maintain the status quo. In the first half of the 1900s, this was known as social or liberal fascism; the moderate wing or body of fascism.

The practical dynamics of elections, particularly in winner-take-all systems like the U.S., exacerbate these ethical tensions through mechanisms like the spoiler effect, where third-party votes can inadvertently aid the greater evil, reinforcing psychological barriers of perceived waste, while establishment voters create a self-fulfilling prophecy ensuring third party losses. This self-reinforcing cycle, driven by fear of undesirable outcomes, prioritizes short-term survival over long-term transformation, often leading to voter disillusionment and extremism. Historical precedents, such as third parties influencing major platforms on issues like labor rights without winning, demonstrate potential for indirect impact, yet structural biases favoring incumbents perpetuate the dominance of major parties. Skeptics of lesser evil voting argue that in tight races with no other options, it may be defensible under consequentialism to avert immediate harms, but persistent patterns it stagnates progress, with principled third-party votes serving as signals for future viability rather than mere idealism. 

Political efficacy plays a pivotal role, influencing whether individuals see lesser evil voting as empowering or complicit; those with low efficacy view it as legitimizing a rigged system, while high-efficacy voters perceive it as a tool for steering outcomes. Contractualist theories add another layer, suggesting duties arise from principles no one could reasonably reject, forbidding lesser evil votes if they can't be justified to all stakeholders. In sum, while consequentialists defend it as harm reduction, the cumulative effect of such voting evident in entrenched duopolies and policy stagnation supports deontological and virtue-based critiques that it ultimately harms by eroding accountability and preventing transformative change. 

Ultimately, the question of whether voting for the lesser evil constitutes pragmatic consequentialism or harmful idealism remains deeply contested, shaped by individual ethical lenses and contextual factors. Yet, while it is a matter of perspective, and while some say it is pragmatic consequentialism, that perspective is wrong; if one will compromise on one principle, how can they be trusted to have the integrity not to compromise on any other principles? And I believe Marxist-Leninist theory backs me on this.

Citations:

- [The Ethics of Voting for the 'Lesser Evil': A Moral Dilemma in the ...](https://grantlawson.medium.com/the-ethics-of-voting-for-the-lesser-evil-a-moral-dilemma-in-the-2024-election-6ef6b5b027c8)

- [Consequentialism vs. Deontology: On the Ethics of Voting](https://smichael.com/consequentialism-vs-deontology-ethics-voting/)

- [Lesser of two evils principle - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_of_two_evils_principle)

- [Consequentialism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/)

- [Deontological Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/)

- What is to be done (V.I. Lenin)

- The Proletarian Revolution and The Renegade Kautsky (V.I. Lenin)

- Opportunism and the collapse of the second international (V.I. Lenin)

- The Collapse of the Second International (V.I. Lenin)

- Imperialism and the split on Socialism (V.I. Lenin)

- Marxism and Revisionism (V.I. Lenin)

- Marxism and reformism (V.I. Lenin)

- “Left-Wing” Communism: an Infantile Disorder (V.I. Lenin)

- Combat Liberalism (Mao Zedong)

- Political Indifferentism (Karl Marx)

- Critique of the Gotha Programme (Karl Marx)

- One Step Forward, Two Steps Back (V.I. Lenin)

- Reform or Revolution (Rosa Luxemburg)

Remember, systemic change cannot be achieved through electoralism alone, as elections are tools. Making lesser-evil voting a dangerous illusion that delays revolution while simultaneously prolonging both human and planetary suffering. And those who endorse it, whether by choice or through indoctrination, are primarily class traitors, with very few working strategically towards revolution and overdue relief. These people are not our allies, and while we make temporary alliances with our fellow wage slaves and have to maintain civility with the capitalist aspiried worker mindset, never forget the proportionate recourse coming that they historically owe, as communism and the global Indigenous peoples says they have due.

"All red races are born Socialists, and most tribes carry out the communistic ideas to the letter. Amongst the Iroquois, it is considered disgraceful to have food if your neighbor has none. To be a creditable member of the nation, you must divide your possessions with your less fortunate fellows. I find it much the same amongst the Coast Indians, though they are less bitter in their hatred of the extremes of wealth and poverty than are the Eastern tribes. Still, the very fact that they have preserved this legend, in which they liken avarice to a slimy sea-serpent, shows the trend of their ideas; shows, too, that an Indian is an Indian, no matter what his tribe, shows that he cannot, or will not, hoard money; shows that his native morals demand that the spirit of greed must be strangled at all costs." - Tekahionwake

"Morals demand that the spirit of greed must be strangled at all costs," and in the case of lesser evil voters, their vote to remain "comfortable" or "at brunch," is their greed as they have shown their privilege.