A Third Party Vote Is Not a Vote for Trump

The claim that voting “third party” will inherently give Trump an electoral upper hand isn’t just false, it’s regularly being used to scare and shame voters into voting for Clinton.

The general idea of democracy is that every vote is equal, but in practice, in our democracy, that’s not how it works — at least not when it comes to electing our presidents. In the U.S., presidents aren’t directly voted in by the people; people cast votes for the candidate whom they want their state’s electors to vote for in the electoral college. The end result is that votes for any other candidate besides the winning one legitimately do not factor into an elector’s vote in each state. For this and other reasons, the suggestion that third party votes are indirectly bolstering another candidate is misleading. It ignores the function of the electoral college, the pattern of solid state party voting, and how the electorate — the segment of the population who actually votes — fluctuates from election to election. Further, the characterizations of third party voters are routinely insulting and ignore the multifaceted politics of those who might vote third party or abstain from voting altogether. And finally, the assumption that third party voters are obligated to support a candidate simply in order to prevent the election of another candidate places undue blame on voters and absolves the candidate’s responsibility for an unsuccessful campaign.

A third party spoiler is a possibility, not an inevitability.

First, let’s do away with the idea that all votes for third parties inherently contribute to a spoiler effect. If you’re not familiar with that reasoning, the argument often used is that third party voters “split” the total vote, with proponents of this claim citing the 2000 election wherein Al Gore famously won the popular vote nationally but lost the electoral vote to George W. Bush when it came down to a dead heat in Florida. In this case, it’s argued that third party voters (but more specifically, Nader/Green voters in Florida) indirectly gave Bush an upper hand by splitting the “Democratic” vote between Nader and Gore. If all, most, or even some of those Nader voters had simply voted for Gore, he could’ve won Florida, the election, and that entire decade might’ve been different.

There are a lot of problems with this argument. The main one is that it completely ignores the way each state’s electoral votes actually impact the presidential election. The argument that third parties function as spoilers, whether it specifically cites the 2000 debacle in Florida or not, relies on one specific case to make an incredibly broad claim. The reality is this: not all elections are as close as Bush v. Gore, third parties usually do not receive enough votes to make that significant of an impact, and not all states are like Florida. Unlike most states, Florida is a reliable swing state from election to election. A full two-thirds of the fifty states have voted for the same party in the past five presidential elections. There are a handful of swing states every election, and depending on the election, some states develop into swing states as the election progresses. But, provided there are no major shifts in the electorate or a particularly weak or strong candidate, most states are color-coded before the election even begins. And because the electoral college is a winner-take-all system, a vote for a third party in a solid red-or-blue state barely makes any difference. I speak from experience: I live in a blood red state that flipped in 2008 for the first time since 1964. Every Democratic voter in my state could suddenly vote for Jill Stein instead of Hillary Clinton this year and it would have zero impact on Clinton’s ability to win the election, because more people would still vote Republican, and all of our electoral votes would still be cast for Trump. Based on this, you can understand why the claim that “voting for a third party is a vote for Trump” makes me roll my eyes. It’s not that it’s inherently false, but it is falsely presented as a universal truth when it is not. Further, it’s based on several faulty assumptions and ultimately seeks to guilt-trip or scare people into supporting a specific candidate, which isn’t really how a free and fair democracy should work.

Another major issue with this argument is the is the idea that there is a solid, uncompromising bloc of partisan voters that can be split. The assumption that all or most Nader voters would have voted for Gore were Nader not a candidate isn’t necessarily true. Some may have abstained, voted for Bush, or even voted for a different third party. Based on a Gallup analysis of Nader supporters, abstaining would probably have been the most likely scenario, since Nader’s support was concentrated in groups with low turnout rates (young independents). In the case of the Green party specifically, their voters can be roughly categorized as either loyal Green party voters, “independents” which are comprised of various sub-categories (centrists or moderates who could vote either way, those who lean left/Democratic or right/Republican, etc.), and voters who would otherwise vote Democrat. The crucial category here is the group of “independents” who ultimately decide each and every election because they aren’t predictably bound to any particular party. But independents are not a monolithic voting bloc. The real crux of swaying independent voters is not that you’re trying to convince a group of centrists who could support either candidate (this is a relatively small and shrinking group, compared to partisans); it’s that you want to convince the independent voters who lean toward your side of the aisle or agree with you on more of the issues to actually get out and vote for you. Since the relative importance of issues changes with each election cycle, and these independents are more likely to have a “mix” of conservative or liberal positions, these voters can switch from party to party from one election to the next. That’s all to say, it’s faulty to assume that every election has a reliable bloc of partisan voters that any one candidate can or should expect to have; indeed, those who would split off to vote third party are not partisan by definition. In reality, the electorate is always in flux, depending on factors such as the candidates, the issues, and the political climate.

This is especially relevant this year. This election saw two insurgent candidates (Sanders and Trump) rile up segments of the population that weren’t especially politically active otherwise (Sanders more so than Trump). There’s currently a big fuss about Sanders supporters now “abandoning” the Democrats and voting for Jill Stein of the Green Party. The assumption that former Sanders supporters are betraying the Democratic Party by voting third party ignores the fact that Sanders overall lost among registered Democrats, which suggests that much of his support was not from Democratic loyalists in the first place. That is, as opposed to appealing to the Democratic base, he brought more people into the party during the primaries — meaning that if some of those supporters generally decide to abstain or vote third party, that’s not necessarily pulling support away from Clinton, because it’s support that Clinton would have likely never had. Consider that California’s Green Party lost thousands of party members upon Sanders’ presidential announcement — so these Sanders supporters voting Green in the general would actually be business as usual.

I’m not necessarily arguing against the idea that Gore’s loss in 2000 was because of third party voters, although there’s plenty to argue about there. I’ll concede that third parties can potentially act as spoilers. But that’s in no way the inherent nature of a third party vote, a sound prediction of how 2016 will unfold, nor the purpose of most third party presidential candidates. The point of third parties, in national elections, is to give voters more options and, ideally, extend the political discourse beyond the interests and agendas of the two major parties. The fact that they may make it harder for major party candidates to win is typically a side effect and usually not their main purpose. In 1968, for instance, George Wallace and the American Independent Party swept five Southern states away from Republicans, but Nixon still won the presidency by over 100 electoral votes. So this spoiler argument regularly ignores the long history of minor parties in the U.S. and focuses instead on one recent “spoiler” in an attempt to further homogenize political beliefs (insisting that anyone who leans left is obligated to support the Democratic candidate) and perpetuate the dominance of the two main parties.

The complexity of third party voters are often overly simplified.

Broad claims about voting third party also tend to imply that third party voters are either not smart enough to know what they’re doing (usually, because they’re too young or careless to know the consequences), or that they’re so self-involved that they can afford to throw the election to a disastrous candidate. Granted, a certain amount of third party voters are likely “protest” voters who legitimately have no stake in the results of the presidential election. But that doesn’t mean that third party voters in general are so privileged that the actions of any one president won’t affect them too much. It could actually be that actions by a “liberal” president could have effects that are just as negative if not more so than those by a conservative one. Consider members of immigrant families aware of the rise in deportations under Obama, Middle Eastern and South Asian Americans who have seen the effects of his drone program in Middle Eastern/South Asian countries, or even the Black Americans who, despite electing the first black president, have seen racial discrimination and turmoil ignite in a way that hasn’t been seen in decades. Further, the worsening congressional gridlock in Washington means some Americans see the president as largely incapable of making a difference that would actually positively impact them no matter who is elected. Finally, some voters might just want to vote for the candidate whose positions they most agree with. It’s a little sad that that’s a basis for condemnation.

In this spoiler argument, it is regularly ignored that the third party with the best shot in this political context is really the Libertarian Party. Under Gary Johnson, Libertarians herald positions and policies that are legitimately conservative in the governmental sense — reigning in the size and power of the federal government — without needing to bend to the religious right, the war hawks, or other statist factions in the Republican Party. That’s likely refreshing for conservatives who are disenchanted with everything that’s happening in and around their party these days. Libertarians poll better than Greens by significant margins, and, in one poll, Johnson actually edged out Trump in support among millennials. With a Republican nominee of record-breaking unpopularity, it’s possible that the Libertarians will be able to see one of their best showings yet.

Finally, making third party voters responsible for the failure of a major party to win is used to absolve blame from that candidate, party, or campaign. It’s easy to say that those voters just wanted to disrupt the system or that they’re apathetic and self-involved. But in the end, your candidate couldn’t convince them — whose fault is that, really? Absolutely no one is required to vote for someone just because they’re aware the other option could be worse. (You could argue that if one option was that much worse, the election wouldn’t be that close to begin with.) I certainly wouldn’t mind if Clinton were president, and I prefer her over Trump. That doesn’t make it any less frustrating to feel like there isn’t a viable option at the national level that I feel represents my point of view, especially as I look around at basically every other democratic country and their wide array of political parties. At the least, voting third party is as much a reflection of dissatisfaction with the political status quo as it is a failure of our political system to provide viable leadership that represents the full spectrum of U.S. political beliefs and interests.

None of this means that I think those who consider themselves progressives, like myself, should vote carelessly with no regard for the political context around them or the consequences of their actions. Obviously, there’s already one Supreme Court seat on the line, and within the span of the next presidential term or two, there will undoubtedly be more. With that, the gains made during Obama’s presidency are vulnerable. But if you live in a solid state, like I do — for example, Jill Stein won’t even be on the ballot here — there’s likely no harm done. What you are doing is bolstering a third party in a country where, according to popular discourse, they don’t, can’t, or shouldn’t exist. And the more votes they get, the more influential they can be.

All that said, I think the fears expressed by mainstream liberals are mostly misdirected. In this election, I imagine that for every left-leaning person who chooses Stein over Clinton, there will be at least another person on the right, if not more, who chooses Johnson over Trump. All of this is to say: in November, you should absolutely vote with your conscience, but please don’t do it carelessly. Everyone should pay attention to the polls in their state and weigh the options, and their consequences, carefully. If you live in a swing state, the stakes are much higher, and, realistically, your vote for president has a lot more value. Politico has created a handy map of these battleground states and their most current polls. Local and state elections are just as important, if not more so, because your vote carries much more weight and most of Congress is up for re-election this year. Ballotpedia has more in-depth information on congressional elections. Personally, I want more progressive options at every level of government. Given the entrenchment of our two-party system, I doubt that Greens are ever going to become all that relevant nationally. But Green policies could. That’s what I’m voting for, because those are my priorities. If yours are to shame and guilt-trip others into voting for Clinton, that’s fine — just realize that it’s probably not going to work.