Chomsky case for lesser evil voting raises an interesting point on the morality of forgoing your personal political opinion in order to do what you believe will have the greater outcome. In many ways, this approach to elections feels very utilitarian, with voters putting their personal political visions aside in order to maximize goodness in the future; however, I wonder if lesser evil voting is what is stunting the push for change in America. In choosing the lesser evil, many voters settle for a more moderate candidate that they believe will be more appealing to a wider audience instead of voting for a more radical candidate which aligns more with their political beliefs. Moreover, by spreading this sentiment to other voters, more radical candidates become less appealing as a whole, and not because their ideas aren't popular, but because their supporters simply do not think they will win (and also because they perceive voting for the lesser evil to be less damaging in the long run than the candidate from the other party.
This is a solid strategy considering the mark difference between the stances Republicans and Democrats take on a number of pressing issues like global warming, government funding, and international relations - each of which are issues that could cause repercussions for decades. Chomsky believes that the potential disasters that the future could hold are enough to justify the morality of lesser evil voting, but I wonder if lesser evil voting is the root of the problems it attempts to solve. Let's imagine a hypothetical world in which there is a popular democratic candidate that is much more left leaning than their other competitors. If everyone were to vote for their preferred candidate, this individual would have a chance at winning; however, let's also assume that lesser evil voting is as popular in this hypothetical world as it is here. Given this information, voters would likely take the lesser evil approach and vote for a safer candidate that they believe has a better chance at winning. If this candidate won, voters would only be encouraged to continue voting for the lesser evil even though more ambitious candidates may align better with that groups political ideology. Thus, lesser evil voting would only be encouraging itself, stunting change in America.