Affiliate Disclosure: Some of the links in this post are affiliate links, meaning, at no additional cost to you, I may earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. This helps support the content on this site. I only recommend products I genuinely believe in. Thank you for your support!
Every election season, many voters face a dilemma: what to do when neither of the major party candidates seems to represent their values, ethics, or vision for the country. This choice isn’t about simply picking the “lesser of two evils”—it’s about whether, in good conscience, you can cast a vote for someone whose principles you don’t support, or whether withholding a vote, or casting it for a third party, can be a meaningful act in itself.
Abstaining as an Act of Dissent
Abstention is a decision with a long, though controversial, philosophical history. Some argue that abstaining is a passive way of withholding endorsement of the system or the candidates in a given race. Jean-Paul Sartre, the existentialist philosopher, often stressed the importance of individual authenticity and responsibility. To Sartre, choosing not to act could be just as meaningful as taking action, provided it was a conscious and deliberate choice. “We are our choices,” he famously wrote, suggesting that not voting could be an act of principled refusal, a way of saying, “I will not support what doesn’t align with my values.”
In recent history, even notable figures have taken this route. Former Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush both reportedly refrained from endorsing or voting for Donald Trump in the 2016 and 2020 elections. Instead, they opted out or possibly voted third-party as a way to distance themselves from the Republican candidate without endorsing the Democratic platform. In their case, abstention (or third-party voting) was a statement in itself—a way of maintaining their principles without supporting a candidate they couldn’t back.
The Argument for Third-Party Voting
For some, casting a third-party vote is a way to express dissatisfaction with the two-party system while still actively participating in democracy. Political philosopher John Stuart Mill would likely support this view, as he argued for the importance of individual choice and the “marketplace of ideas.” In On Liberty, Mill advocates for the diversity of thought, believing that every opinion has the potential to contribute something valuable. By voting for a third-party candidate, even one unlikely to win, you’re signaling to the broader system that there are perspectives and priorities going unrepresented.
This perspective resonates with those who believe that third-party votes can help slowly reshape the political landscape, making room for more diversity in viewpoints over time. Although third-party votes are often criticized as “wasted,” supporters argue that the vote isn’t wasted if it expresses one’s true beliefs. Instead, it’s a stand against the idea that only two parties deserve a monopoly over the national conversation.
The Pragmatic Perspective: Lesser of Two Evils
Of course, many philosophers, including Aristotle, might advocate for a more pragmatic approach. Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics emphasizes finding a “mean” between extremes and suggests that the best decisions often involve compromise. For Aristotle, politics was about practical wisdom—choosing the best option available rather than holding out for an ideal one. This line of thinking suggests that while neither candidate may be perfect, it’s still better to choose the one whose policies might lead to less harm or slightly closer to one’s values.
For some voters, this pragmatism wins out, especially when it comes to issues that directly impact lives and communities. But even within this practical mindset, there is an understanding that compromise is not the same as wholehearted endorsement.
Individual Versus Collective Responsibility
Another key tension in the philosophy of voting is whether voting is more about individual conscience or collective responsibility. German philosopher Immanuel Kant might argue that each person must act according to a moral law they believe should be universal. To Kant, it’s important to act according to principles you’d want everyone to follow, even if the outcome might seem less impactful at the individual level.
However, others suggest that voting is a collective act with collective consequences, so choosing a candidate should be about maximizing good for society as a whole. This school of thought considers abstaining or voting third-party as a privilege that may only be viable in relatively stable times.
Reflecting on the Philosophy of Voting
Ultimately, the choice to vote third-party, abstain, or compromise on a major party candidate is a deeply personal one. It requires balancing idealism and pragmatism, personal integrity and public impact. For many voters, it’s a question of how much they’re willing to compromise to keep their voice in the system, even if that system doesn’t reflect their full values.
Perhaps the decision rests on a simple question: Is voting about expressing personal ideals, or is it about influencing the future direction of the nation, however imperfect the options? There’s no clear answer, and maybe that’s why so many people struggle each election cycle. In the end, it’s an individual calculus, one with no right answer but a lot to ponder.
