We have been taught to reject evil at all times. So why, when choosing the leaders of our country, you know, those expected to champion the rights and welfare of the people—are we forced to choose the lesser evil? The lesser corrupt, the lesser violator of the law, the lesser capitalist, the lesser oppressor, the lesser fraud, the lesser thief? Is our right to vote binding us to further oppression, compelling us to endorse candidates who either lack knowledge of governance or have broken laws and violated people’s rights in some way? There is clearly something wrong with how the country is being run and the direction the Philippines is heading. This becomes especially apparent during calamities and election times.
Lesser evil voting or LEV, is a strategy based on the “lesser evil” principle, also called “lesser-evilism”, where voters choose a candidate, they see as less harmful rather than their ideal choice, especially when their preferred candidate is unlikely to win. Voters often feel forced to pick between flawed candidates to avoid a worse outcome. Lesser evil voting reflects voter dissatisfaction and can impact political outcomes, governance, and voter engagement in significant ways. In this system, voters may find themselves compelled to choose between two or more candidates, each of whom is seen as flawed, and thus resort to selecting the one perceived as less harmful.
Historically, the idea of choosing the “lesser evil” has been around for a long time, with philosophers like Aristotle discussing it long ago in his work, Nicomachean Ethics. It really gained traction during the development of the two-party system in American elections, where voters often found themselves stuck picking between candidates they didn’t like at all. This history shows that this dilemma has been part of the political landscape for ages, not just something new we’re dealing with today. Choosing the lesser evil in elections points to deeper issues in our voting habits and what we value as a society. It puts people in a tough spot, making them compromise on their ideals. By recognizing these challenges, we can better understand the complexities of modern elections and why so many people feel frustrated with their choices.
Tactical Chaos in the Philippines’ Multiparty Systems
Lesser evil voting (LEV) is a common issue in multiparty systems like the Philippines. Voters often find themselves choosing between candidates who don’t fully align with their values, which forces them to pick the “lesser evil” to prevent a more undesirable candidate from winning. This situation isn’t unique to the Philippines; many countries with multiparty systems face similar voting strategies.
In the Philippines, the campaign tactics used within this multiparty system can really confuse voters. With so many parties and varied campaign approaches, it can be overwhelming for people to figure out which candidates genuinely represent their interests and values.
Again, historically, the Philippines was often viewed as a classic example of a two-party system, similar to the United States. Although, everything changed after the end of the authoritarian rule of then-President Ferdinand Marcos, who is also the father of the incumbent president. The shift from a predominantly two-party system to a multiparty system primarily occurred during the late 20th century, especially following the People Power Revolution in 1986, which brought Corazon Aquino, the wife of the assassinated senator Benigno Aquino Jr.—into the presidential seat. This transition significantly altered the political landscape, influenced by a variety of historical, political, and social factors. This shift has made political competition more chaotic, with numerous parties now competing for power.
For much of the 20th century, particularly from 1907 until martial law was declared in 1972 under Marcos, the Philippines operated under a two-party system dominated by the Nacionalista Party and the Liberal Party. During this period, elections typically offered a clear choice between these two parties, which alternated control of the government. However, with the introduction of new election rules, the political scene became more fragmented, resulting in many parties instead of just two. While Duverger’s Law suggests that plurality-based elections usually lead to two main parties, the Philippines has adopted a multiparty system.
In the Philippines, “lesser evil” voting often arises from a political scene that’s been shaped by historical corruption and entrenched political dynasties. Voters feel stuck choosing among traditional politicians who dominate the country’s political scene at every election, making their decisions more about avoiding a worse option than about supporting someone they truly believe in. This reveals a larger issue, that is, elections tend to focus more on personalities than on policies, which perpetuates the cycle of lesser evil voting. That’s why it’s no surprise to see local celebrities getting tons of votes when they run for political positions!
Many other countries also operate under multiparty systems, including Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, and Germany. These nations feature more than two political parties competing for influence, which often requires coalition-building to achieve legislative majorities. Of course, there are also benefits of multiparty systems, which include better representation of diverse political views and a reduction in any single party’s dominance, leading to a more inclusive political environment.
Ethical Considerations of Following “Lesser Evil” Voting
The idea of choosing the lesser evil in elections raises important ethical concerns for voters. Some believe it’s a necessary compromise to reduce harm when faced with poor choices, but it can also lead to feelings of moral exhaustion and disillusionment.
Voters may feel complicit in electing leaders they don’t fully support, making them question whether their vote is helping to fix a broken system or just maintaining it. This dilemma adds to the frustration that many feel about the political process, and you can’t really blame them.
Psychological Impact of LEV
Voting for the lesser evil can create cognitive dissonance, where people feel conflicted because their choice doesn’t align with their values. This internal struggle can lead to feelings of guilt and anxiety, ultimately lowering voter enthusiasm and engagement.
Over time, if lesser-evil voting becomes the norm, it can foster a pessimistic view of elections, causing people to wonder whether elections are still a democratic exercise or merely a coercive choice. In some cases, this disillusionment may even lead some citizens to skip voting altogether. Either way, it can make the whole process feel pretty disheartening.
To put it simply, cognitive dissonance is that mental discomfort or tension we feel when we hold two conflicting beliefs, values, or attitudes at the same time, or when our actions clash with our beliefs.
For instance, if someone values honesty but ends up telling a lie, they might experience cognitive dissonance because their behavior doesn’t match their values. To ease this discomfort, people might try to change their beliefs, justify their actions, or avoid situations that cause the conflict.
Moral implications
The morality of lesser evil voting raises some tricky ethical questions. Critics argue that choosing the lesser evil still means endorsing bad political practices because it acknowledges that there’s “evil” among the options. From this perspective, any decision involving such evil compromises a voter’s integrity and values. On the flip side, supporters believe that selecting the lesser evil is a practical compromise in a flawed system, aimed at reducing harm.
Thinkers like American theoretical linguist Noam Chomsky have referred to “lesser evil” voting as a “Hobson’s choice”—essentially, no real choice at all. This perspective suggests that it helps maintain the two-party system, discouraging more progressive political movements. The same can be said for the multiparty situation in the Philippines. Ultimately, the debate centers on finding a balance between personal values and the reality of voting within a system that often offers limited and undesirable options.
Voting behavior trends and aftermath
Recent elections reveal a persistent trend of voters feeling forced to support the lesser evil candidates. After an election season, it’s common to see many voters expressing dissatisfaction with their choices, leading to the unsettling feeling that they are voting against a candidate rather than for one.
This dissatisfaction often surfaces on social media, where complaints about mismanaged national budgets, inadequate healthcare and education support, embezzlement and overspending of funds, rampant red-tagging, growing corruption, bureaucratic red tape, government programs favoring the upper classes, and politicians acting as if they are untouchable begin to increase.
These disappointments from choosing the wrong leaders can lead to feelings of hopelessness about civic participation, as voters may view their engagement as futile against a larger political machine.
Voting “wisely” is based on conscience
We often hear the advice to “vote wisely,” but how do we really start? To steer clear of lesser evil voting and instead vote based on our conscience, we can adopt a few helpful strategies.
Take the time to thoroughly research the candidates. Look into their backgrounds, policies, and track records. Next, prioritize your personal values—think about what truly matters to you and what you want to see in leadership.
Most importantly, trust your intuition! Don’t let popular opinions from influencers or troll farms sway your decisions. By actively engaging with the electoral process and digging deeper into the candidates, you can better identify those who genuinely align with your beliefs. Remember, your vote is your voice, so make sure it reflects who you are and what you stand for!
Look Beyond Party Affiliations. It’s important for voters to look past party affiliations and focus instead on the values and track records of individual candidates. Blind, fanatical voting can lead you down a rabbit hole, making it harder to find candidates who genuinely align with your beliefs.
Engage in community forums and discussions as well as involve in public consultations. Attending town halls, candidate forums, and discussions with community members can really help voters get a clearer picture of where candidates stand. These events give voters a chance to ask questions and get insights that they might not find in campaign ads or materials. Plus, it encourages open conversations, where people can share their thoughts and learn from each other’s views.
Unfortunately, in the Philippines, it’s rare for politicians to hold community meetings that actually encourage public participation. While they do meet voters at campaign events, it’s usually the politicians doing all the talking, without much real interaction.
Utilize information from sources that are neutral and not affiliated with any political party. Instead of relying on the flyers distributed by the candidate or their media advertisements, as many are prone to political grandstanding.
Non-partisan resources provide unbiased facts and data, helping people make informed decisions without the influence of party agendas or bias. Nonpartisan resources are valuable because they focus on presenting information fairly and objectively, rather than pushing a particular political viewpoint.
Taking advantage of nonpartisan voting resources and guides can provide voters with objective information about candidates and issues.
Websites such as LENTE (Legal Network for Truthful Elections), VOTE Pilipinas, and The University of the Philippines Center for Integrative and Development Studies’ (UP-CIDS) Philippine Local Government Election Dataset Project can help voters understand the stakes of their voting choices and promote informed decision-making.
Focus on long-term impact of the candidates’ policies. Voters should think about the long-term effects of candidates’ policies instead of just the immediate results.
Ask yourself: how would these policies impact my current state, my livelihood, my quality of life, my personal aspirations, as well as the lives of my children and future generations? By considering how elected officials’ decisions will impact society, justice, and local communities, voters can make choices that align with a vision for a better future.
At the end of the day…are we winning?
I know this may seem like aiming for the stars, especially since many Filipinos are already worn out from the daily struggle to get by on limited incomes, dealing with traffic, and facing economic challenges. The thought of reviewing every candidate’s proposed policy and platform can feel overwhelming and stressful.
Plus, vote buying adds another layer of difficulty, as some voters may feel tempted to accept money, believing it will help them cope with a day of hunger, at least. In the end, building a political culture that prioritizes genuine representation instead of just strategic voting is key to restoring voter trust and actively engaging citizens in the electoral process.
Let us hope that there will come a time that we see political figures imbibing a true leadership that we do not need to vote for the lesser evil.
“Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock” (1 Peter 5:2-3).
Watch now on YouTube:
***********************
Additional readings:
Noam Chomsky, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the Ethics of Voting
Voting Based on Values: A Guide to Making Informed Choices
