With the upcoming Presidential Election, the country has a choice to vote for the experienced, albeit untrustworthy candidate, or the inexperienced, bigot. Now, don’t get me wrong. I do think there are pros and cons to both of these candidates, just like there are in every single election.
With this controversial election in particular, many people are faced with the decision of voting for the lesser of two evils. Some may argue that you can vote for a third party candidate, but ultimately, the right thing to do is to vote for the lesser of two evils.
This is not a new phenomenon and it will happen again in elections to come. Just like in elections in the past, when it was George W. Bush against John Kerry or Bill Clinton against Robert Dole, each candidate has positives and negatives, whether citizens want to admit it or not.
As citizens of this country, we have the opportunity to choose our representatives and our leaders. This is a privilege that not everyone has had in the past. It is our duty to vote in the upcoming election.
Now, why is it better to vote for the lesser of two evils instead of voting for the Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson, or the Green Party’s candidate Jill Stein?
Ultimately, if we vote for a third party candidate, which contributes to the defeat of the lesser evil and electing the more evil candidate, then we force society to pay a high price for our clean conscience. Just as we have a duty to vote, we have a duty (when there is an unpredictable leader that could take power, a candidate who could harm society) to vote for the lesser of two evils. Voting for the lesser of two evils is not an immoral action, it is actually the right thing to do.