Dear Editor:

Early in the campaign season people began to use the phrase “vote for the lesser of two evils.” Voters who cite that phrase may be doing so without recognizing that it means evil wins.

Evil is not an easy word or phrase to define and has philosophers arguing for centuries as to its structure and validity often differentiating between moral and natural evils, as well as evil action versus evil character. When we frame our voting minds to this process we are measuring what we call evil or bad, against another evil. As voters we are therefore not looking at the good of either candidate – hence evil wins.

Believing that we all win when voters choose from good attributes, discovering the greater good in a candidate or friend has always brought positive benefits to my life. Education-religion backgrounds often aid voters in discerning what candidates learned and how they might apply that learning in office when solving our problems.

There is a great deal of information about the early life bios in education and religion of the two presidential candidates. Discerning this information begins acquiring the greater good that’s needed for selecting the candidate that you have determined brings a greater good to the presidential office. These education-religion backgrounds are only a part of the greater good in each candidate. Voters who see the value of finding good in our candidates can place a value on education-religion and a specific differentiating value for each candidate. They can do the same for other gifts they bring to the table, including listening skills, relevant experience and respect for others and the complexity of life.

Keeping evil out and focusing on good provides a better method for selecting the next President of the United States of America. Voting for the greater good makes for a greater America.

 Jarryl Larson

Edgecomb