This year’s first presidential debate opened the floodgates to a deluge of dissatisfaction and embarrassment. What should have been a clear-cut decision between a 34-time convicted felon — one who spoke of immigrants stealing “Black jobs”, who weaponized “Palestinian” as a derogatory slur, and who claimed that the opposing party wanted to murder babies at birth — and the current president was instead muddied by Biden’s feeble and dull demeanor.
While major news organizations have only recently begun calling for Biden to step down in exchange for a younger party candidate, the general public has been considering to forego Biden for months. In a GenForward poll from May, 21% of respondents said that they would vote for a third-party candidate if the election was held today. I, myself, considered a third-party candidate since the beginning of the year and at points felt quite adamant that I could not vote for Joe Biden for a multitude of reasons.
In the last two months, however, I have begrudgingly come to the conclusion that I was wrong. The presidential debate did not help, and it was tempting to retreat from the democratic vote once more. Still, the aftermath did in some ways reaffirm my position. There were more people than ever before voicing their dismay of the democratic party and even more displaying apathy to voting at all. This dissatisfaction has inspired me to reflect upon my journey and, in a very personal way, appeal to the many of us feeling anxious about who or how or whether we vote in this election.
The switch-up
I have known since I was eligible to vote that there was no sense in loyalty to the Democratic party. Whether it was because I was the son of immigrants with no prior voting history or because I knew that President Lyndon B. Johnson was a Democrat that advanced the Vietnam War and deployed troops that ravished my ancestral grounds, I understood that the Democratic party was a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
My distrust of the Democratic party came to a head when the Biden administration unambiguously supported Israel’s overwhelming military destruction in the Gaza Strip, which has killed at least 37,000 Palestinians and displaced over 1.7 million. It was clear that the Biden administration was intent on unleashing the same horrific scenes displayed in Vietnam in the Gaza Strip by more than doubling America’s typical annual military aid to Israel. From that point on, I would chronicle my grievances with a second Biden term in five key sentiments.
- I did not feel it was ethical to vote for Biden.
- I wanted to express my disapproval of Democratic foreign policy.
- I believed the party should endure consequences for not earning my vote.
- I equivocated both major parties’ abilities to uphold a hegemonic system.
- I thought a third-party vote could set up the success of an electoral system that was not predicated on two major parties.
These five grievances would soon be turned on their heads as I began to reason with history, reality, and (unfortunately) political science. The compromises I have made are not ones that I would force upon other progressive voters. The compromises are, however, meant to pose questions of whether they resonate with those who are still planning to withhold their Biden vote.
I did not feel it was ethical to vote for Biden. This sentiment was driven by a number of factors, namely: an exorbitant amount of new aid to Israel’s military, the reinstatement of Trump-era immigration policy, and the refusal to allow a newer and younger candidate to take Biden’s place. I have since come to terms that the preservation of my “untainted” sense of morality is selfish. I do not think that I would be able to live with my decision if my vote enabled the victory of Donald Trump who, undoubtedly, has caused more irreparable harm to the country than any other modern president. The Supreme Court Justice and federal court judge appointments have, in but three years, quietly and swiftly unraveled access to public health and safety. The overturning of abortion protections, deference to government agencies’ expert opinions — the striking down of semiautomatic weapon restrictions — the enablement of bribes for judges — have all been highly consequential rulings that, with the expected retirement of Justices Thomas and Alito, would be all too permanent in another Trump election. Not to mention the 438 federal agencies that would revert back to their infantilized states unable to effectively enforce regulations. Put simply, I found it to be a far more ethical decision to prevent a Trump victory than to enable one.
I wanted to express my disapproval of Democratic foreign policy. As many demonstrations failed to create a lasting impact on the hearts and minds of Democratic lawmakers — including the hundreds of student protests across campuses — I believed that the greatest way to express my dissatisfaction and avoid complicity was through my vote. This sentiment was the quickest one to dissipate. While both Democrats and Republicans are in favor of military aid to Israel, one party’s presidential candidate is attempting to broker a peace deal and the other has a candidate who uses Palestinian as a derogatory slur on a national debate and whose stance is to remove Palestine from existence. There is no option that removes military aid to the Israeli military, lest one truly believes in a miracle where both the electoral college elects a third-party president and Congress magically decides to cease aid. Between the two options, I unfortunately will align myself with the candidate who is not bloodthirsty.
I believed the party should endure consequences for not earning my vote. It is immensely frustrating that Democrats automatically receive the progressive vote because they are marginally better than the other side, without a progressive platform. The gentle parenting-inspired approach to change behavior by dealing consequences was certainly attractive. Putting aside the hubris that progressive voters make up just 7% of the voting base, the method is also historically ineffective. There has never been a moment in history when a majority party adopted the policies of a third-party, except for when the Republican Party succeeded the failing Whig party. It is far more likely for a radical group to be left behind by the major political party, whether it be leftists and Democrats or libertarians and Republicans. A vote for a third-party candidate signals to the majority party that it is no longer a vote they should concern themselves with winning, thereby reaffirming the need to appeal to the core base of the major party. In other words, Democrats will abandon the leftist vote and focus on maximizing engagement with non-voting Democrats who already believe in the policies they already enact. The best way to incentive the Democratic party to reform is to vote from within and voice your discontent frequently, ideally alongside other discontent Democrat blocs.
I equivocated both major parties’ abilities to uphold a hegemonic system. The Democratic Party, much like the Republican Party, has a great deal of members who benefit from being and supporting the wealthy— whether it be from stock kickbacks or super PAC donations. If there is going to be a real systemic change, I believed that the change would not happen under either party. And while that holds true, I begrudgingly realized that progressive camps are not organized enough, yet. Progressives could not even organize around singular third-party candidate, let alone be organized enough at the local and state level to operationalize any meaningful federal reform. To that extent, there must be a substantial amount of organizing in the next five to twenty years, and it is undoubtedly easier to organize under a Democratic administration. To be sure, Biden has increased police funding and presence which can be harmful to organizing. However, only Trump has weaponized the national guard to disrupt protests across the nation.
I thought a third-party vote could set up the success of an electoral system that was not predicated on two major parties. One of the key messages that Green Party’s Jill Stein has messaged for years is that the accumulation of 5% of the popular vote will provide the party an influx of federal funding and official recognition from the Federal Election Commission. This goal seemed achievable and tangible. It is also deceptive. I quickly realized that Jill Stein and the Green Party, who is the third-party candidate with the most ballot potential, is not the progressive savior that we need. The Green Party spends too little time and resources building the necessary infrastructure at the state and local level to succeed outside of election cycles (they hold zero seats anywhere). On a minor note, Jill Stein, herself, raised $7 million for an audit that did not exist and has used it as a cash reserve. And, perhaps the actual important part, the system will simply not allow for a third party candidate to win even in the far future. Even the deconstruction of the electoral college would not give way to a Green Party presidential victory, which means only a full systematic reform would allow for a third-party vote to begin to matter.
These developments left me with the unfortunate truth that I could not cast a third party vote nor omit my vote. The right thing to do — for this year, for me, for my ethical framework — is to vote for the Democratic presidential candidate. I feel no joy in this decision, and I will not shame those who deeply feel they cannot vote for Joe Biden. I hope they, too, will not cast shame on me. And if you are on the fence, I hope some of my feelings resonate with yours. In any case, the presidential vote is not the only vote that matters, and I do feel strongly — hopeful, even — about my state and local options. True progressivism starts far below the presidency.
When third-party candidates matter
In political science, there is perhaps not a rule as immutable as Duverger’s Law, which states that a system in which there is only one winner will almost always result in a two-party system. The American voting system has become so ubiquitous in our daily lives that it almost feels impossible to imagine a different system. After all, the person with the most votes must win. Even with the added complexity of the electoral college whereby the person with the most electoral votes wins, the mechanism is the same — only one person may win and everyone else loses.
In this winner-takes-all system, parties only aim to win the most amount of votes because coming in second or third means you get nothing. By contrast, a system that has proportional representation may allocate a lesser amount of power to the second-place candidate and an even lesser amount to the third-place candidate. The European Union, for example, requires elections to be a form of proportional representation which enables their multi-party system (a better system to be sure, but one that is also combatting far-right extremism). Because American political parties only get rewarded for first-place, voters are disincentivized to “waste” a vote on smaller parties since there is no reward for silver or bronze. This incentive structure organically builds a two-party system, where each major party acts as a coalition of different but similar ideologies.
Minor improvements, such as ranked choice voting, can be used to make way for third-party representation. This approach is already being used for some state elections in Maine and is growing in popularity at the local level. Abolishing the electoral college is also a fundamental step towards greater proportionality, as the current system weighs Wyoming voters more than three times heavier than California voters. However, until we reform the voting system, a third-party victory at the presidential level is a non-starter. Assistant professor of political science at Georgia State University Dr. Greer says, “third parties really didn’t have a place — a serious place — when it comes to U.S. politics.” She goes on to say:
“To be clear though, third parties play a critical role in governing and the election process. Third parties are able to make — bring to the forefront to the political — of the political consciousness some of the matters that may not be politically palatable for the dominant parties. Third parties in this case are able to have a platform — whether it be on social media, interviewed on mainstream media, TV, radio, or print — and they are able to discuss some of those critical issues that may not be politically expedient for the dominant parties.”
Third-party candidates are pivotal tools in bringing unique viewpoints to the national stage. Andrew Yang did so with universal basic income. Bernie Sanders did, too, with universal healthcare. These ideas became households names almost overnight for both Democrat and Republic voters (it is important to note that these independent candidates and their untraditional platforms had to leverage the Democratic Party, given the two-party system). Yet, I believe the third party candidate can be more than a megaphone. Indeed, third parties can have their own agency and create a greater impact at the state and local level.
While no third party has ever won the presidency in American history, there have been numerous third party state legislators and local officials. By 1912, the Socialist Party elected hundreds of local officials from Wisconsin to New York. Today, the Democratic Socialist Party has 5 members in the U.S. House of Representatives, and nearly two hundred in state and local offices. Two members of the Philadelphia City Council belong to the Working Families Party. While the two-party system is still well in vogue, there seems to be less obstacles below the presidency.
If there is any meaningful action that a third-party candidate can do, it will likely not be in the oval office. Instead, it will be in your city council or state legislative branch. They could even be a U.S. legislator, fighting the good fight within Congress. However, if there is room to make lasting change — enacting ranked choice voting, popularizing proportional representation, abolishing the electoral college— it will most certainly start at the local level. Third-party candidates are real, viable options for city council or state house representatives. They’re just not Presidents.
