Your left-leaning ‘protest vote’ is much worse than useless. It will reelect Trump | Opinion
In recent months, the 2024 presidential election campaign has included more twists than a Chubby Checker tribute tour. Yet, at least one thing remains constant: When it comes to third-party candidates, older voters — and plenty of younger ones — have seen this story play out before.
In 2016, for example, an extraordinary number of centrists and left-leaners who normally would have supported the Democratic Party's presidential nominee — but who had been influenced by decades of disinformation against Hillary Clinton — instead chose Jill Stein or Gary Johnson (or simply didn't vote). Some even championed the Republican candidate. Thus, many such third-party supporters, "protest votes" and no-shows not only wasted their ballots, but very much assisted putting Donald Trump and his cohort into the White House.
In 2000, Americans similar to those noted above backed not Democratic Party nominee Al Gore, but third-party option Ralph Nader — or just stayed home. And, in light of that election's incredibly narrow outcome, these specific voters undeniably helped kick-start the eight-year George W. Bush administration — which included the 9/11 terror attacks, the commencement of two foreign wars and the Great Recession, which lasted from December 2007 to June 2009.
Were Bush or Trump even the second choices of these particular third-party or no-show voters? For almost all, it seems the answer is a resounding — another reminder that elections are not games.
Meanwhile, aside from the relatively rare occurrence of a third-party presidential candidate joining a major party president's Cabinet, it remains true in our country that the sole period during which third-party candidates (and their supporters) can influence Democratic or Republican policy positions is only before the general election. Yet, once November arrives — or whenever one casts a general election ballot — a third-party vote does nothing but distort the general election race.
As such, citizens who don't live in one of the few places with ranked-choice voting and choose a third-party presidential option in November (or who don't participate) will once again not only squander the moment — many of these voters will also inadvertently help their least-preferred candidate become president. And this time, that winning candidate could be a pathological lying, nonstop grifting, constantly crime-ing, twice impeached, quadruple indicted (so far), justice obstructing, society defrauding, court corrupting, national security compromising, alliance crushing, U.S. military disparaging, authoritarian loving, democracy dismantling, fascism-adjacent, anti-woman, sexual abusing, serial philandering, rabidly racist, white supremacist and nationalist, religiously bigoted and intolerant (but nonreligious), anti-science, environment destroying, always whining, vengeance seeking malignant narcissist and convicted felon (which, by the way, says nothing — or perhaps everything — about his 40-year-old running mate who would take charge if a certain 78-year-old couldn't finish his term).
While none but men have led our nation throughout the U.S. presidency's 235-year history — 45 of them white, and one African-American — citizens this year have the opportunity to elect not just our first woman president. And Kamala Harris would not be just our first Asian-African-American president, but a spectacularly qualified and prepared Asian-African-American woman president. Don't miss this chance to be part of it.
Regardless, while tens of millions of Americans recognize the third party trap for what it is, every voter should trust history and avoid wasting their vote on any candidate who won't possibly win — or even influence policy — yet could clear a path for another candidate and presidency that these very same voters want least of all.
Jeremy Fryberger is an architect living in Ketchum, Idaho, with his wife, their two children and dog.
