Do we have a duty to vote for the lesser evil when election choices are equally unappealing? “Yes,” argues Rollins professor Julia Maskivker in a recent article on The Monkey Cage, The Washington Post’s political science research blog.
“Some voters believe that casting a ballot for either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton—the likely nominees of the major parties—would compromise their moral principles in support of freedom of enterprise and greater tolerance,” Maskivker says in the article. “Many Republican voters are gravitating toward the Libertarian Party candidate, Gary Johnson, who appears to embody their political views more faithfully, yet stands no realistic chance of becoming president. In turn, some progressive Democrats are looking at the Green Party’s presidential candidate, Jill Stein, who similarly has no realistic chance of winning.”
With many voters pondering how best to cast their ballots, Maskivker explores the obligations of moral voters in four arguments. Read the full article on The Monkey Cage.
Maskivker, an associate professor of political science at Rollins, is the author of the forthcoming Critical Review article “Voting as a Duty of Justice” and is working on a book on the topic.