Deciding on who to vote for and or who to endorse involves examining the totality of the circumstances surrounding the individuals who are running, the office they are running for, and the general circumstances and political landscape.

All are imperfect and compete with other imperfect individuals to be elected to public office.

Most candidates are good on some issues and bad or not so good on others. Similarly, each candidate has a unique personality, unique life experiences, and look at the world through their own unique life lens.

When attempting to decide between two or more candidates, it’s natural and necessary to determine where each stands on the important issues of the day.

Most of us have “litmus test” issues. Bigotry is a big one for me. I would never vote for a bigot.

Marriage equality, abortion rights, gun control, the right for all workers to earn a living wage, universal health care, TMT, demilitarization, the separation of church and state, and climate change are all issues that I believe “my candidate” should be strong on.

But what if my choice was between these two candidates?

Candidate A was solid on every single one of these issues except TMT and was also weak on universal health care.

Candidate B was similarly not good on the TMT and universal health care issues but was also a bigot who opposed gun control and marriage equality and did not believe climate change was real.

Is voting for candidate A, voting for the “lesser of two evils”?

Let’s say you decide to vote for neither. You leave your ballot blank and candidate B wins by one vote.

Will our community be better or worse off because you failed to vote for candidate A?

Is this a win?

I don’t think so.

gh

Read also: Which Candidates Should Be Supported?