The Odyssey Offline: A Response To "The Danger of Voting Third Party"

Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.

Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.

This is the second edition of The Odyssey Offline. In this edition, I am responding to the article "The Danger of Voting Third Party".

As the month of November inches closer and closer, election day looms for many young Americans that remain unconvinced by this year’s presidential candidates.

When you say "this year's presidential candidates", do you mean as a whole or just the Democrat and Republican nominees?

Dissatisfaction with the Republican and Democratic nominees has pushed young voters to seek other candidates. The third-party vote sometimes referred to as a protest vote, has become an increasingly popular alternative. Longing for a nominee that better represents their values and vision of society, young people have found a candidate in people like Jill Stein and Gary Johnson.

You say this as though there is some kind of problem with this. A person can do with their vote what they want to. Voting is a right that we have. If there is a candidate in an election who lines up with you ideologically, why wouldn't you vote for them? To add to that, I have always had a bit of a problem with the term "protest vote". It simply means you're going against the establishment. Wouldn't that make what you're advocating for a surrender vote?

For some Americans, voting third-party is a source of personal and ethical satisfaction. “Being a first-time voter, I didn't want my first vote to be for someone who I didn't believe in, and I certainly didn't want to settle,” says Frank Gaetani, an undergraduate student at Catholic University of America. “Third-party vote is a reality check from the two-party system that this country has upheld.”

For others, it doesn’t hold the same meaning. Instead, it represents something much darker. “A vote for third-party is a vote for Donald Trump,” stated Christine Yaptangco, a graduate student at St. John’s University and Hillary Clinton supporter. “We don’t live in a fantasy world where every vote counts. This isn’t about our dreams, this is about hard, cold, reality.”

"Wasting your vote is voting for someone you don't believe in."
-Gov. Gary Johnson

Is it fair to say that a vote for third-party is a vote for Donald Trump? History seems to confirm that notion. In the 2000 election of George W. Bush and Al Gore, Ralph Nader ran as the Green Party nominee. Nader and his followers believed that the Democratic Party had moved too far right. This created a division in the Democratic Party between Gore supporters and Nader supporters. Ultimately, the divide allowed Bush to receive all the electoral votes in swing states because Gore wasn’t receiving votes from Nader followers. Many political analysts credit Gore’s loss to Nader by third-party spoiling.

What is it with people saying a vote for a third party is a vote for Trump/Clinton? I know this might be really hard for you to understand, but a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for that candidate. It's simple mathematics really. And if you don't believe your vote counts or that the system is corrupt, then why are you even voting? What is the point of it? I know statism is kind of a religion of sorts, but why are putting such blind faith in a system?

The 2000 presidential election seems eerily similar to 2016. With third-party candidates like Stein and Johnson appealing to young voters, Clinton finds herself missing a key demographic. Young voters, who have shown a predisposition towards the Democratic party in the past, are splitting the party. Just like with Nader in 2000, these third-party votes may very well tip the swing states in Trump’s favor and hand him the presidency.

And that divide is only getting worse, with Hillary having gamed the system in her favor. I am not sure if you supported Bernie or not. I did not support him, but I will defend him here. Bernie got screwed in the primaries, just as Rand Paul (R-KY) got screwed during the GOP primaries. It was clear the establishments of the mainstream parties had their candidates hand-picked from day one. Knowing THIS why would you want to vote for Trump or Clinton? They are the very establishment that young people are so pissed off at. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are the very reason that young people want a third option. We have seen that the approach that has gone on for so long hasn't worked, whether it has been disastrous economic policies, such as the bailouts or the hawkish foreign policy that created the vacuum that groups like ISIS needed to form. OF COURSE people want a third option. People in the Middle East don't hate America (or Americans) because of our freedom. They hate America(ns) maybe because their sons, daughters, mothers, and fathers are dying at America's hand for something they did not do. What is more dangerous? Continuing these disastrous policies or a vote that goes against your precious fucking two party system?

All things considered, is “voting your conscience” the right thing to do? If you don’t want to cheat yourself or settle for a candidate you don’t believe in, then yes. Just remember that by voting third-party, you take ownership of what it means for the election outcome. And just like all actions, your vote comes with consequences.

Do you not also take ownership of what happens if you vote FOR Trump or Clinton? Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have tacitly confessed to desire to commit war crimes in the Middle East, whether it is Donald Trump ordering mass executions of women and children or Hillary Clinton has said multiple times that she wants to continue the drone strike program (hell, Bernie even said this). Knowing these things about the "candidates", why would you want to vote for them?