Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have the highest unfavorability ratings of any Democrat or Republican nominee ever running for the presidency. This phenomenon has a plethora of implications for our democracy, but one of the most problematic is the creation of the #NeverTrump campaign and its cousin #BernieorBust. #NeverTrump is a rallying call from Republicans, such as Paul Ryan, who categorically refuse to support their party’s presumptive nominee for any number of reasons: questionable behavior on the campaign trail, general bigotry, total lack of a coherent policy platform and serial lying. On the other side, there are lingering questions regarding Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server, passage of the 1994 crime bill, receiving six-digit payments for speeches before Goldman Sachs executives and perceived lack of authenticity. All of this stands in stark contrast to the ideological purity of her competitor, Bernie Sanders.
Many voters who have rallied behind these two hashtags feel as though the candidate affiliated with their identified majority party is totally unsuitable to be president. To this end, these citizens have proposed either voting for a third-party candidate as a protest vote, writing in the name of a candidate they would have rather endorsed or simply staying home on Election Day. This impulse is understandable given how unpalatable the presumptive nominees are to some voters. All of these decisions, made in protest, if done without considering the consequences, all accomplish the same thing for our American political system: nothing.
A protest vote can serve an important function in many democracies throughout the world. In multi-party parliamentary systems, a protest vote can help close the gap between parties and prevent a single one from establishing a ruling majority. However, because the U.S. presidential election only has two major primary candidates, a protest vote cannot institutionally accomplish this goal.
People who band together around #BernieorBust are by definition averse to compromise. This purity can be commendable, but compromise is essential to our political system. Many people accept the importance of bargaining in the abstract, but when it comes time to actually do so, they fall short. By adhering to an unyielding ideaolgy, voters spoil elections for themselves. One only has to look back to 2000 to see how a mere 2.7 percent of the vote going to Ralph Nader swung the results to Bush, who very few Nader supporters considered a second choice. Thus, it’s important for people who have so much trepidation about a Clinton or Trump presidency to seriously consider what they want the country to look like in four years.
There are, however, valid reasons to vote for a third party. When a third party reaches five percent of the popular vote, it receives federal funding for the next election cycle. Therefore, if you believe that our nation can break out of a two — party system (despite the sizable obstacle presented by our single-member, plurality-rule election system), then voting for a third party is a worthwhile decision.
Regardless of the way in which one ultimately votes, it is important to do so while giving serious thought to the issues our nation faces. Simply writing in a bygone candidate’s name is just as bad as sitting home and not voting. As you start to consider the candidates as the choices become clear, consider what your individual vote will do. Even when there may not seem to be a clear-cut candidate for a given party to support, every vote counts. Make sure to use yours wisely.