Less Bad Is Not Good

"I think that when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties, they lead their country by a short route to chaos."
--Sir Thomas More (A Man for All Seasons)

Two GMU economists who should know better trot out the tired 'less bad' voting argument. If you vote for a Libertarian Party candidate, they warn, then you are actually reducing liberty.

Wise words from my @GeoregeMasonU colleague Dan Klein. The Republican Party is much more pro-liberty than the Democratic Party. If the race is tight between a Repub and Dem and you vote Libertarian, you are reducing liberty. https://t.co/uaIloyozOJ

— Tim Groseclose (@Tim_Groseclose) October 15, 2018

The argument goes like this. In democratic, 'first past the post' voting designs, Duverger's Law tells us that two parties will dominate the ballot and that the probability of third party candidates winning is slim. In all likelihood, then, you are throwing your vote away when you vote for third party candidates of any stripe.

Those with libertarian persuasions are being extra foolish, however. Because, per Duverger, only Republican or Democratic party candidates are likely to win, and the Republicans are 'obviously' more supportive of liberty than Democrats, then libertarians are actually voting for less liberty when they pull the lever for Libertarians instead of Republicans.

This is the twisted logic of the political mind.

Both of the dominant political parties run on platforms that reduce liberty. Although one party may seek to reduce liberty more than the other, a vote for either reduces liberty.

Picking the less bad choice still leads to bad. Why compromise with evil?