The question it asks and attempts to answer:
Every election cycle, there are citizens who don’t like either of the candidates nominated by the two major political parties.
And so, a familiar debate begins: Is a vote for a third party a principled stand – or wasteful naiveté?
Here is how the question is more personally framed:
Pretend for a moment that you are a swing-state voter who agrees with the following four statements.
- A Donald Trump presidency would be a disaster.
- A Hillary Clinton presidency would be better.
- A third-party candidate would be better still.
- Neither third-party candidate has a serious chance of becoming president.
The problem here is in the framing.
First, will a Trump presidency be a "disaster"? And how big of a "disaster"? While I agree it will be, certainly the question remains as to what kind of a disaster it will be: Are we talking Hitler, or just Obama?
Second, while we might assume Hillary will be better, how much better? Will she be equal to her husband? Or will she be more like Nixon? Even if she is as good as her husband, we already know she has no ethics, so we can expect at least 4 years of having a criminal in the White House.
Finally, regarding a third party's chances, in 1860, the Republicans were a third party that had never won the presidency. Abraham Lincoln changed that.
However, some people may frame the issue as Rieder describes. But then he comes up with this most morally objectionable idea:
...Philosophers have long argued that, while the consequences of one’s actions are morally relevant, they rarely or never amount to a requirement to act in a way inconsistent with one’s firmly held commitments. A British philosopher named Bernard Williams famously argued that if we were forced to abandon our ideals every time the world conspired to make following through with them suboptimal, this would rob us of our integrity. This is a very compelling idea.
Williams seems right that we are not always obligated to violate our own principles or commitments in order to promote the greater good. But surely this idea has limits.
For, as critics of Williams have often said: When the consequences of one’s action or inaction get bad enough, following through for the sake of keeping one’s hands clean starts to seem self-indulgent. Indeed, even Williams admitted that you may sometimes be required to violate your principles for the greater good.
One take-home lesson of Williams’ view is that focusing on our “integrity” is the most justifiable when the action that we are being asked to take deeply violates our most central life commitments, and the cost of not acting is relatively low.
The problem here is that Rieder is viewing this through a short-term ethical lens. When we as a collective vote for a "bad" presidential candidate, what is the takeaway for the political party? They read it as, "We must have selected the best presidential candidate, because we won!" Remember, the purpose of a political party is to win elections. Voting for their candidate is like ringing Pavlov's bell. You can expect much political salivating when you do that.
Naturally, when a political party has been elected, what do they do in the next election? Find another comparable candidate. Consider the Democrats: In 2008, they selected a minority candidate, and they won! He got re-elected in 2012, so he must be ok, right? So they get to 2016, and select another minority candidate. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! (well, except to "fix" it in the unethical sense, but that's another discussion)
In addition, "self-indulgence" is a better description of a voter's motive who selects a candidate based on who has a better chance to win. It is more self-indulgent to vote for whoever everyone else is voting, since you can then gain acceptance with the largest number of people you know. By making the popular choice, you assume the collective is correct, without ever having to make your own ethical decision. This could also be referred to as the "Auschwitz guard's choice".
As Rieder says:
One of the things that Green Party supporters say is that you aren’t supposed to vote for the lesser of two evils – after all, the lesser of two evils is still evil. Rather, you’re supposed to vote for the best candidate.
One way to think about the third-party vote is that it is a form of conscientious objection. Such a vote, like abstaining from voting, allows the voter to avoid acting in a way that she thinks is wrong or distasteful. We can understand this person’s vote for a third party as a commitment not to let the badness of the world force her into violating her principles.
What is the point of having a principle if you never actually follow it? Principles are not merely "short term guidelines". A solid principle will serve you better in the long term too. The "lesser of two evils" is only a valid option when there are no third choices. Fortunately, there are third choices in this ethical dilemma.
