Those who argue that one must vote for the lesser of two evils, in order to prevent the worst evil from prevailing, make a compellingly pragmatic case. A partial win is still a win. A partial win is better that losing outright. The real world isn’t black and white but way more than 50 shades of gray. One must learn to compromise. In the real world we must deal with things sensibly and realistically, based on practical considerations rather than risking all or nothing. Pragmatism becomes a rationale for deferring idealism. It’s something we tell ourselves is a necessary evil. We’d prefer not to make such a compromise. We’d prefer to vote our conscience. But, we aren’t daring enough to go to the mat for what we hold to be right. We hedge our bet instead of going for broke.

The point left out of such an equation is that voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. A lesser evil is still wrong. Voting for what is wrong is not right, will never be right. Voting for the lesser evil will never be virtuous. It pursues an end whose means might be justified, done for the right reasons overall, but which enable the continued tolerance of wrongdoing.

Some say it’s the responsible thing to do, rather than throwing away your vote on someone who can’t win and thereby strengthening the most egregious choice’s chances. This is the accepted logic of the anti-vote. Others might say that it’s also responsible for perpetuating a two-party system that is morally challenged and ethically bankrupt, willing do anything to keep the other side voted out of governance. Responsibility that weakens what defines its moral authority is the definition of a slippery slope. There is an important distinction between compromising and being compromised. Doing bad things, justified as a temporary means towards a righteous goal, inescapably defines one as bad. As Walt Kelly’s Pogo sagely observed about the politics of the Vietnam War: “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

As a nation, our moral compass has always had trouble finding true north, yet we generally head in the right direction, fundamentally on course but constantly prone to wandering down the wrong path by seeking moral shortcuts towards political victories. Winning an election or a primary process through voter suppression and marginalization, even if done legally, is to undermine democracy itself. Using half-truths or outright untruths to deceive the electorate shouldn’t have any measure of acceptability. Arguing that, well, the opposition’s doing it so it’s only fighting fire with fire, and they do way more of it anyway, never rings true even for a moment.

Deep down, voters want a leader they can trust to do the right thing, not most of the time but all of the time. They know that honesty, unconditional, straight-up, totally transparent, is ultimately the best policy, domestic or foreign. Yet, when push comes to shove, many will vote holding their noses, fingers crossed or denial at full capacity. Understandably, even in an optimum election cycle, more than a third of those eligible to vote choose not to.

The fortunate minority are those firmly believing in the candidate for whom they vote. Certainly, Trump and Clinton both have numerous ardent supporters firm in their conviction that their vote is as un-compromised as those escapist idealists committed to third-party contenders.

Even in presidential elections, America has one of lowest voter turnouts of any developed democracy. Obama’s historic election motivated the highest participation since the 1960s, but only garnered slightly higher than 60 percent involvement. Ultimately, “Hope and Change” defeated fear and loathing. This time around, history might give the nod to America’s first woman president, maybe even doubling down with Elizabeth Warren riding shotgun.

Hillary and Donald. Presidential politics now has first name familiarity, breeding as much disrespect as respect and far more fervent detractors than enthusiastic happy campers. Making America great again never looked or sounded less slam dunk. Both presumptive candidates head towards what promises to be very contentious national conventions. Both have historically low favorability ratings among the general electorate awaiting them after their nomination.

The Republican establishment appears to have even more animosity to their primaries’ victor as they do to Benghazi Hillary. Talk persists of “Dumping Trump” by whatever convention shenanigans can be concocted.

The Democrats face an equally daunting challenge to party unity. Their establishment must run a convention gauntlet imposed by those that still Feel the Bern and might just burn the political house of cards down rather than aid and abet a superdelegate imposed victor. Hillary’s coronation may well have far more catcalls than pomp under the circumstances.

So much for the current two-party system. Maybe it will survive all this intact. Maybe each party will actually be strengthened by the challenges now faced, correcting course towards one that better engages democracy and inclusively.

Maybe voting can become an act of choosing between the best of honorable options. Oh yea, that’s why third party candidates are already in place.

Think “now or never.” Vote accordingly.

———

Gary Anderson lives Bath.