Have you ever found yourself voting for the "lesser evil"?

Question

In any sort of election, have you ever found yourself voting for one candidate, just because you think the other person isn't nearly up to par, but you don't really have faith in either candidates?

How often have you found yourself doing that? How often do you think that happens in today's society? Do you think a third party could help alleviate that?

Answer 1

Quite often. And I would not vote for a third party or independant candidate unless they actually had a chance. Otherwise they tend to take votes from the candidate they share the most view with, which would be the "lesser" of two evils you speak of. Letting the greater of two evils win.

I like the Libertarian point of view. Unfortunately they tend to attract wackos instead of actual leaders. But at some point I do see an independant or Libertarian being a strong contender for high office. There have been several already in Congress and governer offices.

Answer 2

I don't think I have EVER been excited about voting FOR any candidate. I vote more to get the worst ones out than put someone in. I wish it wasn't true but it is. A third party will never be elected so they only help one of the two party candidates so it really is the same choice.

Answer 3

Since candidates aren't perfect, of course I've voted the lesser of the two evils, but you could say that just means I've voted for the better-qualified candidate. And just because you have one or more new parties, doesn't mean we'd still get a better candidate.
Perhaps we need to make the job more attractive to those smart and innovative enough to do it well and also make running for office affordable so that elections can't be bought by the biggest spender...

Answer 4

Always--in every vote in every election.

Our founding fathers realized that, as Thomas Paine said, "Government is in its best state aa necessary evil, in its worst state an intolerable one."

We have been under the illusion (promoted by the politicians)that we should vote for "the best" candidate and that we have a right to expect honest and competant government that we can trust.

Our forefathers knew bettter. They knew that when you hand the reins of power over to fallible human beings, you place them in the path of temptations that can corrupt the best among us. It's necessary to do that--we have to have a government or we descend into chaos. But we should never trust it--never let it go unsupervised or unchallenged. And never forget that all of us--even the most respectable of persons--is not perfect. The lesser of evils? Our every government institution--our Constitution with its complex system of checks and balances--is based on just that.

Our forefaters were neither cynical nor lacking in faith in the people-on the contrary, they were the FIRST in history to really place their faith in the ordinary citizen. But neither were they naie--they knew that power is corrupting, always and everywhere.

Answer 5

I think that the $ is what most candidates are after and each Pres that takes office is set 4 life. But when its all said and done they have very tough decisions and they have to live with them everyday so if you could put a price on freedom what would it be? You know they all have issues just like we do but they put those aside to try to do what is best for everyone and they are all a little good and a little evil but what it boils down to is who is really going to do what they say they will do. Not just saying it to get their foot in the door and dropping the ball on the nation.

Answer 6

In my experience, most elections are like that, especially at the Presidential and Senatorial levels. There hasn't been a President I actually voted FOR since I was young and voted for John Anderson. Since then, I have just voted against the ones that I couldn't see being President.

Amazingly enough, those were always Democrats. Sure wish they'd get around to nominating someone I could actually vote for, although with Hillary and Barrack being the frontrunners for 2008, it's looking like the streak will stay alive.

Answer 7

Every Pres. election since 1984. And most Congressional elections ever.

I believe that as long as Reps and Dems are in charge, nothing significant will change for the better. We desperately need another viable national party but we also need term limits and the fair tax.

FairTax.org

Answer 8

Sadly, yes. But even that situation would not get me to stay home on election day. I always, always vote. And a third party could only help alleviate it if they were truly viable.

Answer 9

No.

The lesser evil is still evil.

Usually there's one candidate that I feel confident backing. In this case it's Ron Paul. I can't say that I support any of the "frontrunners".

Answer 10

Absolutely... And I am not sure a third party would help. It might, though, if we could get the folks who want to do some work instead of slinging accusations back and forth....