In the presidential election of 2000, Green Party Nominee Ralph Nader ran against Al Gore and George Bush with a platform promising to address America’s corporate corruption. This stance was notably far more of a leftist than right-wing stance. Gore lost the election to Bush, following a Supreme Court decision that awarded Bush victory in Florida, where Gore finished with about 500 fewer votes. Had the Florida contest ended differently, one can imagine the drastic consequences: The Iraq War might not have been started, and we would have made much more headway in addressing climate change, which was one of Gore’s main focuses.
Alas, Bush won. Nader has since been labeled a Populist spoiler, responsible for taking votes in Florida that presumably would have gone to Gore otherwise, considering Nader (and Nader supporters) were more liberal than conservative.
If we recognize our upcoming election as a possible reoccurrence of this phenomenon, in which young voters are looking toward third-party candidates who likely won’t win, but who reflect their ideals better than either Trump or Clinton, it becomes clear that we are dangerously close to letting our emphasis on personal values trump (pun intended) effectiveness. If young people vote for third-party candidates, we lose votes that could be put toward choosing the lesser of two evils (one of whom is bound to win). We might think that individual votes don’t matter, but if large numbers of young voters who passionately felt the Bern choose to vote for, say, Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, we run the risk of another 2000 election, where another George Bush emerges as president.
It is understandable that neither Clinton, who is 68, nor Trump, who is 70, is exciting enough to young voters (especially considering their political stances, as young voters tend to be more progressive than conservative, and neither Clinton nor Trump embody the passionate liberalism of Sanders). Trump is blatantly racist, sexist, and bigoted; the consistency with which he spews ignorant remarks indicates that malice is part of his real personality, not just his persona. Clinton, on the other hand, seems too close to the center in her ideology, too far from Bernie to appeal to millennials.
Yet voters who dislike Clinton cling onto every counterargument, regardless of its relevance to her presidential abilities. Her email scandal, undoubtedly a transgression, is seen as a testament to her inability to run the country. Her hawkish foreign policy and difficulty presenting herself as personable (something Obama has had no problem with) make her seem unappealing, though potential voters fail to acknowledge that inherent in Hillary’s womanhood is the implication that if she were delicate and sensitive, she would not have gotten where she is today.
In my ideal situation, Bernie would run against Trump, and Bernie would win. But this is not the case, and thus liberal voters must adapt and adopt the next best solution, just as Bernie has done in voicing his support for Hillary. Sanders could have refused to endorse Clinton, or even ran as a third-party candidate himself, but doing so would not be strategic in achieving the ultimate goal of preventing Trump from taking office.
An election like this raises the question of whether voters should place more value on the act of voting as an expression of one’s conscience, or on the act of voting as a means to achieve something practical and important. If we want to make a difference, we should see voting as an act of pragmatism. It doesn’t make sense to vote third party, so think ahead. Or think back to Ralph Nader.
Emelia Gertner is a member of the class of 2020.