Disclaimer: This article mentions sexual assault.
In 1991, Louisiana voters were faced with two unfavorable options for governor: Democrat Edwin Edwards and David Duke, a white supremacist and former KKK grand wizard. Edwards had a history of gambling, corruption and scandalous affairs. In 1985, Edwards even admitted to taking $1.9 million to sell state hospital and nursing home permits. Nevertheless, faced with the choice between Edwards and a white supremacist, Lousianians chose Edwards as the lesser evil.
Though over 30 years have passed since the 1991 Louisiana gubernatorial race, the concept of lesser evil voting is more relevant now than ever before. The 2024 presidential race is around the corner and could be the tightest since 1876. In recent weeks, Harris and Trump have ramped up efforts to persuade undecided voters, especially in swing states. Yet many Americans can’t bear the thought of voting for either candidate and intend on voting for a third-party option instead, even though statistically a third party cannot plausibly win.
There are three major reasons people oppose lesser evil voting in this presidential election or are considering voting third party. The first is that they believe there is no “lesser evil” and no meaningful difference between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump. However, we would respectfully argue that though it can seem this way, there are major differences between the candidates that would impact millions of people.
On abortion, Harris has been adamant about codifying Roe v. Wade, whereas Trump has stated he believes it should be left up to the states. This has allowed states to impose dangerously restrictive abortion bans, often without exceptions for rape and incest. Last year, a 13 year old girl was forced to give birth after being raped, failing to be protected by the narrow exceptions in Mississipi’s abortion laws.
On LGBTQ+ rights, the American Civil Liberties Union has stated a second Trump term would end discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ Americans in employment, housing, education, healthcare and more. Meanwhile, around two in three economists believe that differences in Trump’s and Harris’s economic policies will lead to higher inflation and deficits under Trump.
Finally, on immigration, JD Vance has vowed to end programs such as Temporary Protection Status that have allowed hundreds of thousands of people fleeing persecution to legally live and work in the United States. In contrast, the Biden-Harris administration raised the refugee cap and resettled the most refugees in decades.
Others considering voting for a third party do accept Harris and Trump differ, but want to make a change, or “break the two-party duopoly” by voting for a third-party candidate. This is a compelling argument that rightfully asks: If we keep voting for the lesser evil, won’t we be trapped in a perpetual cycle of having to choose between bad and terrible? This is understandable; however, voting for a third party will not break the two party system or create change.
Many third-party or independent candidates have tried to or even managed to win millions of votes, and failed to break the dominance of the two major parties. Furthermore, third-party votes do not create change by forcing major parties to shift their positions to accommodate these voters either. When former president George Bush defeated Al Gore in 2000, in part due to progressives voting for the Green Party’s Ralph Nader, the Democratic Party did not shift to the left. Instead they nominated moderate centrist John Kerry in 2004. After Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election, Democrats nominated centrist Joe Biden in 2020, believing he would be more electable to Republicans, rather than nominating a more progressive candidate to appeal to 2016 Green Party voters.
Ultimately, the historical evidence indicates when Democrats lose and third parties get a high vote share, they do not shift their positions to accommodate third-party voters, and arguably even shift right to win votes from Republicans. This doesn’t mean we are trapped in a two-party system forever. We can break the duopoly by supporting ideas like ranked choice voting; however, we will not escape it by casting protest votes in a presidential election.
Finally, some state they simply morally cannot support someone they believe to be immoral, arguing that supporting the “lesser evil” is still supporting or endorsing evil. This is intuitive and compelling but dangerously wrong; to see this, let us go back to the 1991 election. Keeping Duke out of office by voting for Edwards wasn’t supporting corruption or evil; rather it was a recognition that keeping a white supremacist out of office was paramount, and not doing so would hurt millions of people. If you believe that one candidate would make the lives of millions better relative to the other, moral voting in a two-party system means ensuring that that candidate wins, even if you find them abhorrent.
This election will have an impact on our Tufts community, America and the world. No matter what your political views, we respectfully ask you to read the arguments we present, and vote for the lesser evil between Harris and Trump in this election.
