As someone who studied political science and has spent my entire career in campaigns and government administration: there is no such thing as a protest vote.
I support protest, but it’s just not possible to do it in the context of voting. Staying home isn’t protest, writing in a candidate isn’t protest, voting third-party isn’t protest.
Why? Because protest has to persuade someone with power to do what you want, and the only two outcomes from “protest” voting are that you keep you keep the person you want to persuade out of power, or they win without you.
There is no such thing as voting “against” anything. Most people stay home and that is never ever taken as a mark against the winner or the system. The only thing — the ONLY thing — you can actually do on election day is vote FOR something. Everything else is mind games and delusions.
It absolutely bears out across the research (my focus was in comparative electoral systems and I was deep in the literature, but it has been a minute). Research consistently shows that protest voting - whether through abstention, third-party votes, or write-ins - fails to achieve its intended effects. Winners interpret any victory as validation regardless of turnout or margin, and studies find no correlation between protest voting and subsequent policy changes. Third party votes are only ever “spoilers” and stay-homes are consenting to the will of the actual voters. Actual protest works, actual voting works, protest voting does not.
And yet Democrats fight third party candidates tooth and nail with lawyers to prevent them from obtaining a spot on the ballot. How can you explain that? In NY State, a place where undoubtedly many Jill Stein voters reside, JIll Stein will not be an option to vote for because D's in the state raised the requirements for being on the ballot to make third party challengers nearly impossible.
You also undermine your own argument by saying that third party votes are only ever "spoilers". You understand what a spoiler is right? The ability to make someone lose an election. How is that not political power? If enough Muslims in Michigan decide they will no longer support Kamala Harris because she supports a genocide, and cause her to lose Michigan because of their "uncommited" movement, that is real political power! It forces a change in policy to appease unhappy voters.
Great article, thanks! I'm from the UK but watching and reading with interest. In principle I think I would agree with your general point about voting for the lesser evil.
However, to paraphrase Jim Gaffigan addressing the Cardinal at the recent Al Smith dinner: who's more evil?
Love the parallels with history. Ancient wisdom, particularly Stoicism, demonstrates that our current issues aren’t new or especially significant. They’re just different due to time period and context. Virtue and foundational principles of Stoicism can be applied to all problems and dilemmas. This post does a great job of highlighting that consideration in regard to voting.
My intention is to write-in "NONE OF THESE CANDIDATES."
i refuse to vote for any so-called "Lesser of Two Evils" - ie, Trump or Harris ~, as that is nothing but endorsing America's Ruling Political Caste's "choice" of the Evil of Two Lessers.
And voting 3rd, 4th, or 5th Party accomplishes nothing but giving the Voter the satisfaction of voting her or his conscience [and consciousness].
I understand, jg moebus. This is, however, our system. Opting out may accomplish some sort of personal satisfaction, but it also means that one accept the results without ruining one’s day.
It's just an entertaining activity for the folks who love to participate in deciding who will be the next Zionist's most rabid bitch ... (not only in the US ...)
The system is entirely rigged; it's either Coke or Pepsi ...
DE-fund the government by tax avoidance (NOT evasion!), not the police !!!
"Yes, fanatics will go to the polls and experience the joy of voting for their dream candidate. The rest of us will face reality and decide who the lesser evil is."
Could not disagree more. Calling third-party voters fanatics is pure ad-hominem. How can "lesser evil voting" be in any way construed as being stoic? I thought stoics were people who would adhere to their values and ideals, no matter the consequences of doing so. How does "lesser evil voting" fit in with the stoic virtues of courage? It sounds to me like admitting defeat.
My biggest voting issue this election is not supporting a genocide, and if voting for Jill Stein makes me a fanatic in your eyes, then so be it, I will vote my values, you are free to compromise on yours, but don't pretend it makes you stoic for doing so.
Also news flash, Abraham Lincoln is not on the ballot! Nor is Hitler! Bringing up these previous elections like they can provide us insight into today's election is what I would put under your category of "Delusional False Equivalency."
If after careful considerations you consider a vote for any candidate to be most in line with wisdom, justice, courage and moderation, then no Stoic will tell you you've gone astray (though they may call you on your thinking and suggest your reckoning may be wrong).
I actually didn't call third party voters specifically fanatics, bur rather suggested, as I have before, that if you can find any candidate who you 100% agree with on all policy positions so that you're actually view them as perfect candidates, and also, that you view their opposition to have few or no correct policy positions, there's a very good chance you've been ideologically captured. https://open.substack.com/pub/andrewperlot/p/how-to-manipulate-voters?r=1xulhu&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
And if you have a candidate — third party or otherwise — who seems mostly right to you except but has a few flaws? Then you're voting for the lesser evil, which is what I suggested with my comment.
Although I hope to one day vote in an election in which I find a dream candidate with a great character and whose policy positions I agree with 100%, I suspect this will never happen.
My intention was to point out that all — or almost all — candidates are lesser evil candidates if you're not deluded, though I hope you've found your unicorn. If my writing was sloppy and appeared to say something else, then I apologize.
Lesser evil voting, in common parlance, is a rationale specifically for not voting for the person with whom you most agree, but for the one with whom you might faintly agree and who has a good chance of winning. I find it hard to accept you were unaware of this, though if you did not really mean to categorize third-party voters or abstainers as fanatics, I accept your apology, but I know how anyone reading this essay will interpret your message.
Your entire essay seems premised on the idea that compromising on your values is an essential part of voting. Your example of the abolitionists possibly not voting for Lincoln reinforces this interpretation, as well as your statement on "holding your nose if you have to" to go vote.
But then you contradict yourself by saying "Stoics go to the polls knowing outcomes aren’t what elections are about for us." This part I agree with, however it is in direct conflict with the thesis of this essay. I mean you can't have it both ways. Either you are a "lesser-evil" voter who calibrates their choice based upon what they think the outcome of the election might be, or you vote your values regardless of the consequences as it seems the Stoics would suggest. Which is it here?
Virtue is about doing the right thing as we perceive it, not just understanding who the best candidate is. There is theoretically a totally right thing to do, but we have an imperfect understanding (unless we’re a theoretical sage), so we use our reason to figure out as best we can how to align our actions with virtue.
I think our model here is actually a Stoic who arguably failed: Cato. He held his nose and refused to ally with the clear lesser evil — Pompey. He led his faction to resist all the fairly reasonable but not ideal measures Pompey wanted. Doing this drove Pompey into the arms of Julius Caesar and Crassus, creating the triumvirate that brought down the Roman Republic. Pompey was inclined to support the Republic. He just wanted what he wanted, which wasn’t great, but wasn’t the worst. But Cato couldn’t see that. He couldn’t see past his ideal and what he thought virtue demanded he support or not support. He played a big part in bringing down the republic.
If you think 3rd parties are virtuous, then go for it. But just be aware that there are reasonable questions beyond who the best candidate is that have to do with virtue.
This is what Cicero said of Cato:
“As for our friend Cato, I have as warm a regard for him as you. The fact remains that with all his patriotism and integrity he is sometimes a political liability. He speaks in the Senate as though he were living in Plato’s Republic instead of Romulus’ cesspool.”
Interesting, I was unaware of the dynamics of this ancient election, however I think that by cherry-picking these historic examples which fit your narrative, you are engaging in a biased interpretation of election dynamics. If I were more versed in the history of elections, I am sure I could come up with counter-examples where a significant voting bloc withholding or threatening to withhold their vote forced change in their favor in an election. Indeed I think that this is one of the best tools for a minority coalition in the electorate to force change.
Also by focusing on results of past elections, you are engaging in a bit of rationalizing things which the voter could never know in advance. I think you even recognize this, by saying in your original piece that, "We can only have firm opinions about these contests in retrospect." Exactly! Hindsight is 20/20, as they say, so there is no way a voter can predict these outcomes which you use as examples.
I do take your point that sometimes there are larger issues at play in an election, but using your example of Cato, let's say he hypothetically might have known that his actions could lead to the failure of the Republic. Well it may also be possible that the issues about which he was withholding his vote over, were more important to him than the maintenance of the Republic. Put another way, it's possible that the survival of the Republic in the form which he protested against was a worse outcome to him than the survival of the Republic.
Using a present day example, if I had the choice between on the one hand, supporting a candidate which facilitates the rampant, unconscionable, slaughter of innocent civilians, but who would maintain our Republic, and on the other hand, possibly destroying American democracy by voting for someone who would resist that slaughter, then even though these outcomes are unknowable, hypothetically my choice is still to prevent the slaughter of innocent civilians. An American democracy which supports such things is not worth saving.
Lastly I will say that if we take your advice of voting for the lesser evil, then I think it actually nullifies any electoral power minority coalitions have to force change and does not make rational sense. Take for example, present day progressives in the Democratic party. Democrats know that come election time, this minority coalition will obediently fall in line to vote for them and use your lesser-evil reasoning to do so. So rationally, why would Democrats ever concede anything to progressives? They are an electoral lock-in, so they effectively have no bargaining power to effect change. If however, progressives were more stoic and courageous in their adherence to their values and threatened to withhold their votes over issues which they cared deeply about, then the calculus for Democrats changes, and if they want to maintain power, they will have to make concessions to this minority group.
Power in a democracy is never given freely, it must be taken.
Sounds like you've given it some thought. I appreciate that you've considered the survivial of democracy vs killings angle and have a considered position. Happy voting!
Also perusing the wikipedia page of Cato, are you sure you have your history correct on his political stance? The wiki (I know, not a real source, but the page does extensively cite a book on Cato the younger) states "He [Cato] supported Pompey's sole consulship in 52 BC as a practical matter and to draw Pompey from his alliance with Caesar. In this, he was successful. He and his political allies advocated a policy of confrontation and brinksmanship with Caesar"
As someone who studied political science and has spent my entire career in campaigns and government administration: there is no such thing as a protest vote.
I support protest, but it’s just not possible to do it in the context of voting. Staying home isn’t protest, writing in a candidate isn’t protest, voting third-party isn’t protest.
Why? Because protest has to persuade someone with power to do what you want, and the only two outcomes from “protest” voting are that you keep you keep the person you want to persuade out of power, or they win without you.
There is no such thing as voting “against” anything. Most people stay home and that is never ever taken as a mark against the winner or the system. The only thing — the ONLY thing — you can actually do on election day is vote FOR something. Everything else is mind games and delusions.
This seems like the logical take to me. Has this been substantiated through any good research?
Your post and this exchange inspired me to go into a bit more detail: https://steadfastutopian.substack.com/p/no-such-thing-as-a-protest-vote
It absolutely bears out across the research (my focus was in comparative electoral systems and I was deep in the literature, but it has been a minute). Research consistently shows that protest voting - whether through abstention, third-party votes, or write-ins - fails to achieve its intended effects. Winners interpret any victory as validation regardless of turnout or margin, and studies find no correlation between protest voting and subsequent policy changes. Third party votes are only ever “spoilers” and stay-homes are consenting to the will of the actual voters. Actual protest works, actual voting works, protest voting does not.
And yet Democrats fight third party candidates tooth and nail with lawyers to prevent them from obtaining a spot on the ballot. How can you explain that? In NY State, a place where undoubtedly many Jill Stein voters reside, JIll Stein will not be an option to vote for because D's in the state raised the requirements for being on the ballot to make third party challengers nearly impossible.
You also undermine your own argument by saying that third party votes are only ever "spoilers". You understand what a spoiler is right? The ability to make someone lose an election. How is that not political power? If enough Muslims in Michigan decide they will no longer support Kamala Harris because she supports a genocide, and cause her to lose Michigan because of their "uncommited" movement, that is real political power! It forces a change in policy to appease unhappy voters.
Great insights and empowering.
Great article, thanks! I'm from the UK but watching and reading with interest. In principle I think I would agree with your general point about voting for the lesser evil.
However, to paraphrase Jim Gaffigan addressing the Cardinal at the recent Al Smith dinner: who's more evil?
Fantastic post.
Love the parallels with history. Ancient wisdom, particularly Stoicism, demonstrates that our current issues aren’t new or especially significant. They’re just different due to time period and context. Virtue and foundational principles of Stoicism can be applied to all problems and dilemmas. This post does a great job of highlighting that consideration in regard to voting.
Thank you
Thanks! So glad you liked it.
My intention is to write-in "NONE OF THESE CANDIDATES."
i refuse to vote for any so-called "Lesser of Two Evils" - ie, Trump or Harris ~, as that is nothing but endorsing America's Ruling Political Caste's "choice" of the Evil of Two Lessers.
And voting 3rd, 4th, or 5th Party accomplishes nothing but giving the Voter the satisfaction of voting her or his conscience [and consciousness].
I understand, jg moebus. This is, however, our system. Opting out may accomplish some sort of personal satisfaction, but it also means that one accept the results without ruining one’s day.
Good on you for refusing to participate in a corrupt and rigged system, I think the stoics would approve.
Voting in the US isn't useless at all !!!
It's just an entertaining activity for the folks who love to participate in deciding who will be the next Zionist's most rabid bitch ... (not only in the US ...)
The system is entirely rigged; it's either Coke or Pepsi ...
DE-fund the government by tax avoidance (NOT evasion!), not the police !!!
"Yes, fanatics will go to the polls and experience the joy of voting for their dream candidate. The rest of us will face reality and decide who the lesser evil is."
Could not disagree more. Calling third-party voters fanatics is pure ad-hominem. How can "lesser evil voting" be in any way construed as being stoic? I thought stoics were people who would adhere to their values and ideals, no matter the consequences of doing so. How does "lesser evil voting" fit in with the stoic virtues of courage? It sounds to me like admitting defeat.
My biggest voting issue this election is not supporting a genocide, and if voting for Jill Stein makes me a fanatic in your eyes, then so be it, I will vote my values, you are free to compromise on yours, but don't pretend it makes you stoic for doing so.
Also news flash, Abraham Lincoln is not on the ballot! Nor is Hitler! Bringing up these previous elections like they can provide us insight into today's election is what I would put under your category of "Delusional False Equivalency."
If after careful considerations you consider a vote for any candidate to be most in line with wisdom, justice, courage and moderation, then no Stoic will tell you you've gone astray (though they may call you on your thinking and suggest your reckoning may be wrong).
I actually didn't call third party voters specifically fanatics, bur rather suggested, as I have before, that if you can find any candidate who you 100% agree with on all policy positions so that you're actually view them as perfect candidates, and also, that you view their opposition to have few or no correct policy positions, there's a very good chance you've been ideologically captured. https://open.substack.com/pub/andrewperlot/p/how-to-manipulate-voters?r=1xulhu&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
And if you have a candidate — third party or otherwise — who seems mostly right to you except but has a few flaws? Then you're voting for the lesser evil, which is what I suggested with my comment.
Although I hope to one day vote in an election in which I find a dream candidate with a great character and whose policy positions I agree with 100%, I suspect this will never happen.
My intention was to point out that all — or almost all — candidates are lesser evil candidates if you're not deluded, though I hope you've found your unicorn. If my writing was sloppy and appeared to say something else, then I apologize.
Lesser evil voting, in common parlance, is a rationale specifically for not voting for the person with whom you most agree, but for the one with whom you might faintly agree and who has a good chance of winning. I find it hard to accept you were unaware of this, though if you did not really mean to categorize third-party voters or abstainers as fanatics, I accept your apology, but I know how anyone reading this essay will interpret your message.
Your entire essay seems premised on the idea that compromising on your values is an essential part of voting. Your example of the abolitionists possibly not voting for Lincoln reinforces this interpretation, as well as your statement on "holding your nose if you have to" to go vote.
But then you contradict yourself by saying "Stoics go to the polls knowing outcomes aren’t what elections are about for us." This part I agree with, however it is in direct conflict with the thesis of this essay. I mean you can't have it both ways. Either you are a "lesser-evil" voter who calibrates their choice based upon what they think the outcome of the election might be, or you vote your values regardless of the consequences as it seems the Stoics would suggest. Which is it here?
Virtue is about doing the right thing as we perceive it, not just understanding who the best candidate is. There is theoretically a totally right thing to do, but we have an imperfect understanding (unless we’re a theoretical sage), so we use our reason to figure out as best we can how to align our actions with virtue.
I think our model here is actually a Stoic who arguably failed: Cato. He held his nose and refused to ally with the clear lesser evil — Pompey. He led his faction to resist all the fairly reasonable but not ideal measures Pompey wanted. Doing this drove Pompey into the arms of Julius Caesar and Crassus, creating the triumvirate that brought down the Roman Republic. Pompey was inclined to support the Republic. He just wanted what he wanted, which wasn’t great, but wasn’t the worst. But Cato couldn’t see that. He couldn’t see past his ideal and what he thought virtue demanded he support or not support. He played a big part in bringing down the republic.
If you think 3rd parties are virtuous, then go for it. But just be aware that there are reasonable questions beyond who the best candidate is that have to do with virtue.
This is what Cicero said of Cato:
“As for our friend Cato, I have as warm a regard for him as you. The fact remains that with all his patriotism and integrity he is sometimes a political liability. He speaks in the Senate as though he were living in Plato’s Republic instead of Romulus’ cesspool.”
Interesting, I was unaware of the dynamics of this ancient election, however I think that by cherry-picking these historic examples which fit your narrative, you are engaging in a biased interpretation of election dynamics. If I were more versed in the history of elections, I am sure I could come up with counter-examples where a significant voting bloc withholding or threatening to withhold their vote forced change in their favor in an election. Indeed I think that this is one of the best tools for a minority coalition in the electorate to force change.
Also by focusing on results of past elections, you are engaging in a bit of rationalizing things which the voter could never know in advance. I think you even recognize this, by saying in your original piece that, "We can only have firm opinions about these contests in retrospect." Exactly! Hindsight is 20/20, as they say, so there is no way a voter can predict these outcomes which you use as examples.
I do take your point that sometimes there are larger issues at play in an election, but using your example of Cato, let's say he hypothetically might have known that his actions could lead to the failure of the Republic. Well it may also be possible that the issues about which he was withholding his vote over, were more important to him than the maintenance of the Republic. Put another way, it's possible that the survival of the Republic in the form which he protested against was a worse outcome to him than the survival of the Republic.
Using a present day example, if I had the choice between on the one hand, supporting a candidate which facilitates the rampant, unconscionable, slaughter of innocent civilians, but who would maintain our Republic, and on the other hand, possibly destroying American democracy by voting for someone who would resist that slaughter, then even though these outcomes are unknowable, hypothetically my choice is still to prevent the slaughter of innocent civilians. An American democracy which supports such things is not worth saving.
Lastly I will say that if we take your advice of voting for the lesser evil, then I think it actually nullifies any electoral power minority coalitions have to force change and does not make rational sense. Take for example, present day progressives in the Democratic party. Democrats know that come election time, this minority coalition will obediently fall in line to vote for them and use your lesser-evil reasoning to do so. So rationally, why would Democrats ever concede anything to progressives? They are an electoral lock-in, so they effectively have no bargaining power to effect change. If however, progressives were more stoic and courageous in their adherence to their values and threatened to withhold their votes over issues which they cared deeply about, then the calculus for Democrats changes, and if they want to maintain power, they will have to make concessions to this minority group.
Power in a democracy is never given freely, it must be taken.
Sounds like you've given it some thought. I appreciate that you've considered the survivial of democracy vs killings angle and have a considered position. Happy voting!
Also perusing the wikipedia page of Cato, are you sure you have your history correct on his political stance? The wiki (I know, not a real source, but the page does extensively cite a book on Cato the younger) states "He [Cato] supported Pompey's sole consulship in 52 BC as a practical matter and to draw Pompey from his alliance with Caesar. In this, he was successful. He and his political allies advocated a policy of confrontation and brinksmanship with Caesar"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_the_Younger