...And The Use Of Protest Votes
When the Democratic party rigged the primaries against Bernie Sanders during the 2016 election cycle, they fatally damaged their relationship with many of his supporters. While Donald Trump pretends to be a populist (ask any of the people he has cheated by refusing to pay his bills how pro-worker he is), Bernie gave an actual voice to the victims of the corporatists who control the Democratic and Republican parties. By silencing this voice, the Democratic Party confirmed the belief by many that neither major political party cared about the issues that were important to them. The results were catastrophic.
In the 2016 Presidential Election, 6,464,094 people voted for someone other than the two major party candidates, encompassing approximately 5% of the total vote. This was more than Hilary Clinton’s 2,868,691 vote margin of victory over Donald Trump. It was also significantly higher than the previous three elections:
Clinton may have decisively won the popular vote, but the undemocratic Electoral College system gave the presidency to Trump. This is where “other” is credited by some for changing the political landscape.
Trump won the Electoral College vote 306 to 232 in 2016. However, if Green Party candidate Jill Stein’s votes in three states were added to Clinton’s, Trump would have lost the lead. Clinton would have then won the Electoral College 278 to 260.
Of course, this projection severely oversimplifies a very complicated electorate. First, it assumes that if voters did not have the option to vote for Stein, they would not have stayed home or left that line blank in their ballot. Similarly, there is no guarantee that Stein’s voters would have automatically chosen Clinton in her absence. Finally, the Libertarian candidate was also on the ballot in the three flippable states, winning three times the votes for Stein. If we are going to fantasize about removing Stein, should we also remove Johnson? There is a good chance that his absence would have increased Trump’s count.
With the remote possibility that Stein cost Clinton the election, what did her voters accomplish with their vote? The common refrain from third-party voters is that there is no difference between the two parties, but is this accurate? While both are controlled by corporate interests that prevent policies that would help non-billionaires from being enacted, there are clear differences between the two. For example, with Clinton as president, we would not have a Supreme Court that decimated protections for women or granted Presidents king-like protection from accountability when breaking the law.
Amid the chaos of Trump’s presidency, the percentage of “other” voters in the 2020 election dropped back down to previous levels. Perhaps it was the hundreds of thousands of people needlessly dying because of mishandling the COVID crisis or maybe it was the abhorrent reaction to demands for justice in the wake of the murder of George Floyd, but the electorate did not seem to have the stomach for a protest vote.
In the runup to the 2024 election, there was much handwringing over what effect third-party candidates would have on the results. Would the return of Jill Stein to the ballot, joined by Cornel West, drain votes away from Biden (then Harris)? Would Chase Oliver draw voters away from Trump or would the Libertarian hurt Harris by taking “Never Trumpers” away from her?
Nobody bought into this hype more than Robert Kennedy Jr. whose effect on the race was hotly debated. He tried to use this to his advantage as he offered to drop out and sell his support to the highest bidder. Harris passed and Kennedy endorsed Trump. He then spent his time in court either trying to remove or add his name to the ballot depending on whether he thought his presence in that state would harm or help Trump. He was rewarded with a nomination to run the Department of Health and Human Services despite his lack of medical experience and willingness to embrace every conspiracy that floats past the worm in his brain.
When the votes were counted, third-party candidates had no real effect on the race. Jill Stein and the Green Party only secured third place in the race, winning about .50% of the vote. Despite his “strategic” withdrawal, Kennedy received .49%. West earned the votes of a paltry 0.05% of the electorate.
These results should have been expected as the trendline over the past 25 years is flat, showing just a slight downward tilt. Americans talk a lot about the need for a third party, but very few seem willing to back that up with their vote.
What was surprising to me was the number of voters who instead of depositing their protest vote with a third party gave it to Trump. It is bewildering that the man who continues to rally against the Central Park 5 despite their proven innocence was able to increase his share of the black vote. Despite his rhetoric against immigrants and promises of mass deportations, Hispanic men also increased their support of Trump. Most perplexingly, Muslims in Dearborn, Michigan bragged about helping Trump defeat Harris even though he instituted a Muslim immigration ban during his first term. Even if these voters believed that Biden should have done more to end Israel’s continued killing of Palestinian civilians, do they think that Trump will do any better?
Carl Petersen is a parent advocate for public education, particularly for students with special education needs, who serves as the Education Chair for the Northridge East Neighborhood Council. As a Green Party candidate in LAUSD’s District 2 School Board race, he was endorsed by Network for Public Education (NPE) Action. Dr. Diane Ravitch has called him “a valiant fighter for public schools in Los Angeles.” For links to his blogs, please visit www.ChangeTheLAUSD.com. Opinions are his own.