Third Party Voters Know What They Want Analysis

The American system of government is democratic. Democracy is a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting. In America, they hold elections at the local, state, and federal level. In the elections the voters choose among the leaders of political parties for the open office position. America has two major political parties: Democrat and Republican. There are more political parties than that, but with the way the electoral process works most third parties are doomed to fail since they will not get the popular vote. Though for President and Vice President the popular vote does not matter since the Electoral College chooses the President and Vice President. Many eligible voters have decided to “protest vote” meaning not voting
at all or voting third party since they believe their vote does not matter. Does “protest” or third party voting really matter or affect the outcome of the presidential election because the Electoral College ultimately chooses the President and Vice President? This is a heavily debated topic that has fair points for and against. Voting is a statement of preference. The totals send signals to elected officials and future candidates about public attitudes. I believe through that protest voting is a controversial action that has positive and negative aspects, but despite opposition protest voting matters and affects the outcome of the election because popular votes determine the party’s platform and the way the electoral college votes. ‘Protest voting” is a wonderful liberty that Americans have to use their democratic right. Voting for the major party signals that what they are presenting is good enough while voting third party says the American people want better. The article by Emma Roller called, “Third Party Voters Know What They Want” depicts third-party voting as a positive action to take in lieu of not voting at all.
Roller interviewed more than 30 protest voters. The voters said they believe that both Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton are comparably repulsive candidates, while others believed that they are two sides of the same coin. These voters believed their vote as a way, putting an end to power from the two untrustworthy parties. (cite). Also their vote is their way of giving a message to the parties. Their vote tells the candidates what the voters care about, what concerns them, and what they want. The candidates should do as Roller said, “Better to at least try to sweep them back under the big tent than cast them into the wilderness.” (Cite). Meaning the major party candidates better listen up if they want the votes instead of letting the third party candidates from taking them all or even worse the voters not voting at all. Third party candidates are pressing hard for votes as they look to gain funding that could then make them a legitimate threat to the candidacy. Much can be said that there is an increase in the younger generation voting third party. These voters will be voting for many years to come and do not believe in the same rational or party lines as their parents before them. They are free thinking individuals that want their voices heard. Protest voters are executing their democratic right to vote for who they
believe best represents them so instead of pushing them away the candidates should pay attention to the protest voters to get them to cast their votes to the major two parties. Another view on the topic comes from Matthew Levinger in his article, “Voting Johnson or Stein? He Benefits.” Levinger’s article is arguing that if a person votes third party they are really casting a vote for a person who shares an opposite viewpoint than them. Supporting this statement is when Levinger wrote, “for supporters of Jill Stein and Gary Johnson, there is no plausible scenario under which Trump would be preferable to Clinton as president” (cite). Third party votes take away votes from the candidates from the two parties. This could lead to wrong candidate being elected into the presidential office like in the 2000 election. Where the winner of the election was stolen from Al Gore to George W. Bush because people voted for the third party candidate Ralph Nader instead of Gore. So if a lot of people vote third party the win, “could corrode the democratic culture and institutions about which Stein and Johnson care most deeply, making it harder for future progressive candidates to make their voices heard.” (Cite). Third party voters should really just go to the candidate that closely reflect their views since third party candidates usually never win and vote into the presidential office someone who has a better chance at succeeding. My personal stance on the topic is that protest voting matters because all votes count towards a party’s platform and their state’s electoral votes. Every American has the democratic duty to vote for someone to go into office. That is how democracy works which is what Americans pride themselves on. I agreed with Roller that it does not matter who someone votes for as long as they vote, be it one of the major parties or a third party. I disagreed with Levinger who says that if someone protest votes than they are basically voting someone in who has a different viewpoint than them who could potentially worsen the situation or system. I believe that any vote is a message to the parties. As in the case of a Stein voter named Patrick Cleary, who Roller interviewed, “You only get one chance every four years to send an actual message to the executive branch,” he goes on to state, “My message is that what they’re offering isn’t good enough, and that they need to start listening to people like Jill Stein.” (cite). Even if a person votes for someone that does not win their vote matters towards changing a party’s platform. Take Bernie Sanders for example, he lost the nomination, but his campaign had such an attainment that he prospered in coercing Mrs. Clinton to the left on matters of accessible higher education costs and the base pay. (cite). This occurrence has happened many times before. If someone has a successful campaign and they have a major base issue, then other parties take that platform and put it on their own platform. Protest voting also counts towards electoral votes. If a third party campaign is successful, then they could win their state’s electoral vote and if they win multiple states, they could win the presidency. Both the Democratic and Republican parties were once third parties themselves, but then they won the elections and have now become the two major parties. As history has a way of repeating itself and if the third party can gain funding, a third major candidate on the ballot may not be so far away. In conclusion, “protest voting” is a debatable feat that has favorable and unfavorable sides, but notwithstanding disapproval protest voting matters and affects the outcome of the election due to popular votes controlling the party’s stance on issues and the system by which the electoral college votes.
The favorable side is portrayed in Emma Roller article which explains how major party candidates should listen and tried to appeal to protest voters. That a majority of third party voters do not follow the same party lines as once did their parents. Since protest voters are still voters or would be voters who still have a voice that needs to be heard. The unfavorable side is portrayed in Matthew Levinger article where he tells his readers to just go to a candidate that has views more in line with your personal values since third party candidates are less likely to win and that it could be worse if a person does not vote or votes for the wrong candidate. Both articles have fair points, but I believed all votes matter and count as long as they are cast. Even if someone does not vote that is signaling that there is a problem that needs to be fixed to earn the vote. “Protest voting” is not a waste of an opportunity to exercise the American democratic right to vote. Regardless of the outcome of the election, the third party is not going away and candidates and voters alike would be best to listen to what they have to say as one day we may see the presidential race will become a
strong three or even four party race; we can only hope.