Democracy entrusts citizens with the right to vote for candidates that best represent their ideals, but the abundance of unqualified candidates often causes the masses to opt for so-called “lesser evils” and vote against their conscience.
Election watchdog Kontra Daya flagged the majority of the 2025 national and local elections party-list winners with ties to political dynasties, big businesses, and the military. This includes nominees who have pending corruption cases, questionable backgrounds, and ambiguous advocacies.
Even candidates with seemingly “clean” backgrounds are not free from controversy. In the 2025 midterm elections, former Commission on Audit Commissioner Heidi Mendoza’s senatorial campaign was embroiled in discord due to her opposition to same-sex marriage, losing many progressive voters who saw her as a “winnable” candidate that does not have ties to corruption or political dynasties.
Mendoza’s supporters argued that potentially setting back marriage equality, although improper, was a worthwhile concession for fighting corruption. However, her detractors argued that it was a dangerous precedent that would set back the rights of the Filipino LGBTQIA+ community.
Does the “lesser evil” even exist?
According to Telibert Laoc, a senior professional lecturer at the Department of Political Science and Development Studies, the concept of a lesser evil in the Philippine context is the product of a “death of talent,” or the scarcity of viable options in every election.
As a result, voters are often told to be strategic and choose candidates based on their “winnability” or whoever is considered the lesser evil, even if these options do not completely align with their values and principles.
“The electoral system itself shapes the behavior of the players, including the voters.” For Laoc, the problem lies in the country’s societal organization, as it is constructed in a binary model that only sees two factions at war, disregarding other possibilities.
“For me, it’s qualified and not qualified or [less] qualified.” Laoc contends, underscoring the importance of genuinely looking at a candidate’s performance rather than comparing them to those with dirty track records.
As Mendoza’s stances drew scrutiny from progressives, many voters promoted lesser-known candidates with similar platforms to Mendoza and challenged the binary framework, recognizing their choice to reject candidates who did not fully represent their values and principles.
To unlearn the system
“If you have to choose between the lesser evil, then the system has already sucked you… In fact, I am free to not vote if I think the candidates themselves are not worth voting [for].” Telibert declared.
With such binary thinking being deeply ingrained in Filipino voters, the question remains as to how they must choose in order to see true change in the nation’s political climate.
Mao Hermitanio of Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas stresses the need for accountability in politics. In a call for change, he critiques voters’ tendencies to favor electability over integrity.
“Hindi [puwedeng tayo rin] mag-turn ng blind eye [r]oon sa mga glaring na kamalian sa pangkabuan kung i-coconsider lang natin ay ‘yung winnability,” Hermitanio comments.
(We also can’t turn a blind eye to those glaring mistakes in the larger picture if we’re only going to consider winnability.)
To Jan* (II, ABLIM-CW), research plays a key role in deciding which candidates to vote for. She looked into the top 12 candidates of students from various universities, including DLSU, and identified senatoriables she personally resonated with, while keeping the Filipino masses in mind.
This was echoed by Ysa*, a second-year biology student from Ateneo de Manila University. “I ask myself whose advocacies center the everyday Filipino who stands against corruption, not just in words, but through the transparency of their work,” she shared.
Ysa also mentioned how the country’s first-past-the-post system has shaped our elections’ outcomes, “often lead[ing] to candidates winning based on popularity or name recognition, rather than based on their values and their well-thought-out platforms.”
To Ysa, a system that encourages voters to make large concessions so a more “winnable” lesser evil wins is “not a very good way to go about things.”
From Laoc’s critique of binary politics to Hermitanio’s call for accountability and the younger generation’s push for informed, principled choices, these different perspectives reveal a shared wish to break away from the cycle. But for voters like Jan and Ysa, voting for the lesser evil is an act of desperation, effectively creating the election outcomes known today.
The right to vote comes with the obligation to choose wisely. To this day, the concept of lesser evil voting is still deeply ingrained within the country’s electoral system, and it will take some time to overcome it. However, this binary framework is not the be-all and end-all of Philippine democracy; the electorate will always hold the ability to change the tides. As long as citizens yearn for a better nation, change is never far from their reach.
*Names with asterisks (*) are pseudonyms.
This article was published in The LaSallian‘s October 2025 issue. To read more, visit bit.ly/TLSOct2025.
