Alright, I’ll try again. Given a two-party system, and a single round of voting, the candidate who wins will be – by definition – the lesser of two perceived evils. That’s because the choice is theoretically made by the majority of voters, with their various perceptions of the greater evil, only one of which is Cowicide’s. Sometimes, the pendulum of majority perception will be in alignment with Cowicide’s perception. Great! Cowicide’s theory is working; indeed, the desire to pander to majority perceptions of what constitutes the maximum allowable evil could well produce progressively less evil candidates. At other times, the majority perception of relative evil will swing away from Cowicide’s ideal. Oh no! What a crap plan; we’ve elected Paul goddamn Ryan. For a second term. In either case, in the eyes of the winning majority the lesser of two evils has prevailed.
I’m sure it’s not a settled issue, but there is a case to be made that a rigid two-party system generally only moves in one direction. In other words, forcing people to continuously chose the lesser evil typically just expands the outer limits of “acceptable” evil.
