We are in the midst of another election cycle. I’m not the only one who thinks the available options are far from ideal. Like other recent elections, this situation raises some thorny questions, such as whether people have an obligation to vote, whether it is permissible to vote for a deeply flawed candidate if the alternative is worse, and how to balance competition at the polls Problem decision.
I have discussed this type of issue at length before, and this article links to and summarizes some of those articles. This is no A post about which 2024 presidential candidate is the best (or least bad), although I may write about that on a later occasion. This is about how we should make such decisions. Unless otherwise noted, these articles are posted on the VC blog:
1. “The logic of voting for the less evil”
This article was inspired by the 2016 election, but nearly everything is still relevant today. In it, I explain why it is permissible and desirable to vote for the lesser evil in an election in which all viable alternatives are bad. I offered a variety of counterarguments, including the claim that voting for a lesser evil makes you morally complicit in that candidate’s wrongdoing, the argument that it’s better to cast a “protest vote” for a candidate who has no chance of winning, the argument based on the very Realistic arguments. Here is a brief excerpt:
Imagine an election and the only choice is Queen Cersei game of Thronesand the Dark Lord Sauron in Tolkien’s novels Lord of the Rings. If Cersei wins, she will kill many innocent people and oppress others. But she more or less leaves most people alone (as long as they don’t openly oppose her or threaten her family in any way). If Sauron wins, he will kill more innocent people and make the survivors his slaves.
Instead, you can hold protest votes for better choices, like Gandalf… but, by hypothesis, these are purely token choices since they have zero chance of winning. If protest voters would have supported Cersei, the net effect of his decision to protest is to increase the likelihood of the worst outcome: Sauron’s victory.
In this case, it’s clear that a man who made sure Cersei won did a good thing. He or she will save large numbers of people from slavery or death, despite the fact that Cersei’s regime is a deeply unjust one.
The Cersei-Sauron hypothesis was clearly inspired by the rivalry between Trump and Hillary Clinton and is an exaggerated version of this trade-off. But I think this holds true for Trump v. Harris and many other elections as well.
Notice how my logic differs from that of those who say candidates should be voted on only if they meet a minimum threshold of character or good policies. In my opinion, it’s morally justifiable to vote for almost any candidate – even a cruel tyrant like Cersei – as long as the only viable alternative is worse.
Canadian columnist John Robson in National Postand I, in turn, issued a rebuttal.
2. “Proving the moral obligation to vote is harder than you think.”
Many people, including some political theorists, believe we have a moral obligation to vote. I disagree. In fact, I think that in many cases you’re better off not voting, especially if ignorance and bias make it possible for you to make the wrong decision. Voting out of ignorance and prejudice is often worse than not voting at all.
3. “Is there a moral obligation to vote in an election where the stakes are unusually high?”
Even if there is no general obligation to vote, perhaps in situations where the stakes of an election are unusually high, we are morally required to do so. In this article, I explain why I disagree—at least to most voters. However, the true core of this argument is limited. extract:
There is truth to the idea that if the stakes are high enough, you are obligated to vote. But the resulting moral duties apply far less frequently than advocates of this argument assume. The same reasoning actually implies that many people have moral obligations no vote.
Let’s start with the core of truth. Imagine that Gandalf (the benevolent wizard in JRR Tolkien’s novels) faces an election for a political position of power. Lord of the Rings) against the tyrannical dark lord Sauron in the same story. If Sauron wins, millions will die or be enslaved, while Gandalf, if he succeeds, will reign as righteous. To ensure Gandalf’s victory, all you have to do is check his name on the ballot. If you do, Gandalf wins; if you do, Gandalf wins. If not, Sauron will.
In this case, it seems like you have a moral obligation to vote for Gandalf, at least unless there’s some special emergency. Of course, in a real election, your vote is far less likely to make a difference than in this stylized example…
However, a sufficiently large difference between the two candidates may justify an obligation to vote for the “correct” candidate, even if the odds of casting the deciding vote are very low….
Note, however, that the duties in question are no The obligation to participate in a process for its own sake. It’s a responsibility to help good triumph over evil when you can do so at little or no cost. If you have a moral obligation to vote for Gandalf in these types of situations, then you also have moral obligation no Vote for Sauron. Indeed, those who voted for Sauron were more More deserving of condemnation than someone who simply abstains. The former actively helps evil win, the latter “merely” chooses not to help stop it.
While Gandalf’s supporters may be obligated to vote, Sauron’s supporters are actually obligated to abstain. Ideally, they should stop supporting Sauron altogether. But they should at least not do anything that would increase his chances of winning.
All of the above analyzes assume that voters know which candidate is superior and to what extent. But in reality, we have widespread political ignorance, and most voters often don’t even know the basic facts about how government and politics work. Most people are also very biased in how they evaluate the information they know…
Unless a voter is well informed about the issues and is at least reasonably objective in her assessment of the political message, she has good reason to question her judgment about which candidate is superior, let alone how much better. Therefore, she cannot conclude that she has a duty to vote to help the “right” side win. Rather, she may have a presumptive obligation to abstain from voting until she reaches at least a minimum threshold of political knowledge….
Later in this article I will discuss some possible exceptions to the presumptive duty to abstain; there are some unusual circumstances where voting with ignorance is indeed better than not voting, and even unusual circumstances where ignorance leads to better outcomes than knowledge Decision-making (I address this latter possibility in more detail in Chapter 2 of this book) Democracy and political ignorance). I also offer some other caveats and rebuttals.
4. “How to Become a Better Voter”
There are some steps you can take to become a better voter, based on the following helpful articles: scientific american. I think a lot of people can do these things. You don’t have to be an academic or policy expert to take on this task. But I doubt there will be a small minority of voters willing to invest the time and energy.
5. “Let the children vote”
In this article, I make a tentative argument for letting children vote, as long as they demonstrate that they have reached the same high level of political knowledge as the average adult voter—which isn’t that high of a bar! I’ve expanded on this idea here. I do note an important caveat that this may not be feasible because the government may not be trusted to provide objective knowledge tests for children (although we do in fact have such tests for immigrants seeking to become a U.S. citizen). Getting knowledgeable kids to vote is one of my least popular ideas (which is significant given the many other unpopular views I hold!). But I remain unrepentant about it. My nine-year-old daughter is one of the relatively few supporters of this policy.
My proposal should be different from the idea of letting parents vote on behalf of their children, an idea supported by Republican vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance and others.
6. “Top-Down and Bottom-Up Solutions to the Problem of Political Ignorance,” in Hana Samaržija and Quassim Cassam, eds. democratic epistemology (Routledge, 2023).
Many of voting’s most serious flaws stem from the fact that most voters tend to be ignorant of government public policy and are highly biased in evaluating the political information they do know. In this article, I will introduce a series of possible strategies to mitigate this problem. The summary is as follows:
There is widespread, though not universal, agreement that widespread voter ignorance and unreasonable assessment of evidence are serious threats to democracy. But there are serious disagreements over strategies to mitigate the danger. “Top-down” approaches, such as wise rule and giving more authority to experts, attempt to reduce ignorance by concentrating more political power in the hands of the more knowledgeable. In contrast, “bottom-up” approaches seek to either increase the political capacity of the public or empower ordinary people to make good decisions with better incentives than traditional ballot box voting. Examples of bottom-up strategies include increasing voter knowledge through education, various “classification” proposals, and shifting more decision-making to institutions where citizens can “vote with their feet.”
This chapter investigates and critiques a range of top-down and bottom-up strategies. I conclude that top-down strategies suffer from systemic flaws that severely limit their potential. While we shouldn’t reject them outright, we should be wary of adopting them on a large scale. Bottom-up strategies have significant limitations of their own. But expanding the opportunity to vote with your feet holds more promise than any other option currently available. The idea of paying voters to increase their knowledge also deserves serious consideration.
I go into more detail about the foot-voting method of reducing political ignorance in my book Free Movement: Foot Voting, Immigration and Political Freedom. Sadly, it is unlikely that either this or any other strategy for dealing with political ignorance will be enacted in time for this year’s election! Any serious reform effort will likely take at least a few years to have a significant impact.
7. “Prioritize issues”
How to decide which issues take priority over others. Not just voting. But relevant to voting decisions.
8. “If you don’t vote, you still have the right to complain.”
Feeling frustrated after considering the above? This article might cheer you up a little; even if you don’t vote, you have reason to criticize the winner’s policies! I’d add that the same logic suggests that if you voted for the winner because she was a lesser evil, then you still have reason to complain about her policies. Vote Cersei over Sauron if necessary. But then condemns the evil she has done. When she decides to weed out her critics, make sure not to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
