I live in the battleground state of Ohio, and this election season, I'm afraid—not just of Trump and his supporters but now also of the prevailing attitudes of my progressive friends. In the news, in social media, and even from leaders whom I greatly respect, I see an alarming number of people who do not feel capable of supporting Hillary Clinton. I see the hashtag #NeverTrumpOrHillary. I hear disenchanted Bernie Sanders supporters collectively crying out, “I will not be bullied.”
As a woman of color; a small business owner; and someone who wants to see equality, justice, and accountability, I understand the pain and frustration of trying to effect true change. But the possibility that the kind of hatred and regressive-thinking touted by Donald Trump and his followers might be granted a greater position of power in this country is nearly unimaginable. So when my fellow non-Trump supporters say they plan to vote third party, write-in, or abstain, I cannot simply “agree to disagree” and remain silent.
I do agree that the two-party system is no longer functional. Democrats and Republicans are largely at war with each other. Instead of working together to implement change that benefits the country, the two often engage in ideological battles that grind government to a halt. As long as critical issues continue to come stamped with either “right” or “left,” it will remain difficult to discuss the problems this country is facing in ways that are both rational and civil—which is why it’s so appealing to throw our support behind third-party candidates or anyone willing to think outside the box.
That is also part of the appeal of Donald Trump. Never before has there been a candidate so clearly outside of any realm of influence, party affiliation, or reason. He has latched onto the exhaustion felt by the people as much as Bernie Sanders galvanized those who were forward thinking; unfortunately, Trump caters to the basest level. He has flagrantly and shamelessly portrayed himself to be a racist, narcissistic, xenophobic dictator. His campaign takes every dark hate of "Otherness" out of the closet and unleashes it full blast on this country—and up to this point, it has largely been without repercussion. We keep waiting for some definitive line that he will cross, which will finally unveil him to the world as an unacceptable choice. Yet, week after week, we find that there is no line, no lowest, and too few party members saying, “Enough.”
But I hear you, progressives. You hate Hillary. Maybe with a lesser degree of vitriol than you feel for Donald Trump, but according to what I’m seeing in innumerable comment threads, Twitter posts, and new reports, it’s a close call—which sounds absurd. The Clintons certainly have a bad track record, and some of that includes policies that were destructive to black people, including the 1994 catastrophic crime bill, which aided in our progression toward the highest incarceration rate in the world. There is no way we can forget Hillary's use of the term "superpredators" to describe black children, regardless of what she may be saying now that the general elections are upon us.
In addition, her foreign policy, trade, and environmental track record are also spotted with elements that have failed (to greater and lesser degrees) both the international community and the American people. She’s clearly tied to Wall Street and the corporate elite, and while she may have surrounded herself with positive voices at the DNC, or acknowledged the destructiveness of some of the policies she and her husband helped to establish, there's no guarantee she will continue to heed those voices or keep promises to make changes were she given the power to do so. As many disenchanted voters have said, “We just don't trust her.” And that means, any vote put her way feels like a vote for the “lesser of two evils” —an expression that makes it seem like we’re comparing a Rattlesnake to a Death Adder instead of a Rattlesnake to an extinction level comet hurtling toward the planet.
As a result, most of the progressives I know who were previously voting for Bernie Sanders are now switching to Stein. This includes a surprising number of high profile figures, such as author and professor Cornell West. In a recent Democracy Now interview, in regards to the notion that we might be driven by fear to opt for a “neoliberal disaster,” West said he could “look the catastrophe in the face and still tell the truth and still go down swinging with a smile....” to which I say this: I’d rather stay standing up with a frown.
The temptation to leap (and then fall down) to Stein is understandable. She is passionate and intelligent, and I would be excited to consider her were she a viable option—key word being viable. I’m not disagreeing with this choice because I can’t support Stein’s policies or believe she would make a bad leader. I am disagreeing because I live in reality, most of the time, and the future I see unfolding before us is too dark and dangerous for Russian roulette.
Jill Stein is currently polling at around 3.0 (a slight drop since her bump post-DNC). Most think that in the general election, she would get approximately 2% of the vote. Even if she got a miraculous 5%, disaster would still ensue, and here’s why: It’s incredibly difficult for third-party candidates to win. Not only are there a multitude of hurdles to jump in order to get on the ballot in all 50 states, but more importantly, even if a candidate succeeds, the current “First Past the Post” or “Winner Take All” voting system makes third-party wins almost impossible. (The last candidate who wasn’t a member of a political party to win a presidential election was George Washington back in 1789.)
One might even argue that understanding the system, and the limitations it presents, was one of the reasons Bernie Sanders chose to run as a Democrat rather than an Independent. Third parties rarely get the traction they need to mount an effective campaign. With our current voting system, an Independent run would not have gotten him as far. Running as a Democrat gave his voice and his ideas a platform that had a significant impact not only on the progressive agenda but also on the tone of the race that Clinton must now run in her bid for Presidency.
That brings us to another very important issue: the dangers of vote splitting. This is the “spoiler vote” or the “protest vote.” In battleground states, a protest vote is bit like saying you don’t like being pushed around by bullies, but you’re perfectly willing to swan dive off a cliff just to prove a point.
Young voters, many of whom supported Bernie Sanders, are too young to have internalized the 2000 election—with its painful recount—where Ralph Nader's Green candidacy may have taken just enough of the vote to win George W. Bush the election over Al Gore. I was 22 years old, and when the results came in, it was the first time I cried openly over politics. Jill Stein is working to debunk the "myth" that Nader tipped the election, but it seems less likely that the recount would have been needed, or Supreme Court involvement, with a Nader-free ballot. In fact, political scientists Gerald M. Pompter published an article in the 2001 summer edition of Political Science Quarterly titled "The 2000 Presidential Election: Why Gore Lost," which detailed via exit polls how the vote would have been split in a two-party ticket. In addition, to fight further naysayers, there was a ballot-level analysis conducted in 2006 that showed a clear lean toward Gore.
Another issue that the “First Past the Post” voting system brings to light when people try to vote for third parties is that, the better their candidate does, the more likely it is to hurt its own voters—by causing a loss for the candidate most otherwise closely aligned with their political beliefs and a win for the party with whom they are least aligned. Strategic voting is a must under a “First Past the Post” voting system. That’s why it’s a flawed system, but considering that it’s the one we have for this election, we have to work it and then keep working to change it.
I know we all feel very emotional. I’m the most emotional I’ve ever been about a presidential election. I'm just as exhausted by the two-party system, by politics as usual, by lies and cheats and an endless array of horrible "choices" handed down that make it seem like we're not making any progress. But we are making progress. If nothing else, we’re finally beginning to see the areas in which we need the most change. Thanks to the dramatic rise in street journalism, the dark underbelly of this country is being broadcast to us live and unfiltered. The truth is hard to look at, but seeing it is a good first step. One of those hard truths is that we’re still caught up in a rigged system. We haven't yet broken free, and that means that if we want to further a progressive agenda, we have to think strategically, not just emotionally. We can say we feel "bullied" into voting for candidates who don’t support all the ideals we support, but we still have a chance to play a role, to play the hand we've been dealt to the best of our ability. We’re not victims—yet. But if we don't think smart, we will pay the price, and that price will be the kind of extreme regression that makes it far more difficult to dismantle systems that do not serve the people. At worst, the consequence will be the destruction of America and the loss of freedoms we’ve been fighting to uphold for all citizens—not just a select few.
This is no longer an issue of Democrat vs. Republican, as evidenced by all the Republicans currently jumping a ship that’s not only sinking rapidly but doing so in a fashion more spectacular even than the sinking of the Titanic. We can't keep being shuffled into a system that asks us to compromise our integrity this much every election, but I don’t feel like I’m compromising my integrity voting for the candidate more likely to keep me and my voice alive. We have someone running for President who has little concern for humanity. I'm not talking about specific groups—women, the LGBTQ community, Muslims, Blacks, Mexicans, Native Americans, Latinos, Non-Christians—I'm talking about all people. That includes the white, working class citizens who largely form Trump’s base. He is saying what touches the deepest part of your fear, but he has no viable solution for alleviating any of the innumerable problems he rages about in speeches. He doesn't care about learning from others the things he doesn't know. In his mind, there’s no such thing.
The reason I can say with absolute confidence that Hillary is not the same as Trump is because Hillary would be a President. Even if she is a bad President, she would still uphold enough of the constitution to allow us to continue to move forward and fight for change. America, as we know it, has survived bad Presidents. But Trump is not a President. At no point has he ever exhibited any presidential qualities. Trump praises dictators. Dictators tell you what is acceptable, they tell you what to think, how to act. They say things like, “I am your voice” and actually mean it. And with someone like Trump, determining how the American public should act would be a decision made by his ego. What makes him feel powerful? What makes him feel like a really great man with a really great brain? It may be that simple. He's not a complex person. I don’t believe there is a mask beneath the mask. What you see day after day is what you get: arrogance, tantrums, and bullying.
I know I’m not alone in seeing this (and Trump’s recent poll numbers prove this). So the thing that frightens me the most right now is that you believe you have the luxury of a protest vote. If you're wrong, then your choice could be catastrophic and life altering. If you're wrong, we may all be turning our energy toward fighting for ground we'd already won.
This isn’t about badgering you to choose the lesser of two evils: it's about looking at the facts, even if they are ugly, even if we don't like them. It isn't the same thing as capitulation. It's not suddenly endorsing someone you don't like and pretending you agree with them for the sake of the common good. This is a strategic vote as a means to an end. This is a vote for whoever is actually going to leave America intact enough for us to keep fighting for real change. This is a vote for whoever is going to leave us allies in this world because we need them. This is a vote to continue doing the work of the women and men before us who fought to have a voice, a right to vote, a right to say what happens to their bodies, a right not to be imprisoned in camps, tagged, harassed, or murdered without consequence.
Being progressive, in this current reality, means continuing to push for accountability, continuing to fight for systemic change. And maybe it's a longer road than we’d hoped to travel before we reach the place where our dreams for this country can become a reality. But under Trump, I see no road. I see the dream changing to something that involves more struggle, not less. I see the silencing of not just my voice but of every voice that dissents. I see us further from equality, not closer. I see that the fight for change, for some of us, may become a fight for our lives.
That means, in this election, disappointment is not reason enough to stay home and leave the rest of us to carry this burden. Exhaustion with the system is not reason enough. Apathy, sadness, anger—I understand it all. I feel it, too. But I will not let those feelings stop me from battling, with all my might, this wave of fear-mongering and hatred and irrationality that is sweeping across us. Because this is about America—an America that is flawed, for certain. An America where we still have a long way to go before we can all say we're equal or where justice is upheld. But it's still my country. It's still my home. Right now, I am still free enough to write this, still free enough to go cast my vote.