I don't know too many people who are excited about their options for the upcoming presidential election. Back in 2008, I used to joke that if Hillary had a chance to run against Bush, we would have had 100% voter turnout, half to vote against Clinton, and the other half to vote against Bush. The point was that no one would be voting "for" anyone, only against a much hated opponent. Ironically that theoretical conundrum is nothing close to the current reality we face. Both main party candidates are viewed unfavorably by a majority of the American public, far more so than the Bush presidency ever was. This has led to a major debate about the issues involved with third party candidates, and a number of interesting ideas have been put forward.
Some people are convinced that voting for the lesser of two evils is immoral, and that they will vote for a third party candidate, or no one at all. Others claim that voting for a third party candidate is similar to not voting anyway. Based on the structure of our elections, that may be technically true, if it is also true that third party candidates have no practical chance of winning. This can't be proven, but we can look to the historical example of Ross Perot to examine the chances of that happening, and the possible effects. It seems pretty clear from looking at the numbers that Perot's campaign cost Bush Sr that election, but another 10% of the vote and he could have actually won. So it is possible, but that was from a mature political campaign that had time to build up, not a last minute shotgun attempt.
So if we assume that third party candidates don't have a realistic chance of actually winning, at least in this election, let's look at the mathematical effects of a third party vote. Let's say we dislike Clinton more than Trump, but we want to vote libertarian to "make a statement." Based on the way the election is structured, this actually helps Clinton, the candidate we like the least. Not voting also helps Clinton in the same way. Candidates are not trying to get a set 50% of the vote, they just have to get more than any other candidate in that state. (They do need 50% of the electoral college votes from the states, but that is a different issue, to be examined later) So a vote for one candidate is also a vote against all of the other candidates. If we vote for Trump, that is one less vote he needs to beat everyone, and one more vote everyone else needs to get to top him. Essentially in this case your vote counts for two. If there are 10 voters, and Trump is down by 4 votes, he only needs to get two voters to switch sides from Clinton. (A 4 point deficit of 3-7 becomes 5-5 if two people switch)
But if we add in third party options, this where people seem to be confused about the results. Lets examine the same ten voters, and say there are 3 Democrats, 3 Republicans, 3 independents, and one hard core Green member who never considers anything else. Usually candidates need to get 5 of the remaining 9 to win, which is 2 of the 3 independents. But if two voters who usually vote Republican jump on the #NeverTrump bandwagon, and vote Libertarian, it very much helps Clinton. Now she doesn't need 5 votes to win, she only needs 4 total. Even if Trump got 2 of the 3 independent voters, Clinton still wins, and with fewer total votes than she would otherwise need. If 50% of the votes was required to win, voting third party would hurt Trump, but not help Clinton reach 50%. But 50% is not required, so a third party vote actually helps Clinton win. This assumes the third party voter dislikes both main candidates, but prefers Trump over Clinton. The reverse would be true for most Bernie supporters. Unless the third party candidate actually wins, a vote for them actually helps the candidate you like the least, compared to if you had limited your options to the main two parties.
On the other hand, if you have absolutely no preference between the two main candidates, then go ahead and vote third party, but I guarantee you won't like the result. And I'd say if you have zero preference between the options, you haven't done your research, as there are many differences. Some people compare it to the choice between death by gunshot or drowning, but if that is an accurate analogy, shouldn't you still have a preference in that case? If I was certain to die either way, I'd take the gunshot, if there was some chance I might make it, I'd take the water. My preference would depend on the specifics of the situation, but I would definitely have a preference. Research the specifics of the situation, and figure out what you prefer. Even if your preference is different than mine, I can respect that more than just throwing up your hands and ignoring the situation.
Now I am not as opposed to third party candidates as this makes me sound, I am just laying out the hard math of the situation. A few months ago, I was actually hoping that Bernie would make a separate run. Not because I wanted him to win, and not because I wanted the left vote split to ensure Trump wins. I wanted him to run because that would have created an opening for a conservative third (or fourth in this case) party candidate who might actually have a chance of winning due to that situation. It would have removed the "only way to defeat Clinton is to support Trump" argument that is actually true, based on the math above. If both sides had split, there would be a reasonably even, four way race, with real options available, which is a novel concept for Americans. But that didn't happen, and this is the situation we are faced with. Morally, I'd say we are responsible for the outcome of our actions, not just our intentions. If a bunch of third party votes, (or no votes) lead to a statistical change in the outcome, those voters are as responsible for the outcome of the election as those who voted for the candidate who won. (Or technically half as responsible, but still very much responsible)
But what if the winner would have won regardless of their vote? Doesn't that make it more complicated? They didn't know that would happen when they voted, so I'd say they would still be responsible. But what if they did know that? I live in CA, and democrats usually win by a huge margin. That is more complicated, and that is the decision I am looking at. At this point, my vote will depend on the polls, with the intent to oppose Clinton. If a third party is close to being a realistic contender, I may vote for them. If not, is Trump winning the state a reasonable possibility? If so, I will vote for him in a bid to oppose Clinton. If there is no way Clinton is going to lose the state, then I can vote for whoever I want, but only because my vote doesn't really count, at least in regards to having an effect on the outcome. But in that case I would vote third party to make a statement, and possibly help get them over thresholds that will help increase options in future elections. But for people who live in states where their vote has an actual effect on the outcome of the election, look closely at the situation and the numbers before you make your decision.
