The John Adams Society

Theodore O. Olsen

Chairman

Christopher T. Wolff

Secretary

G. Larry Colson Jr.

Chief Whip

Katey Haflund

Chancellor

FEBRUARY 2016

Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. Next time, go all out and write in Lucifer on the ballot.

― Jarod Kintz

THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS principle (or lesser evil principle) is the principle that when faced with selecting from two unpleasant options, the one which is least harmful should be chosen.  The lesser of two evils is also referred to as a "necessary evil".  Why not respond to the situation of voting for a “necessary evil” by refusing to decide?  Wouldn't this encourage people to question the legitimacy of the whole political system? That wouldn't be apathetic, or unpatriotic: it would be a well-informed protest statement that shows disagreement with the current democratic system.  Checking a box isn't going to have as much an impact as taking individual action.  Voting actually disempowers and disengages the people.

Today, Democrats are deciding between a dishonest feminist transgressor and a Socialist, and are so far undecided.  Republicans must decide between establishment candidates and non-conformist candidates, and have so far rejected the establishment candidates.  If we are rational with ourselves, how can we expect voting for a politician or party will change social outcomes in any real tangible way? If a vote for None-of-the-Above (NOA) won, a revolution could be started which could change democracy as we know it.

ON THE OTHER HAND, deciding for NOA really should be viewed as despairing, unpatriotic, and apathetic.  We should be thankful for the hard-won opportunity to vote.  If NOA won, then who would select the winner?  In Nevada, even if the "None of These Candidates" option receives the most votes in an election, the actual candidate who receives the most votes still wins the election. An NOA vote would most likely backfire because it would double the value of some Diehard's vote, as it did when Harry Reid won the 1998 Senate election.  Voting for NOA means to become a dependent, because people can't make a decision. The reason behind voter apathy is that people are too ignorant to see that policies really do impact their lives directly and indirectly.

THE CHAIRMAN, who may stay home on Election Day, has called a debate to settle the question:

RESOLVED: None of the Above!

The Debate will be held on February 17, 2016, at the University Club, 420 Summit Avenue, in Saint Paul. The Chancellor will preside over drinks beginning at seven o’clock p.m. The debate will begin at half past seven. There is no dress code, however gentlemen who wish to speak must wear a tie; ladies are encourage to adhere to a similar sartorial standard. For those gentlemen arriving sans tie yet wishing to discourse on the resolution, the Purveyor of Ties will keep on hand several remarkable selections. Questions regarding debate caucus procedures of about the John Adams Society itself may be directed to the Chairman at (651) 269-1890 or the Secretary at (651) 494-9008.