Image via Complex Original
The closer we get to Election Day, the more voters are likely to feel like Neo in The Matrix when he's offered a choice between the blue or red pill—a choice that will decide both individual and universal fates. Our democracy isn’t a Hollywood production, however, and the truth is that there are more than two options. For nearly 10 years, I’ve voted my values and cast ballots for third-party candidates—and I’ve survived, despite the many myths about what that choice would mean for our nation and the political process. Misrepresentations about voting third party may keep many voters from breaking out of the two-party system, but they shouldn't. There’s life beyond the Republican-Democrat matrix if you know the truth. Here are five of the most popular myths about voting third party, and why they’re total bull:
1. A vote for a third party candidate is a vote for Donald Trump
No matter how many times you hear this, it’s not true. People who endorse this myth suggest that if you don’t vote for Hillary Clinton, you want Donald Trump to win. But a vote for a third party candidate is a not a vote for Donald Trump—it’s a vote for a third party candidate. Those who perpetuate this myth often evoke the cautionary tale that Ralph Nader “stole” Al Gore’s presidency in 2000 with 600 or so votes. But the popular vote doesn’t determine who will become president—electoral votes and the Electoral College do. Most states’ electoral votes are already predicted to go to Trump or Clinton, and 48 states give all electoral votes to whoever wins the majority of their votes. If you vote third party in a state that is already “decided,” you’re not “taking” votes from anyone.
2. A third-party vote is a wasted one
This season, the palpable dissatisfaction with both Trump and Clinton has reinvigorated the call for new alternatives. Some are casting their votes for third party candidates, others are holding write-in campaigns, and some are even withholding their votes to express that they’re unhappy with their options.
In 1956, W.E.B Du Bois (one of the most staunch advocates of voting rights early in his life) penned, “Why I Won’t Vote” for The Nation. He argued that continued disregard for our nation’s most vulnerable should lead to a concerted effort to resist limited choices, and inspire building spaces for new candidates or systems. Choosing to advocate for a new political possibility isn’t a waste; it’s a right and opportunity for members of a democratic society.
3. Third parties need to pay their dues before nominating a presidential candidate
When someone tells you that Republicans and Democrats paid their dues and third parties didn’t, they aren’t telling you that the American political system has gone through multiple evolutions. Today’s parties are not ideologically or functionally the parties of the past, and those who have been able to consolidate party power work to keep other parties from emerging.
There are currently 28 recognized parties in the United States, and while many are small, they’re fighting their way onto the national stage. Rising to the top organically is a nice idea, but it’s not realistic. Thinking Republicans and Democrats are “grassroots up” stories is like thinking Donald Trump is just a small-time businessman who got lucky.
4. The only third party is the Green Party
Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka have been receiving more media attention, for both good and bad reasons. While the spotlight may bolster their numbers come November, don't forget that they’re not the only third party in town. The majority of third party voters don’t actually vote for the Green Party. In 2012, approximately 2.2 million people cast ballots for candidates who weren't from the Democrat or Republican parties, and Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson led the third party race with approximately 1.1 million votes.
5. Third parties can save electoral politics
This season’s focus on Trump and Clinton has made it clear that many Americans are unhappy with our bipartisan system, but the rise of a third party—whether Green or Libertarian—will not “save” American politics. What we really need is a richer dialogue about what matters to American citizens and how to meet our collective needs, and that means leaving myths behind and listening to our most vulnerable citizens.