Can I vote for a candidate who is the lesser of two evils?

[ujo]

I have three candidates to choose from on a national ballot: one major party candidate is 0% pro-life, running neck-and-neck against another major party candidate who is 30% pro-life. There is also a third candidate from a minor party who has no chance of getting elected yet promises to be 100% pro-life. Is it possible to vote for the 30% pro-life candidate, if I do so intending to limit the harm (on life issues and other issues) of the 0% pro-life candidate, even though there is a 100% pro-life candidate but who has no chance of being elected?

 

[Michelle_Arnold]

First, allow me to note that the reason the 100% pro-life candidate has “no chance” of election is because pro-lifers do not vote for him, saying he has “no chance” and then turning that into a self-fulfilling prophecy. If pro-lifers organized and committed themselves to voting only for 100% pro-life candidates, then either the major parties would have to run 100% pro-life candidates or the 100% pro-life third-party candidates would have a serious chance in these races.

That said, yes, it is possible to vote for a candidate who is the “lesser of two evils” in order to prevent a candidate who is worse on the life and family issues from attaining office. Voting strategies, such as the one you outline and others which seek to either limit harm or vote against two bad candidates, are a legitimate means of voting in a conscientious manner.