When  Americans cast their ballots at the polls next week, it is safe to  assume that many will be voting for candidates whom they consider to be  the "lesser of two evils."  However, in a number of high-profile races for  governor and US Senate, the lesser evil probably isn’t who you think it  is.

When  partisans of the Democratic and Republicans parties seek to dissuade  others from voting for third party and Independent candidates for  office, they often have recourse to a number of stock arguments.  Among  the latter is the spoiler argument, which states that it is  counterproductive to vote for third party or Independent candidates  because it will result in the election of the major party  candidate you dislike more.

We are told, for example, that those who  voted for Ralph Nader in the 2000 presidential election spoiled Al  Gore’s chances of success, thus resulting in the election of George W.  Bush.  Similarly, it is argued that those who voted for Ross Perot in  the presidential election of 1992, helped defeat George H.W. Bush by  splitting the conservative vote, thus handing the election to Bill  Clinton.  On the basis of such evidence, die-hard Democrats and  Republicans argue that we must be pragmatic and defensively cast our  ballots to ensure the defeat of the candidates from the other major  party.  We must vote for the “lesser of two evils” between the Democrats  and Republicans, they say, to prevent the election of the greater evil  among the two.

In  a number of high profile contests for governor and US Senate, however,  this very logic dictates support for third party and Independent  candidates for office.  In Maine’s gubernatorial race, Republican Paul  LePage has maintained a consistent lead over his Democratic challenger  Libby Mitchell.  In recent weeks, support for Mitchell has steadily  eroded while the poll numbers for Independent Eliot Cutler have doubled,  putting him in a statistical tie with the Democrat.  At the same time,  Cutler has received a virtual avalanche of endorsements from newspapers  across the state.  A recent editorial in the Bangor Daily News opens with these lines:

“Maine has a rare opportunity to remake its  government. State finances demand it. The public, increasingly aware  that big changes are needed for the state to prosper, wants it. Only one  candidate for governor — Eliot Cutler — has the skills, vision and  detailed plans to lead this work.”

Given the unlikelihood of Mitchell’s  victory in this race, coupled with Cutler's momentum, the pragmatic logic of lesser evilism suggests  Democrats should break toward the Independent.

Something similar might be said of the race for US Senate in Florida.  In this  contest, Democrat Kendrick Meek finds himself in a distant third place,  trailing Republican front-runner Marco Rubio and Independent Charlie  Crist.  Since declaring his independence from the Republican party,  Crist has made significant efforts to garner the support of traditional  Democratic party constituencies, and even led the race for much of the  summer.  If Meek’s waning Democratic base opts at the last minute to throw its support  behind Crist in order to avert the election of Rubio, the gambit may  well pay off.  As Darcy Richardson writes at Uncovered Politics, Crist still has a fighting chance and  “Floridians might be on the verge of witnessing one of the most exciting  political comebacks in recent history.”

On  the other side of the duopoly divide, we may witness Republicans aid in  the defeat of Democrats by backing Independent and third party  gubernatorial candidates.  In Rhode Island’s race for governor,  Republican-turned-Independent Lincoln Chafee has battled Democrat Frank  Caprio for the lead in the polls, while Republican John Robitaille has  demonstrated some difficulty even catching up with the front-runners.   Republicans, whose primary interest is in defeating the Democratic  candidate, may well end up casting their ballots for Chafee, but Chafee’s  primary interest must be shoring up support among Independents and  Democrats, who respectively account for 48% and 41% of the state’s  registered voters.  Significantly, in the last week, President Obama  opted not to make an endorsement in the race, which was widely viewed as  a severe snub of the Democratic candidate, while Chafee has touted past  support from Obama.

Finally,  in Colorado, former Republican Tom Tancredo’s late entrance into the  gubernatorial race under the banner of the Constitution Party has  stunned many observers and resulted in the absolute collapse of support  for Republican candidate Dan Maes.  Democrat John Hickenlooper maintains  a small lead in the contest, but Tancredo’s meteoric rise in the polls  must have many Democrats shaking in their boots.  Indeed, Tancredo even  turned the tables on his Republican rival, successfully labeling him  with the dreaded term “spoiler.”  In a recent message to supporters,  Tancredo roars, “We can win this race! We just have to get our vote out  –and that is what we are doing now!”  If the remaining supporters of  Dan Maes are willing to place the principle of pragmatism over their  allegiance to party, they could easily tip the scales in favor of the  conservative third party candidate, dealing a stinging defeat to  Colorado’s Democrats.

While  the argument in favor of the so-called “lesser evil” is most often put  forward as a defense against the third party and Independent vote, in  these races, the traditional logic of political pragmatism has  effectively been turned on its head.  Next week, voters will have the  final say in the matter.