The Democratic Party's progressive supporters have been telling us to vote for the "lesser evil" for decades. They're doing the same in 2016 and they'll continue to do so in every future election.
The demand for lesser-evil voting, which pretends we have only two choices on Election Day, has kept the U.S. virtually limited to two parties. It has enabled the Democratic Party to move steadily to the right, because Democrats assume they can always take the votes of progressive, pro-environmental, and anti-war voters for granted -- while they must compete with Republicans for contributions and support from the wealthy and from corporate PACs.
By playing the lesser-evil game every election year, progressives have marginalized themselves and made goals like Single-Payer national health care more remote.
On some big issues, Hillary Clinton is not the lesser evil. Given her record of support for war, she is as likely -- maybe more likely -- than Donald Trump to order a new military invasion or attack. Despite her campaign rhetoric, Ms. Clinton is very likely to support dangerous trade pacts like the Trans-Pacific Partnership after her inauguration.
Despite their differences, both Democrats and Republicans are incapable of addressing the emergencies of the 21st century: climate change; corporate power and the increasing concentration of wealth and power among the One Percent; the shredding of rights and protections for working people and the poor; mass incarceration and deep racial disparities in the justice system; endless war.
No political revolution is possible if we retreat into lesser-evil voting. Change can only take place outside of the two corporate-money parties. That's why we call the Green Party an imperative for the 21st century.