We are in the ‘year of elections’, with 64 countries, as well as the European Union, holding elections in 2024, representing 49% of the global population. Sure to dominate the headlines will be the US election in November, and the UK election likely to happen towards the end of the year. The candidates on offer in these elections, however, are far from appetising.

Although not yet confirmed, it is almost certain that the US election will be contested by Joe Biden and Donald Trump in a replay of their 2020 face-off. If that election wasn’t embarrassing enough, this one will see an 81-year-old Biden, who seems perennially confused, facing a former president who is embroiled in legal trouble and believes that the previous election was rigged.

The situation is not much better in the UK where, despite having a greater number of political parties than the US, the election is effectively a two-horse race between Labour and the Conservatives. Labour are led by Keir Starmer, who has distanced himself from economic reform, abandoned key commitments such as the £28 billion green investment pledge, and has failed to articulate a clear vision for the UK. Incumbent Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has also failed to inspire any confidence since taking the reins from his 50-day predecessor Liz Truss, and with a family fortune of £529 million, he can hardly be described as a man of the people.

Of course, it is somewhat subjective to say that none of these candidates are appealing, since there are many who subscribe to the centrist style of politics embodied by Starmer and Biden, and many who support the free-market, conservative politics of Sunak and Trump. Nonetheless, I believe the starting point for a good politician is a clear moral compass which guides policy choices. This is why I find centrist politicians hard to support; they can sway left or right depending on what they believe to be the most ‘electable’ position, which suggests that power rather than principle guides their actions. And the problem with politicians such as Sunak and Trump is not that they lack a moral compass, but that theirs is pointing in the wrong direction. Therefore Biden, Trump, Starmer and Sunak are all bad options as far as leaders of powerful nations go.

However, when there is a choice between two bad options, there is always one ‘most bad’ and one ‘least bad’ option. The least bad option can be described as the lesser of two evils. None of the candidates described above are appealing, yet many would say we have a duty to vote for the lesser of two evils. This is because we cannot change the candidates on offer, but we can prevent the most dangerous candidate from winning office by voting for their opponent.

Yet this decision is not as straightforward as it first appears. The lesser of two evils is still, themselves, evil. Therefore, is it acceptable, or wise, to vote for evil to prevent a greater evil?

Assessing our options

The argument for voting for the lesser of two evils is that, as voters, we effectively have three options when there are only two realistic winners in an election: vote for the worst option, vote for the best (or least bad) option, or vote for neither. Voting for the worst option is out of the question, and voting for neither increases the chance of the worst outcome happening. , Thus, even though we may not like it, we should hold our noses and vote for the least bad option, hopefully as a stopgap until a better option emerges in future.

Nevertheless, this is precisely the problem of voting for the lesser of two evils; no better option will emerge if we keep endorsing the candidates that are currently appearing on our ballots. In our own minds, we may be voting reluctantly, or tactically, but the politicians in question will only see victory or defeat. The case study of Starmer in the UK exemplifies this; he has an approval rating of -25 and, anecdotally, I have yet to find a single person who admits to liking him. Yet, he is forecast to win a large majority in the next election as the Conservatives are so unpopular that people will vote for Starmer as the lesser of two evils. Consequently, his policy positions have not shifted in line with public opinion since people will vote for him regardless.

Acting by omission

The question is, then, how to create a situation in which the politicians we elect accurately reflect the views of the public, rather than merely being the lesser of two evils. Assuming that the primary motive behind the actions of politicians is to be elected, the most effective political statement that we can make as citizens is to vote for politicians who share our views, and shun those who do not. Then, one of two things will happen: either those currently holding office will change their policy positions to avoid losing votes, or they will lose office to someone more representative of the public.

Some may argue that this conclusion is overly optimistic. They may claim that the only outcome of abstaining from voting would be an even lower turnout than usual (the most recent turnouts in the UK and US were only 67.3% and 66.8% respectively), which would fail to put a dent in the status quo since politicians only care about winning. However, the idea is not merely to create a low turnout.

Generally speaking, centrist candidates such as Starmer and Biden fail to inspire the kind of enthusiasm from voters that more charismatic and radical candidates inspire, and rely quite heavily on those who are content to vote for the lesser of two evils. Consequently, if people stopped voting for the lesser of two evils candidates, they would likely struggle to win elections even if the turnout was low.

Although this may lead to a worse outcome in the short-term, I believe it is necessary to delegitimise centrism as a desirable alternative to our current predicament, and to create a space which can be filled by candidates offering for radical solutions to the many crises we are currently facing. The crises we are currently embroiled in include war, ecological devastation, and immense inequality. These problems require radical alternatives to the status quo, rather than the moderate approach offered by centrist candidates.

Due to the two-party dominance of the political systems in the UK and US, the only hope of those alternatives emerging on the electoral stage is through traditionally left-wing parties such as Labour and the Democrats. Yet when those parties are dominated by centrists, radical voices become subdued and silenced. Consequently, we must aim to force change within left-wing parties, and national elections are a powerful tool to affect internal party dynamics. If Starmer and Biden win the upcoming elections, this will set back the left faction of their parties for at least an electoral term, and likely even longer.

Of course, electoral politics is limited in the effects it can have on global politics, as Syriza’s time in power in Greece demonstrated. Moreover, the way Corbyn as a left-wing candidate was undermined within his own party during his four years as Labour leader suggests that mainstream political parties are too entrenched in the status quo to fundamentally change it. Despite this, voting is the most accessible political tool we have as citizens. In this regard, we ought to make use of it the best we can, even if this means not using it at all.