In The Dark Knight, the Joker brings people face-to-face with their true selves. In danger and chaos, who will they be? In some ways, the 2016 US presidential election does the same.

While some voters truly support their candidate, many feel that they must choose the lesser of two evils. But The Dark Knight draws a line that we cannot cross, even if it means voting third party or abstaining.



The Joker continually forces people into life and death decisions, whether it is to kill another to save yourself, to save a family member, or to choose which person to save (and which person dies). Towards the end of the film, two ferries shut down while crossing a river, one full of convicted criminals, the other with everyday civilians: men, women, and children. Both learn that their boats are wired to explode and that they have the detonator to the other boat. If neither destroys the other by midnight, the Joker will incinerate both.

Upset that the captain chooses not to destroy the inmate ferry, the civilians demand a vote. Under the pretense of democracy, the crowd easily determines to kill by a landslide, 396 to 140. But the captain cannot bring himself to turn the switch. To the despair of many, it seems no one can.

Lessons from the Joker on Humanity

From the “social experiment”, as the Joker describes it, we first see that we have a conscience that often prevents us from doing what we know is wrong. Second, that conscience can be less active when we vote. In fact, the passengers even use democracy as excuse to do evil, as though majority rule somehow changes right and wrong. It’s like, as has been said about democracy, two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. Consequently, we might vote for policies that we cannot act out ourselves in good conscience. In this way, people easily use government do their dirty work.

To apply this lesson to the current (or any election), do not vote for any candidate who will do something that you consider evil, something you could not do yourself. I understand there is no perfect candidate, i.e. one that completely agrees with you. So, you may have to vote for someone who will not do a good deed, or one who will not restrain an evil act, or one who will try to do right, but unwisely and ineffectively. In this way, I’m really proposing a very low bar for elect-ability: just don’t vote for someone who is planning to do evil or cause the government to do evil, i.e. what you cannot do yourself in good conscience.

Specifically, this might mean:

Choosing Good

Am I being too idealistic? Shouldn’t we vote for the candidate who will do less evil? Or perhaps we should be like the inmate who throws the detonator out the window, in this way saying, “I’m not playing your game anymore.” Let’s make a stand against a system that gives us choices no better than the Joker.

There are other options. There are many third party candidates, including those from the Libertarian or Green party, who have less interventionist policy. This translates to doing much less evil around the world. As you may be able to tell, foreign policy is important to me, especially in a presidential election as the president has greater influence in this matter compared to others. Of course, that is my priority, informed by my conscience.

Hence, I’m not telling you to vote third party. I’m not actually telling you to vote or not vote for anyone. Rather, based on Batman: The Dark Knight, I’m proposing a rule of thumb: don’t vote for anyone who will do something that you cannot do yourself with a good conscience, even if it means voting third party, writing someone in, or leaving a row on the ballot blank.

Footnotes: