DEVIL'S ADVOCATE: (Destroy my argument, please!) -- Lesser of Two Evils

[nayjevin]

I have had trouble convincing folks that voting for the 'lesser of 2 evils' is a fallacy. In the interest of honing this skill, I would like to play a game -- I'll be the guy voting for the lesser of 2 evils, you guys (o geniuses of the web) destroy my arguments. Then we'll have a thread full of good counter-arguments to make to convince these folks when we come across them. K?

Feel free to start other threads like this on other subjects -- would be nice to use the phrase 'devil's advocate' in the thread title, so they are easily searchable.

Shred away! (the anti-flame, logical way, plz ;))

----------------------------------------
(Assume that both candidates in my example (Joe Smith, Sally Brown) are anti-liberty candidates.)
----------------------------------------

Me, arguing the side of the 'lesser of 2 evils' voter:

"Yes, I like the ideas of X (the best candidate) but he doesn't have a chance to win. I think Sally Brown is less evil than Joe Smith. I'm so afraid of Joe Smith as president that I have to vote for Sally Brown."

[cindy25]

Obama is the lesser of 2 evils because the Republicans in congress will grow a backbone if they are in opposition.
Pelosi and Reid already proved its Yes yes yes to everything

[nayjevin]

Obama is the lesser of 2 evils because the Republicans in congress will grow a backbone if they are in opposition. Pelosi and Reid already proved its Yes yes yes to everythingCindy, I appreciate your input, but I believe you have misunderstood. I have not referenced Obama, Pelosi, or Reid on purpose. They are irrelevant to the higher purpose, which is creating sound arguments for one to vote their conscience, as opposed to some candidate who, although evil, might be less evil than another.

Does anyone have a counter-argument to this statement:

----------------------------------------
(Assume that both candidates in my example (Joe Smith, Sally Brown) are anti-liberty candidates.)
----------------------------------------

"Yes, I like the ideas of X (the best candidate) but he doesn't have a chance to win. I think Sally Brown is less evil than Joe Smith. I'm so afraid of Joe Smith as president that I have to vote for Sally Brown."

[pacelli]

Yes, I like the ideas of X (the best candidate) but he doesn't have a chance to win. I think Sally Brown is less evil than Joe Smith. I'm so afraid of Joe Smith as president that I have to vote for Sally Brown.

So what you are saying is that you will fully support any evil policies and acts which are implemented by Sally Brown? It would be a shame having to share in the blame if she does X, or Y, just because you thought she was the lesser of 2 evils. Voting for any evil is voting for evil. I wouldn't bet on a sick horse even if that horse had the best odds of all other horses in the race.

[orafi]

what's more meaningful dude? getting economically sodomized by a black man or a white man?

[nayjevin]

Thanks for your input:


So what you are saying is that you will fully support any evil policies and acts which are implemented by Sally Brown? It would be a shame having to share in the blame if she does X, or Y, just because you thought she was the lesser of 2 evils.

No, I am not supporting evil policies and acts of Sally Brown. I am not even voting FOR Sally Brown, not really. I am voting AGAINST Joe Smith. He will be more evil, there is no doubt in my mind. I even believe I can convince you of that. It is my moral imperative to vote for Sally Brown, because in my best judgement, the country will be less bad with her than with Joe Smith, and if I vote for X, my vote will be wasted. What else could one do with their vote?

I will not share in the blame of Sally Brown's policies -- I will share in the glory of the doing the best I could with my vote to avoid the perils of Joe Smith.


Voting for any evil is voting for evil.

I am not voting for evil. I am voting to avoid 'more' evil. Joe Smith means the end of civilization to me, Sally Brown would at least leave the country alive, although bleeding profusely.


P.S. from the 'real' nayjevin: This is the kind of crap I hear from my die-hard 'party regular' acquaintances. There are, however, still good arguments out there.

[nayjevin]

what's more meaningful dude? getting economically sodomized by a black man or a white man?anti-nay: It's not about race to me. Our economy sucks now -- I am voting for the one who will 'sodomize' me least.

[FrankRep]

Jesse Ventura addresses the "Lesser of two evils" fallacy at the rally.


Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ym4DxWAL8Ak

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMKIgbIYD48

Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KqEErhR9-M

[pacelli]

Thanks for your input:



No, I am not supporting evil policies and acts of Sally Brown. I am not even voting FOR Sally Brown, not really. I am voting AGAINST Joe Smith. He will be more evil, there is no doubt in my mind. I even believe I can convince you of that. It is my moral imperative to vote for Sally Brown, because in my best judgement, the country will be less bad with her than with Joe Smith, and if I vote for X, my vote will be wasted. What else could one do with their vote?

There's no such thing as a "not really" vote. If you go to the ballot box and mark Sally Brown, you have voted for Sally Brown, and will be grouped in the category of people who endorsed her policies. The history of Sally Brown's previous record indicates a severe inconsistency with your original candidate, therefore, even in your best judgment you can expect her to behave in the same way.


I will not share in the blame of Sally Brown's policies -- I will share in the glory of the doing the best I could with my vote to avoid the perils of Joe Smith.

You can share in the glory of avoiding the perils of Joe Smith, as well as share in the blame of Sally Brown's policies. These are not mutually exclusive, and either way you won't be voting for who you truly wanted to vote for.



I am not voting for evil. I am voting to avoid 'more' evil. Joe Smith means the end of civilization to me, Sally Brown would at least leave the country alive, although bleeding profusely.

Then why not vote Joe Smith and get it over with?

Your alternative is to vote your original candidate, the one you actually agree with, and you will not have to worry about having had a personal role in the decline of civilization.



P.S. from the 'real' nayjevin: This is the kind of crap I hear from my die-hard 'party regular' acquaintances. There are, however, still good arguments out there.

I'm tired tonight, someone else can take over for now. I'll check back tomorrow and see how we're doing. I hear these crap arguments all the time from people. Btw getting into moral theory, research Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative.

[nayjevin]

Jesse Ventura addresses the "Lesser of two evils" fallacy at the rally.

Thanks... good stuff, I'm sure, but I'm on dialup. Would anyone relay the relevant arguments to 'me' (my adopted alter ego) for the purposes of completely diffusing this fallacy here? In other words, after watching the videos, would you (anyone) respond to my arguments as Jesse Ventura might?

[nayjevin]

There's no such thing as a "not really" vote. If you go to the ballot box and mark Sally Brown, you have voted for Sally Brown, and will be grouped in the category of people who endorsed her policies.

nay: I consider this a 'win' argument, but these '2 evils' folks are slimy, so...

I'm not concerned with what 'category' of people I am lumped in, I am concerned with using my vote to my best ability to get the country in the best place I can among viable options.


The history of Sally Brown's previous record indicates a severe inconsistency with your original candidate, therefore, even in your best judgment you can expect her to behave in the same way.

nay: This is very close to the best argument I can come up with against the 'lesser of 2 evils' fallacy -- 'look at her record -- it doesn't represent what you want, right? then how do you expect to get what you want by voting for her?' It still doesn't quite resolve the issue that the rationalizer ('2 evils' voter's illogical ego) thinks he or she can look into the future and decide who or what will be better or worse for the country.

For this, I recommend: 'Why not vote for a candidate you can trust to do what you would do in EVERY situation, no matter what comes up? That would be better than trying to see into the future and GUESSING at who will be slightly 'less evil' than the other. You don't know what will happen in the next 4 years. How have your powers of prognostication served you in the past? Have you voted 'lesser of 2 evils' before? Did you get what you wanted? The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Has either party given you what you wanted before?' etc.

[Perry]

I have had trouble convincing folks that voting for the 'lesser of 2 evils' is a fallacy. In the interest of honing this skill, I would like to play a game -- I'll be the guy voting for the lesser of 2 evils, you guys (o geniuses of the web) destroy my arguments. Then we'll have a thread full of good counter-arguments to make to convince these folks when we come across them. K?

Feel free to start other threads like this on other subjects -- would be nice to use the phrase 'devil's advocate' in the thread title, so they are easily searchable.

Shred away! (the anti-flame, logical way, plz ;))

----------------------------------------
(Assume that both candidates in my example (Joe Smith, Sally Brown) are anti-liberty candidates.)
----------------------------------------

Me, arguing the side of the 'lesser of 2 evils' voter:

"Yes, I like the ideas of X (the best candidate) but he doesn't have a chance to win. I think Sally Brown is less evil than Joe Smith. I'm so afraid of Joe Smith as president that I have to vote for Sally Brown."

Present someone with the following scenario.(or revise and perfect it).

Terrorists have kidnapped your wife(sister, brother, whatever).

They have decided that they will do one of three things to this person.

Either
a: whip her 200 times
b:waterboard her for 5 minutes
or
c:let her go.

To decide which of the following will happen they will take a vote amongst a certain group of people and let you take part in the vote. You have seen the polls and the large majority who will vote are split between whipping and waterboarding her.
There is a very small chance she will be let go.
When you vote which option do you vote for?

The answer "c" is inevitable.

Then proceed to ask them why they wouldn't vote "b" when there was a good chance it might "turn the tide" for the lesser of two evils.


I hope I have made my point clear.
I just thought of this last night when pondering this idea.
Perhaps others can help me to perfect it.

[Truth Warrior]

The "lesser of two evils" is, bottom line, still just plain old frickin' evil. :p

Boycott evil. ;)

[nayjevin]

You can share in the glory of avoiding the perils of Joe Smith, as well as share in the blame of Sally Brown's policies. These are not mutually exclusive, and either way you won't be voting for who you truly wanted to vote for.

Nay: This is a winner. 'They ARE NOT mutually exclusive' is the key, IMO. If you take credit for the avoidance of the one candidate, you have to take credit for the swearing in of the other. Also, I suggest: 'What if your vote actually counts this time -- what if Sally wins by 1 vote, and you voted for her? Then would you feel responsible for your vote?

[nayjevin]

Then why not vote Joe Smith and get it over with?

anti-nay: well, cause I don't want to see the end of civilization ;)


Your alternative is to vote your original candidate, the one you actually agree with, and you will not have to worry about having had a personal role in the decline of civilization.

anti-nay: I'm not worried about it. My conscience will be clear -- if Sally wins, no matter how bad it gets, I'll be confident I made the right choice. Joe would be worse. nay: slimy bastards, aren't they! ;)


I'm tired tonight, someone else can take over for now. I'll check back tomorrow and see how we're doing. I hear these crap arguments all the time from people. Btw getting into moral theory, research Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative.

nay: Thanks abunch, though, good stuff. re: categorical imperative -- will do, thanks.

[ShowMeLiberty]

I'm not attempting to hijack the thread (a great thread idea, btw), I just want to throw this into the mix because I and several people I know are in this predicament:

Evil or not, Joe Smith, Sally Brown, X, Y, and Z are all poor choices. If we don't like or want any of them, are we supposed to sit out and hope that we don't end up with the one we hate most? Or would we be better off voting against the one we hate most by choosing the one with the best chance of defeating the one we hate most?

[Pauls' Revere]

The lesser of two evils makes no difference, it is still evil. In the end you have broke the principle of goodness 100%. Thus, you tolerate evil to whichever extent the lesser of these evils will take you. One has a faster rate of evil than the other in order for one to be greater than the other one evil must be better at it than the other. So in essence you are really just deciding the rate of evil you wish to have more and faster? or more at a slower pace? However, the definition remains unchanged. Evil is still evil; and the principle of goodness is broken 100%.

[nayjevin]

Present someone with the following scenario.(or revise and perfect it).

Terrorists have kidnapped your wife(sister, brother, whatever).

They have decided that they will do one of three things to this person.

Either
a: whip her 200 times
b:waterboard her for 5 minutes
or
c:let her go.

To decide which of the following will happen they will take a vote amongst a certain group of people and let you take part in the vote. You have seen the polls and the large majority who will vote are split between whipping and waterboarding her.
There is a very small chance she will be let go.
When you vote which option do you vote for?

The answer "c" is inevitable.

Then proceed to ask them why they wouldn't vote "b" when there was a good chance it might "turn the tide" for the lesser of two evils.


nay: This is really, really good IMO. Thanks.

[nayjevin]

The "lesser of two evils" is, bottom line, still just plain old frickin' evil. :p
Boycott evil.

indeed. :)

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

For fuck's sake, you don't have to dirty your hands by voting for Obama. Simply vote for and support either Baldwin or Barr, and you'll take votes away from McCain, thus ensuring an Obama win.

[nayjevin]

Evil or not, Joe Smith, Sally Brown, X, Y, and Z are all poor choices. If we don't like or want any of them, are we supposed to sit out and hope that we don't end up with the one we hate most? Or would we be better off voting against the one we hate most by choosing the one with the best chance of defeating the one we hate most?

nay: in my opinion, 'the one we hate most' is only a guess at what will bring the worst for the country in the future, and to assume that I can judge that would be folly. Also, guessing at which one has the best chance of defeating that 'one we hate most' would also be pure guesswork - moreso of course in a primary with several apparently 'viable' candidates than in a general election in the current 2 party stranglehold. in the case where it appears there are only 2 who have a chance, (and possibly in all cases) the better argument IMO would be Paul's Revere's above:


The lesser of two evils makes no difference, it is still evil. In the end you have broke the principle of goodness 100%. Thus, you tolerate evil to whichever extent the lesser of these evils will take you. One has a faster rate of evil than the other in order for one to be greater than the other one evil must be better at it than the other. So in essence you are really just deciding the rate of evil you wish to have more and faster? or more at a slower pace? However, the definition remains unchanged. Evil is still evil; and the principle of goodness is broken 100%.

[nayjevin]

For fuck's sake, you don't have to dirty your hands by voting for Obama. Simply vote for and support either Baldwin or Barr, and you'll take votes away from McCain, thus ensuring an Obama win.

BWAHAHH!! no way dood, I'm voting for Ron Paul - I trust him no matter what -- first politician I could ever say that for.

[nayjevin]

nay: g'night!

anti-nay:
http://www.pissedonpolitics.com/Cartman_screw_you_guys.jpg

[Cleaner44]

"Yes, I like the ideas of X (the best candidate) but he doesn't have a chance to win. I think Sally Brown is less evil than Joe Smith. I'm so afraid of Joe Smith as president that I have to vote for Sally Brown."

By voting for the lesser of two evils you will be endorsing views you do not agree with. I would rather my voice be heard clearly against evil period. Someone has to be willing to lead against the broken system of voting for the "Lesser of two evils" so why not me?

[Mesogen]

I always answer this question like this:

Would you rather be punched in the teeth or kicked in the balls?

If you choose one, you can't complain. It's what you chose.
If you choose neither, then it's obvious that the result has been forced upon you.

[nayjevin]

nay: another angle: Democracy hinges on the concept of the people having a voice in their government. What is the result of a citizenry who does NOT vote for what they believe in? Obviously, a government that the people DO NOT want. Democracy has no meaning if you do not vote for what you believe in.

[nayjevin]

vote Lizardpeople 08

[Conza88]

bookmark.

[jclay2]

Here is a funny youtube of sean hannity grilling bob barr and using the worst of two evils argument to stop Barr's run for president.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVSk4ZftD1Q

[AutoDas]

Bob Barr is the lesser of two evils.

[user]

nayjevin, in a first past the post voting system, it's NOT a fallacy. That's the problem.

[nayjevin]

nayjevin, in a first past the post voting system, it's NOT a fallacy. That's the problem.

that is just a sweeping claim, friend -- you are welcome to explain yourself, but i believe the fallacy has been effectively exposed at this point. others are welcome to make their own judgments.

[user]

that is just a sweeping claim, friend -- you are welcome to explain yourself, but i believe the fallacy has been effectively exposed at this point. others are welcome to make their own judgments.

It's well-known. If you have a second read up on Duverger's law. This problem is why so many people are pushing for alternative voting systems like instant runoff voting (which has its own problems).

[Conza88]

It's well-known. If you have a second read up on Duverger's law. This problem is why so many people are pushing for alternative voting systems like instant runoff voting (which has its own problems).

Preferential voting pwns all other systems.

If the founding fathers had thought of it; or whatever.. if it had been implemented, instilled in the institutions.. people like Ron Paul would have a MASSIVE chance...

The Media LOSES their "long-shot" rhetoic in essence... SO, he's a longshot? Put him at no. 1 preference, then at no. 2 your main stream media candidate...

Then wait for the miracle, after the long shot wins.... :cool:

[Roxi]

im a big fan of the marble in a jar voting system, but its still the reporting where fraud comes in, not usually at the polls...

[nayjevin]

It's well-known. If you have a second read up on Duverger's law. This problem is why so many people are pushing for alternative voting systems like instant runoff voting (which has its own problems).

Surely there are better voting systems: outside the scope of this thread.

This thread obviously sets the precedent for effective argumentation WITHIN the thread -- doesn't mean much to have you send me on a rabbit hunt of extra-relevant subjects. If you have a relevant argument as to why one SHOULD vote lesser of two evils, fine - explain away! but the 'lesser of two evils' fallacy has been effectively diffused here, IMO.

[nayjevin]

im a big fan of the marble in a jar voting system

me too. diebold has a stranglehold, unfortunately.

[nayjevin]

more good stuff, from http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/hamilton5.html :


I recently wrote an article titled Voting Fourth Party (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/hamilton4.html). In it I made a suggestion for people that were not content to pick just any ole third-party candidate. I stated that if they did not like any of the candidates or what they stood for, they could instead write in the name of the person they DID want to be President. (For many of us that would be Dr. Ron Paul.) Alternatively, none of the above is also a good choice.
Sadly, in many states, these write-in votes can not be counted for the candidate of your choice unless that person registers in advance as a write-in candidate. Alternatively, in some states you cannot write in anyone, others prevent you from writing in a candidate who lost in a primary even if they did register, and in a few lucky places all write-ins are counted. Here is a link (http://writein2008.blogspot.com/search/label/Delaware) that will tell you how your state does it. Please verify with your Secretary of State as the information may have changed.
I received a ton of mail on the topic (thank you to all that wrote to me, I learned something from each and every one of you). I am writing this follow-up because I would like to explain my position more fully based on some of the comments I received.
Many people wrote in to say that because their state will not count write-in votes at all, my position was foolish. I will address that concern.
I am suggesting voting as a write-in PRECISELY because it will not be counted. This holds true especially in the states that throw those votes in the trash. By taking this action, we expose the sham that is a supposedly democratic society. We force the state to take a notably undemocratic action: throwing a vote in the trash.
The other alternative is to vote for any third-party candidate willy-nilly. I will not vote for someone I dislike because then all I am doing is sending the message that I approve of that person and their politics. By voting third party, I am not sending the message that I disliked the other candidates. Choosing a third-party candidate is a wise course of action if you do like that person, but if you do not, you will only get more of the above. After all, you voiced your approval.
Another course of action suggested was to not vote at all because to do so is to participate in an illegitimate system. I am not unsympathetic to that argument. However, instead of not voting I choose instead to make a statement – I voted but the State actually stole my vote and threw it in the garbage. Rightly or wrongly, a non-vote is usually seen as apathy and that is not the message I want to send. I do not disagree with that approach, but I am more of an activist. I want to force the state to take an action against me. I want them to show their hand.
Rather than staying home, by voting as a write-in I am saying, I did not like any of your candidates. Imagine if we all did it? Then where would they be? How would they legitimize the theft? How would they claim that the people had a choice?

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

Me, arguing the side of the 'lesser of 2 evils' voter:

"Yes, I like the ideas of X (the best candidate) but he doesn't have a chance to win. I think Sally Brown is less evil than Joe Smith. I'm so afraid of Joe Smith as president that I have to vote for Sally Brown."

If you really feel that way, check the box that says "against Joe Smith". If there is no option that says that on your ballot, vote for the person that you really want. That is your most effective way to say that Joe Smith is evil.
If you vote for Sally Brown, you are voting for Sally Brown. The "lesser of two evils argument" does not get communicated very well to the winner.

One vote counts more when it is cast for a third party. A third party vote represents someone who has thrown off the shackles of "public opinion" and is not afraid to stand up for himself. This one person represents many more people that share the opinion, but do not have the courage to vote third party because they have been conquered by the division. If a vote is cast preferring one evil over another, it is lost in the volume of votes of people that are
A). fooled into thinking they have to vote that way.
B). Too dumb to understand the issues and vote based on which lawn signs they see.
c). Heaven forbid, actually support evil.

In short, a third party vote is much more powerful because it is saying something. A "against" vote for one of the two parties says nothing.

[georgiaboy]

Not all of these are directly related to 'lesser of two evils' argument, but relate to principled action in general.

1. If everyone who liked a third party candidate better than the Sally-Joe voted their conscience the way I did, and not the way the media told them was 'the only possible chances out there', elections would actually mean something, and participation might just soar.

How can that start? By doing it yourself. Tiny flakes of snow can roll into giant snowballs & cause mighty avalanches.

We are only in control of ourselves, and if we make our choice honestly and with integrity, the results could be amazing.

2. Also, I'm fond of saying, as a Christian, that it's only for us to do what we think is the right thing, and leave the outcome to Him.

3. A good definition of perserverance is 'doing the next right thing over and over again'.

4. Another way of looking at it, related to an earlier poster on this thread, is that the lesser of two evils vote is a vote based on fear, not strength. Always vote with strength, with courage, with your principles intact.

5. Yet another way is the quote from (Einstein?) that insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results. If you want different results, act differently!

[D.H.]

I try to tell people that Ron Paul's whole platform is correct. There is no voting for the "lesser evil" with him and independants. People want to to pick candidates views apart and say I agree with this one on this, but not that, etc...and try to find the lesser evil.

I watch with amusement as people like Glenn Beck preface their introduction of Paul on their show with something like, "I don't agree with him on a lot of things BUT on the economy he is right"....(oh, how convenient)

Ok, here's the poblem with that IMO....if you look at ALL of Paul's platform, less intervention, fiscal responsibility, adherence to the constitution, then sound and safe economic policies just fall into place on their own!

It's the whole package that equals a system that will work for ALL Americans regardless of their views.

[Josh_LA]

I have had trouble convincing folks that voting for the 'lesser of 2 evils' is a fallacy. In the interest of honing this skill, I would like to play a game -- I'll be the guy voting for the lesser of 2 evils, you guys (o geniuses of the web) destroy my arguments. Then we'll have a thread full of good counter-arguments to make to convince these folks when we come across them. K?

Feel free to start other threads like this on other subjects -- would be nice to use the phrase 'devil's advocate' in the thread title, so they are easily searchable.

Shred away! (the anti-flame, logical way, plz ;))

----------------------------------------
(Assume that both candidates in my example (Joe Smith, Sally Brown) are anti-liberty candidates.)
----------------------------------------

Me, arguing the side of the 'lesser of 2 evils' voter:

"Yes, I like the ideas of X (the best candidate) but he doesn't have a chance to win. I think Sally Brown is less evil than Joe Smith. I'm so afraid of Joe Smith as president that I have to vote for Sally Brown."

it's not a fallacy, it's just a stupid and wrong thing to do.

it's not a fallacy to want something bad, it's just bad.

[Flash]

I thought the whole point was to hope for an Obama win so another Liberty Republican could run in 2012. Unless you guys want to wait 8 years instead of 4.

[newyearsrevolution08]

I thought the whole point was to hope for an Obama win so another Liberty Republican could run in 2012. Unless you guys want to wait 8 years instead of 4.

I assume that makes sense if you want to base that strategy solely on the fact that voters will only allow one specific party to run the country for only XX amount of years though.

The only place I have EVER heard this "theory" was the msm.... The dinner and dance buddy.

No matter which party runs and wins does not mean they stand for what their party was supposed to stand for.

In 2012 I hope we have our candidates in ALL parties to offer our "choices" in any party even though they are pretty much one in the same, just like they are doing with mccain and obama.

If we get another republican nomination for president would STILL mean that the democrats would STILL have to fight for the election next go around as well. I think it would actually get stronger actually towards the same administration because they will have more pull, more ability to make sure and keep their good ol boys in office.

If it really is a problem then we can really push for a "constitutional" democrat nominee if we can locate one or two or 10.

[Flash]

If it really is a problem then we can really push for a "constitutional" democrat nominee if we can locate one or two or 10.

Thats kind of unrealistic. I don't know one Ron Paul Democrat besides Bob Conley and he isnt' even in office yet.

Kucinich and Gravel are great democrats but the majority of Rp's fanbase will never support them.

[nayjevin]

I thought the whole point was to hope for an Obama win so another Liberty Republican could run in 2012. Unless you guys want to wait 8 years instead of 4.

the 'whole point' lol

We as individuals can make our own determination of how to vote.

A conscientious perusal of this thread will lead the rational person to vote only in candidates that align with what he or she believes.

Lesser of 2 evils = fallacy, those who don't believe it should read this thread again.