site banner
TripleInterrobang  6d ago (youtu.be)   1180 thread views

Voting for the lesser of two evils

youtu.be

In the past I have made video essay content about SSC/ACX articles. My most popular remains my summary of the concept of Moloch.

Today I've made something a little different. It is a video summarizing the arguments surrounding voting for the "lesser evil". If this interests you, give it a watch and let me know if I missed anything or if you agree/disagree.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=46gi-ODAjF0

Note that I do not make any money off this or other videos. I also apologize if I have broken a rule I didn't see by posting this.

-13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Did you have an opinion of me before this video lowered it?

"Well-intentioned but overly simplifies things".

I am open in the comments that, while the rest of my videos aim to be nonpartisan, I do have partisan motivations for this video.

That's all well and good, but comments are typically something seen after the video, not information that's examined when deciding whether to watch it.

This is why I don't address [...] people that cannot decide on a "lesser evil".

Yes, you do. Section 3, "Does voting accomplish anything?", is basically addressing these people (though I suppose it's possible you haven't realised that this rhetoric comes from this position).

If you have some good alternate motivations I am interested to hear them, and I have been engaging with people in the comments so I can hear about them.

The reason I called your position "naïve first-order consequentialist" is that, while you deny it*, the motivation for parties to change their policies is less "what the base wants" and more "what undecideds want". If your vote is not realistically swingable (either from one party to another, or between one party and staying-home/third-party), the parties have no game-theoretic motivation to care about what you want. Naïve first-order consequentialism asks only "is choice A better than choice B?". Consequentialism with decent decision theory asks "are the choices I'm being offered contingent on how I choose between choice A and choice B, and what choice mechanism on my part gives the best incentives to offer me better choices?".

(With that said, the primary system in the USA does a hilarious job of making it very difficult for parties to behave rationally, and also one does have to vote sometimes for the game theory to kick in; a permanent nonvoter is also a sunk cost.)

The funny bit here is that these kinds of decision-theory issues are why evolution designed us to often defy shitty choices; you might be smarter than the people following their gut instincts, but that doesn't mean you're smarter than the process creating those gut instincts.

*I assumed your denial probably meant you understood this issue and were bullshitting; I suppose that was uncharitable and I should have considered that maybe you hadn't actually thought it through before trying to debunk it.

I guess I should start with two assurances:

  1. I am not trying to be sneaky and any errors in the video are my own.
  2. The positions I attempt to debunk in the video are the ones I see in the wild the most often, which is why I choose to address them and not other hypothetical arguments.

Regarding consequentialism: The trend I see from the last ~20 years of US politics is away from catering to undecided votes and towards riling up your base. While a highly partisan voter might never actually switch sides, motivating them to show up seems to be the primary tactic employed by both parties today. For this reason it seems like the most effective way to sway a party is to be a part of that party, vote for that party, and attempt the change the party from within. This is the point I am making in the sections of the video about low turnout rates.

Regarding section 3: While it is true that this argument could be leveraged to argue that people who don't see a lesser evil should still vote, that is not how I intended it. It addresses the common position that one candidate is better, yet electing either candidate won't make a difference.

Regarding consequentialism: The trend I see from the last ~20 years of US politics is away from catering to undecided votes and towards riling up your base. While a highly partisan voter might never actually switch sides, motivating them to show up seems to be the primary tactic employed by both parties today.

To the extent this is rational on the parties' part, it is because these people don't show up all the time to vote for the lesser evil! If they did, then the portion of this pandering that is rational (as opposed to the portion dictated by the primary system, which is significant) would go away! This is my point.

(To be clear, I think that "get out the vote"-based politics is bad for the USA and that Australia's mandatory IRV which mostly negates it is very good for us (IRV's clone independence also provides an important guardrail against "well, the special interest bought out both major parties, I guess we're fucked"). But that doesn't change the incentives for a US voter as it stands.)

I suppose I agree that if every person always voted for the lesser of two evils then the incentives would be very different, but in our current system, on the margins I still support more people doing so and think it will have a bigger impact on outcomes than abstaining.

That's a valid position! But you can hopefully now see how your argument comes across as a strawman, because you didn't engage with the actual argument for the "you didn't earn my vote" position.

(And I'd have to agree with @RenOS: either be upfront partisan or be actually, for-reals nonpartisan. People really hate getting suckered.)

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats