The theoretical lesser evil humanoid will protest Clinton’s wrongs while campaigning for her and after electing her, threatening her with voting for her again while feeling even more flustered about it than last time — and such a theoretical creature will do so only in swing states, while voting for Jill Stein in non-swing states.
The real world doesn’t work that way. People who join a team join its delusions and distortions. Campaigning for and resisting candidates don’t mix. And people don’t build momentum around mediocre muddling. They will, however, pour energy into a powerful vision of a better world, if allowed to imagine it’s possible.
Source: It’s Not the Economy, Stupid
The Greek people’s refusal of the EU’s bailout terms during the summer of 2015 (despite the patent danger of economic collapse) and the Brexit may be cited as two instances when people have voted against the more confortable alternative, even when doing so could jeopardize their immediate interests. These US elections, many Americans are being faced with the choice of following their heart or voting strategically to avoid the election of the candidate that they perceived is the worst. Can the political pattern ever change if we constantly apply the “lesser of two evils” rationale? Is the cost of not doing so greater than the moral victory?