the_dunk_tank

This again. You may be genuinely asking, but we get someone stumbling in here every day at the moment looking to repeat the same 'lesser evils' voting argument ad infinitum, so I hope you'll understand that I'm going to try to outline some of thr major points in brief and am not interested in a protracted debate about them.

• The point that is nearly always ignored is that for the most part people don't actually care if someone wants to vote for Biden for whatever reason, but the amount of time people dedicate to this argument and electoral politics in general would be better spent doing literally anything else. Organising, mutual aid, protest, 'lawfare', community defense, whatever.

• Perhaps most important is that the parameters of bourgeois electoral politics are set to ensure that no option outside of ruling class interests can be achieved. The spectacle of the campaigns are release valve for societal pressure, a way to sap and distract the energy of potential activists into something safe for the status quo.

And if we are going to engage with electoral politics...

• An electoral system that demands you vote for a singular candidate because they're the 'only one who can win' against a greater evil isn't a democracy and it's not a free vote. It's a hostage situation. If electoral politics is supposed to be a free vote, then people have to be able to vote their conscience. And if you do believe in the electoral system as a potential avenue for change, then some people are going to have to vote for third party candidates before the time that they'll win.

On 'lesser evil' voting...

• The mantra that is always repeated is that the lesser evil is always the tactical choice, that someone else 'would be worse' but that isn't necessarily the case, especially if you don't think electoral politics is the primary way to exercise power.

• If you feel that one issue is most important - the genocide in Gaza for example - and the lesser evil candidate is currently doing it, without any possibility of policy change, then any other candidate offers at least the potential for change. A possibility of change is logically better than the certainty of none.

• One could argue that in a political duopoly where both parties serve the same interest, they also each serve a specific purpose. With the further right party making regressive change and then the 'lesser evil' party protecting and solidifying those gains. Viewed like this, voting for the 'lesser evil' party isn't necessarily the most tactical choice. When the 'lesser evil' party commits atrocities or cements regressive policy there's less push back from the populace because their supporters excuse it rather than oppose it. Take the reaction to Biden's continuation of internment camps on the border for example; was there more opposition when Trump was doing it or Biden? Or for a UK example, the fact that both Labour and Tory politicians have said that only Labour has the 'good will' and 'credibility' to enact NHS reform (meaning deeply unpopular privatisation). It's too unpopular for the 'more evil' party to do openly, so the 'lesser evil' party will have to do it under false pretenses.