Everyone has the right to vote how they wish. That's the beauty of a democracy.
Many, however, argue that Jill Stein is the only true alternative to the status quo. They suggest a vote for Stein is a vote against genocide and environmental exploitation.
Others say Stein is a Russian stooge who only appears every four years to siphon voters away from the Democratic party, aiding the Republican candidate. They also say she is a hypocrite who has personally profited from oil investments. I don't know if this is true.
Finally, Stein supporters suggest these criticisms are manufactured by the Democrats. I could see that.
Putting the merits of the individual candidate aside, it is often argued that Clinton lost the 2016 election because of votes that shifted to Stein. It is also argued this could happen again, leading to a R victory today.
My logic - as flawed as it may be - is in most years, elections are about picking the candidate who can nudge societal goals in the right direction. No candidate is ideal as they are all part of the same corrupt system of power and money. So I vote in a way to help achieve certain goals.
Many are passionately voting for Stein as she aligns with their values. I get it. But what chance does she have of pushing those values forward? She won't win. Rather, the more votes she gets, the more likely the climate change denier and Bibi lover wins. The complete antithesis to Green Party values. And in this scenario, those values would be squashed by the Brown Shirts 2.0.
Don't get me wrong, the Dems arent much better. But at least with a Harris victory, people retain enough dry powder to fight another day and influence policy. An R victory would aim to shut off all opposition.
So is a vote for Stein simply symbolic? What does it achieve?
I am not a US citizen so please educate me. Help me understand. (No mud slinging please.)
I really enjoy your work, Sarah, and won't be slinging any mud!
Russell brought up some good points, but didn't mention the role of the Electoral College in US elections, so here's an explanation.
US presidential elections are not decided by popular vote. They are decided by who wins the most "electoral" votes. Each state has a certain number, based on the size of their congressional delegation. This number is the total of: how many senators they have (two for every state) plus: how many people they have in the House of Representatives, which varies by population. So, a small state with a small population like Vermont has three (two senators plus one house member) and a large state with a big population like California has 52 (two senators plus 50 house members). The total number of electoral votes is 538, and to win, a candidate must get 270 or more.
In every state except two (Maine and Nebraska), the electors are assigned on a winner-takes-all basis. So, if Harris wins in California by 60% to 40%, she gets all 52. If she wins Vermont, she gets all three. In (Maine and Nebraska, which both have three, they are assigned proportionally. Nebraska is expected to assign two to Trump and one to Harris this year.)
Most states--43 to be exact--are all-but-guaranteed to go for Trump or for Harris. Harris will get, for example, California, Oregon, Washington, New York, and Illinois. Trump will get Texas, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Idaho. These are sometimes called the "safe states" because the candidates can count on winning them and their electoral votes without even really trying. Neither Trump nor Harris will get 270 electoral votes from the safe states alone.
The remaining 7 states are the "swing states" or the "battleground states." These are states where the race is close enough that they could go either way. For either Trump or Harris to win, they must win a certain number of these states. Those states change each election, and this year they are Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Nevada and North Carolina. So, the outcome of the election depends *entirely* on what happens in these states.
What all this means is that a vote for a third party in any of the "safe states" is inconsequential to the outcome. Only in the swing states is it possible that a vote cast for a third party could affect Trump or Harris, but that is only *possible.* The Democratic slogan that "a vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Trump" is just that: a slogan. It's not a verifiable fact. What it assumes is that *everyone* who votes for Jill Stein would have voted for Harris if Stein was not on the ballot, which is simply not factual. Many (maybe most) third party voters in the US (including those who vote for the Libertarians or the Party for Socialism and Liberation or the Constitution Party, etc.) would never vote for a Democrat or Republican period. (I'm in that category.) If their third party preference was not available, they would either not vote, or leave the presidential part of the ballot blank and only vote for "down ticket" races.
Intriguingly, a recent poll showed that in one of the swing states, Stein support appears to be pulling more from Trump than from Harris.
I voted in New Mexico this year, which is a safe state for Harris. I voted for Jill Stein. My vote will have exactly ZERO influence on whether Harris or Trump wins. I don't consider this act merely symbolic because if the Greens are able to garner 5% of the vote, they will be eligible for federal matching funds in the next election, which will make them more of a real player. I also know that some people outside the US, including many Palestinians, will interpret votes for Stein as votes against the Genocide, and I want to send that message.
I hope this comment helps explain the bizarre system we have here in the US!
The US voting system is rigged to favor the two parties exclusively. Depending on your state, a third party vote is worth nothing or next to nothing. Many states make it incredibly difficult even for third party candidates to get on the ballot! And the only way to win a presidential election is to be acceptable to the ruling class. This was forcefully demonstrated by the Bernie Sanders campaign in the 2016 primaries. He generated immense excitement in the progressive and young voter community. The power brokers saw his momentum and forced him to withdraw so that Hilary could take her turn. As we all saw, that backfired spectacularly as the corrupt, rapist, racist, lying, cheating, huckster spun a better narrative and eeked out a electoral college victory. Thus causing a large amount of damage to the Republic, the environment and to voter confidence in the system. We are now a broken country.