Democratic and Republican candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have been dominating news headlines and are constantly the subject of discussion on many television programs. But what about Jill Stein of the Green Party, or Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party? Though well intentioned, they have little to no chance of ever making it to office. There is a certain degree of outrage surrounding both Trump and Clinton that has driven some votes to consider a third party candidate. However, if voters really wish to make their vote count, they ought not to vote for third party candidates.
Voters who vote outside their normal party alignments are committing what is called a protest vote. A protest vote is one that shows to dissatisfaction with the main party candidates by voting for a third party candidate. However, the protest vote is simply a mistake. The most famous example of a protest vote gone wrong is the 2000 election. Many liberal voters, who were not satisfied with Democratic candidate Al Gore, placed their vote instead with Ralph Nader of the Green Party. This took votes away from Al Gore which resulted in the election of George Bush, a candidate whose ideals were almost the polar opposite of the protest voters’ ideals. A protest vote does not effectively protest a candidate; in fact, it can compromise one’s own beliefs.
The two party system is deeply ingrained in the roots of American politics. And for a good reason — it works. Imagine our government if there are three parties of similar popularity. A Congress split three ways, with three different viewpoints on all issues would have a difficult time ever passing a majority vote, let alone a two-thirds vote that is required in some instances in Congress. The same idea can be applied to the president; if a president is unable to effectively communicate with Congress due to a party difference, the legislative process would come to a standstill. In addition, the 2016 election is also special in that there is an open seat on the Supreme Court. It is the president’s job to appoint justices to the Supreme Court, and this would fall under the duty of the newly elected president. Although political parties are supposed to be negligible in the Supreme Court, the nomination by a third party would surely have a different outcome than a main party candidate’s nomination. Because of the ambiguities and functionality issues associated with a third party president, it is all the more important to vote for a main party.
The discontent surrounding individual candidates is understandable, but it should not cause one to waste a vote on a third party. Running a presidential campaign is time-consuming and expensive. Voters must remember that the presidential election is very much party based and not candidate based. When presented with two candidates who represent a group of larger ideals, voters must weigh the options and make an informed decision. Sometimes that decision will be a lesser of two evils, but it is the duty of a good voter to make a decision. Therefore, when voters are making their final choice this November, they ought to consider the history of the American politics and the rationale behind the two party system. Voters thinking outside the main party check box will indeed box themselves in with the fact that they casted a vote of equivocation.
