mr peters tells you his thinking on the 'selection', and what he intends;

It is hard to vote for the lesser of two evils when you are not into evil. This is the paradox of voting. More finely, it is the corner we’ve been painted into. Yes, of course – one can choose not to vote for evil, lesser or greater. But does it do anything to prevent the greater evil? And if it doesn’t, then isn’t effectively aiding the greater evil?

As long as the evil of voting exists – this idea that plebiscites are a legitimate way to do things that almost everyone agrees would be immoral things if done on an individual basis, such as taking what isn’t yours from someone else or threatening others with violent repercussions if they fail to do as you say – then casting a vote can be seen as an act of self-defense.

A way to cancel the vote of some other person – your neighbor, perhaps – who wants to take your money but hasn’t got the guts to do it himself. Or who wants to tell you what you’re allowed to do (and not do) but is too much of a poltroon to try doing that himself, either.

But if you vote for the lesser of two evils, some argue, then you are giving sanction to everything the person you voted for ends up doing. This is silly. It is especially silly as regards actions the person you voted for has yet to perform. You do not have a crystal ball. More to the point, you cannot be held morally responsible for the actions of another – especially when you have no idea what those actions might be.........more.......