The Lesser of Two Evils: A Poor Voting Strategy Explained with Comparative Analysis
A position-by-position comparison of the two 2008 major-party candidates, arguing they were functionally identical on every major issue: and a case for why voting for either was a category error.
Position & bias
Maybe I can help with understanding. I’ll use this election as the primary example, though the principles apply from one election to the next. However, before I get started, let me clearly identify my position so that you understand any bias I may have. I am not voting. Not voting for McCain, not voting for Obama, not voting for Barr or McManigal, Paul, Baldwin, or any other candidate. Not voting puts me in a position of being truly objective on the candidates. As I have posted elsewhere on the interwebs, I supported Ron Paul and his campaign, though I still would not have voted for him, as I would not want to support a system I don’t believe in from the get-go. I don’t expect others to understand my reasons for not voting or not supporting the system at this point in the conversation, so this will be the last I discuss either of those topics here. Even though I disagree on the principles of the system and such, I have the utmost respect for those that vote 3rd party, as it is clear they have come to their decision based on principled positions and ethics, whether I agree with those positions or ethics or not. As such, for those that believe in voting, or believe in the need to vote, I like to encourage people to consider the 3rd party candidates over the two major party candidates, as the 3rd party candidates are generally principled and have real positions and values on various issues and topics.
Like I said above, I will use this election as the primary example, but the principles remain the same throughout past elections, and likely for future ones.
The point has been made that many (most?) people are voting for McCain because they don’t want Obama to win, and likewise, many (most?) who are voting for Obama are doing so because they don’t want McCain to win. That is patently absurd… but more on that later. The point has also been made and implied, and the question asked, that with so much at stake Obama will be the wrong choice as he will not (??????); so, are people who are voting third party thinking of just their own needs (selfishness?), or actually thinking of what’s best for the nation (selflessness?)? The question marks are there because I’m not sure I fully understand the implications of that point and question. As such, I’ll try to differentiate the two major candidates’ positions so I can maybe try to deduce what an Obama presidency will be that makes McCain such an acceptable alternative.
So, to the issues
The following table compares Obama and McCain side by side on each issue.
| Issue | Obama | McCain |
|---|---|---|
| Foreign Policy | Agrees with Bush and has voted with Bush on all of the Iraq and Afghanistan initiatives and measures, and has even been bragging in his campaign lately that Bush now favors the same timetable for withdrawal, essentially saying he and Bush agree. Obama has also famously said, “There’s not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush’s position at this stage.” Obama is strongly encouraging pre-emptive war against Russia & Pakistan, and is open to pre-emptive nuclear war on Iran, though he isn’t pushing that as strongly lately, despite supporting sanctions against them. Obama would do nothing to change the current Bush foreign policy of hyper-interventionism. | Only differs from Obama in that he is focused more on Iran and less on Russia, though he still supports pre-emptive aggression against Russia to defend the Baltic States against potential aggression from Russia. Like Obama, would do nothing to change the current Bush foreign policy of hyper-interventionism. |
| Economics | Supported Bush’s socialist bailout, gave unchecked and nearly limitless power to the Secretary of the Treasury and the Fed, has supported the Treasury purchasing preferred and majority stock in private banks and obtaining board positions to sway bank policy and essentially create a national banking system (socialism, people, socialism). Obama promises more regulation of the finance sector and Wall Street, promises to continue the same inflationary monetary policy with a near unchecked Fed. Supported, with Bush, the SEC’s temporary ban on short selling and their change in mark-to-market policies (which allows banks to hide their finance problems in the same way the government allowed Enron to hide theirs in allowing them to claim the value they want their assets to be worth rather than what they are actually worth on the open market). Further, Obama claims to be able to balance the budget by cutting the average person’s tax rate while increasing government spending (the difference is supposedly made up in increased taxes on corporations and the wealthy) and will do nothing to reverse Bush’s disastrous economic policy that has brought us into our current economic depression and increased our national debt exponentially. | Also supported Bush’s socialist bailout, gave those same unchecked and nearly limitless powers to the Treasury and the Fed. Like Obama, promises more regulation of the finance sector and Wall Street, promises to continue the same inflationary monetary policy with a near unchecked Fed. Also supported, with Bush & Obama, the SEC’s temporary ban on short selling and their change in mark-to-market policies (Enron Magic!). Further, McCain has adopted Hillary Clinton’s mortgage bailout plan as his own and claims to be able to balance the budget by cutting the average person’s tax rate while increasing government spending (the difference is supposedly made up in increased taxes on corporations and increased tariffs on foreign goods) and will do nothing to reverse Bush’s disastrous economic policy that has brought us into our current economic depression and increased our national debt exponentially. |
| Civil Rights | Openly agrees with Bush’s position on warrantless wiretapping, suspension of Habeas Corpus for “suspected” terrorists, and the increased militarization of local police forces. | Also openly agrees with Bush’s position on warrantless wiretapping, suspension of Habeas Corpus for “suspected” terrorists, and the increased militarization of local police forces. |
| Energy Policy | Supports, along with Bush, subsidies for most sectors of the energy market while claiming to strive to achieve energy independence. | Supports, along with Bush, subsidies for most sectors of the energy market while claiming to strive to achieve energy independence. |
| Immigration | Favors increased restrictions on entry; and amnesty once in the US illegally — also like Bush — and doesn’t tackle the real issues of immigration or immigration reform such as welfare and taxation. | Favors increased restrictions on entry; and amnesty once in the US illegally — also like Bush and Obama — and doesn’t tackle the real issues of immigration or immigration reform such as welfare and taxation. |
| Health Care | Wants to enhance the power of or even exploit Bush’s faith-based initiatives to increase governmental involvement in health care, including increased funding of Medicaid and Medicare (along with Social Security, already totaling upwards of $60 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities and future debt). | Has been relatively silent, though supported Bush’s faith-based initiatives to increase governmental involvement in health care, and like Obama, would likely increase funding of Medicaid and Medicare (along with Social Security, already totaling upwards of $60 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities and future debt). |
| Social Security | Wants to maintain Social Security, and like Medicare, will likely expand its role to preserve the government welfare transfer payment scheme. | Wants to maintain Social Security, and like Medicare, will likely expand its role to preserve the government welfare transfer payment scheme (probably because he’s already taking SS & Medicare checks). |
| Gay Marriage | Agrees with Bush in opposition to gay marriage, though supports same-sex civil unions. | Agrees with Bush & Obama in opposition to gay marriage, possibly supports, like Obama, same-sex civil unions. |
| Abortion | Will do nothing to change the current status quo on abortion, is personally pro-choice, but this is a non-issue for Obama. | Will do nothing to change the current status quo on abortion, is personally pro-life, but, like Obama, this is a non-issue for McCain. |
| Gun Control | Panders to the 2nd Amendment and its fans, but supports Bush’s Court’s decision in Keller for “reasonable” gun control and gun laws. | Panders to the 2nd Amendment and its fans even more than Obama does, but supports Bush’s Court’s decision in Keller for “reasonable” gun control and gun laws. |
| Drug War | Obama hasn’t said much on the war on drugs, which means nothing will likely change in this wasteful “war” or in solving the hypocrisy of state-allowed marijuana use with federal laws banning its possession. | McCain also hasn’t said much on the war on drugs, which means nothing will likely change in this wasteful “war” or in solving the crowding of prisons with victimless criminals. |
| Global Warming | Believes global warming is a major problem and the government needs to step in and resolve the issue. | Believes global warming is not a major problem, however, wants the government to step in and resolve the issue. |
Uh-oh! McCain and Obama are identical on the issues, except global warming (in which they disagree on the scope of the problem, but have the same answer to it) and who they will tax to fund their socialism, but note they are both socialists who firmly believe in socialistic wealth transfers from one group of people to another for political means and purposes. How then do you differentiate the candidates when they have the same stance on the issues and both agree with the current president? When both are center-of-the-diagram statists?
Both are socialist statists that have no interest in liberty or personal freedom and only seek to expand their own power. Which brings us back to the question, “so are people who are voting third party thinking of just their own needs, or actually thinking of what’s best for the nation?” I would say that could be answered with an unequivocal YES. And it can then be turned around: “so are people who are voting major party thinking of just their own needs, or actually thinking of what’s best for the nation?” Based on the above, I would say it appears they haven’t thought much of it at all, but rather fallen for the traditional propaganda, posturing, and pandering from the candidates and reinforced by the media’s political ignorance.
The American obsession with voting for a winner
Secondly, what is with the American obsession with voting for a winner? Granted, our flawed system encourages the two-party outcome and encourages people to vote for a candidate they don’t truly support. This is made obviously clear by how quickly people who vote for both major candidates distance themselves from their vote, even before the elections take place.
”It seems to me that if your candidate lies, cheats, steals, or gets a whole bunch of people killed you — the voter who supported him — might share some blame. … With the secret ballot, everyone can claim to be disappointed with the guy they actually helped elect!” — Wilton Alston, “I Don’t Mind if You Keep Voting, But Do You Mind if I Keep Laughing While You Do?” (strike-the-root.com)
The obsession with voting for someone just to say you didn’t vote for someone else is absurd, just don’t vote or vote for someone you actually like if you don’t like one candidate, but why vote for their evil twin? This is how we got Bush and how we’ll get the equally bad or worse McCain or Obama.
Laurence Vance has an excellent blog post on this topic:
“Whenever I hear anyone, and especially conservative Christian Republicans, talk about voting for the lesser of two evils, I think of an election between Hitler and Stalin. I can just imagine one group of people saying that they are voting for Stalin because Hitler believes a, b, and c, while the other side says that they are voting for Hitler because Stalin believes in x, y, and z. The best reason I have heard offered for voting for Obama or McCain (aside from Blacks saying that they are voting for Obama because he is black and Whites saying that they are voting for McCain because he is white) is that Obama is not McCain and McCain is not Obama. Conservative Christian Republicans are the worst. Nothing McCain believes or doesn’t believe means anything; nothing McCain has done or will do means anything. The first words out of their mouth when you ask them about McCain are ‘Barack Obama is’ or ‘Barack Obama will.’ How shallow these Christians are. And how pathetic.”
Whatever happened to Christians taking the narrow road and being a light? I know that refers to Christ scripturally, but why can’t that same principle be applied to the rest of our lives as well? Why can’t we do the right thing even if it means suffering or humiliation for that decision? Why can’t we support a candidate that believes in a consistent ethic of life instead of just pandering to pro-lifers on the abortion topic with their left hand while signing the death warrants of thousands of innocents in war (and prison) with their right hand?
So, to help you understand, voting third party isn’t about electing a winner or stopping a loser from winning — it’s all about principles and ethics, and standing firm in your beliefs. As has been clearly demonstrated above, the winner isn’t going to make much of a difference in the outcome or direction this country takes, even with such “high stakes.” Maybe if the major candidates actually supported change, or if we actually had a maverick candidate, the outcome and direction of this country might be affected and even restored to greatness.
Does your vote even matter?
As for successful 3rd party candidates, Ross Perot deserves a mention. While Perot didn’t win, he proved that 3rd party candidates can be viable options for the winning-obsessed as well. Perot took 18% of the popular vote, a significant amount, and of the group above, it was essentially all of the two groups of 10%. Bush and Clinton both still got their 40% respectively. Much has been made of Perot’s run as an example of why 3rd party voters should vote major party, but the statistics back up the alternative. Perot’s voters are often credited with taking the election from Bush and giving it to Clinton, when in fact, if all of Perot’s votes were divided up based on whom the voter would have chosen had Perot not been running, Clinton still wins. The popular vote remains unchanged percentage-wise, while Clinton lost a handful of electoral votes to Bush, but still maintained a substantial margin of electoral victory. This further demonstrates that your vote is useless as a strategic vote, rather than as a vote for a candidate you actually believe in.
I don’t have the time or space to also get into the topic of legal precedent and how topics such as gay rights are scary if we can prevent people from freely associating in this manner — it is only a matter of time before that precedent is used to stop Christians from freely associating.
One last thing
And one last thing before I sign off: I would honestly rather have Obama than McCain, even though there is virtually no difference between them. The reason for this — and this is important — is that under a McCain presidency, the abolition of liberty and personal freedom will continue to expand rapidly while government power continues to grow virtually unchecked, as conservatives won’t speak out against one of their own (except those true conservatives who have been speaking out against Bush and even Reagan during their presidencies). However, under Obama, those very same expansions of power and erosions of liberty will be heralded by conservatives as evil and oppressive (see the Clinton presidency compared to the Bush II presidency for proof), and an Obama presidency will likely lead to a conservative revolution calling for a return to small government, liberty, and freedom — much like Clinton’s presidency did in 1994, when conservatives came out to elect a significant GOP majority in Congress and dissed the Clinton clone Dole in his bid as a fake conservative, before rallying around the pandering and false promises of Bush for withdrawal of troops from overseas, a return to smaller government, and decreases in government spending — before Bush turned his back on the electorate and increased troop presence, spending, and government programs at twice the rate of Clinton.
In conclusion
So, in conclusion, I’ll leave off with a series of questions I asked in another forum back in 2005 to cause thought on this topic:
Does it really matter where politicians constituents stand on issues? Or do just those constituents who voted for them matter? Or those whose views already line up with their own? What if two respected constituents that voted for them disagree? Can you show me a politician that is really serving the country and not just their own interests?
What makes one candidate better qualified than another? Where are the lines drawn? Where are the tiebreakers? How do you rank them? I know many of you have said that the only issue that matters to you is their stance on abortion. What kind of precedent does that set for these elected officials? What kind of message does that send? Why not support those that support liberty instead of those that mouth allegiance to a political issue that won’t go away through politics [EDITED to add — especially in an election where both candidates make it clear this is not an issue they will pursue after the election]?
I don’t remember anyone dying to defend voting privileges. I can recall some heroes dying for liberty and freedom. I’d rather have liberty than the privilege of checking a box every so many years while government goes on the same way whether I check that box or not. Wouldn’t you?
I’d honestly like to know how Christians would/could lose their voice if they didn’t vote? Wouldn’t their votes just be condoning the very system that is taking their supposed voice away? Wouldn’t their only legitimate means of protest be to not have anything do with the system at all? After all, if you don’t agreed to abide by the system how can you be bound to, and by, it? I would hope that the voice of Christians is stronger than their political vote, especially seeing how their vote has done nothing but to expand governmental size & regulations, legitimize immorality, and restrict themselves over the last several decades. I would hope that their voice is strongest outside the political arena — in areas such as literature and philosophy, and even the reach of pop culture. Wouldn’t you?
As a Christian, I ask, how can you support a political system that “requires a moral…people” knowing that all are sinners and there are no moral people? Why would you want to support a system that is destined to fail from its outset? Wouldn’t you rather want to support a system that takes the depravity of man into account?
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.