Younger voters are not behaving like expected. In this election a significant number of people under 35 have expressed interest in voting for one of the 3rd party candidates.
In the 2016 election these voters typically divide their support between Libertarian Gary Johnson and Jill Stein of the Green Party. Polls have shown Johnson hovering around 8%, with Stein garnering slightly less at around 2-4%. While those numbers may seem small, in a close election this margin can make a big difference.
Why are younger voters supporting Johnson and Stein?
This actually shouldn’t be too surprising given the historically low favorables of both Trump and Hillary. Both candidates have struggled to achieve favorability ratings above 50%, they are currently at 38% and 42%, according to RealClearPolitics average. Perhaps more importantly, both Clinton and Trump have ‘unfavorable’ ratings that are double digits higher than their favorables.
It is also likely that younger voters, who traditionally lean Democratic, would hesitate to support Clinton, who is seen as the embodiment of the old politics guard. This image makes her particularly vulnerable at a time when younger voters are turning away from both political parties, and registering as Independents.
Beyond the national political and social factors; people vote for many different reasons. There are two arguments that seem to be the most common:
1) It’s a protest vote – the voter is dissatisfied with both major party nominees and chooses to register their dissatisfaction by voting 3rd party.
2) It’s a moral choice – the voter believes the 3rd party candidate more closely embodies their moral and political positions.
To the disappointment of many people, the reality is that one of the two major party nominees will be the next president of the United States. The question these two approaches fail to take into consideration is: which candidate would be better able to fulfill the duties of the Office of President to the benefit of the most people?
In a recent article on Vox.com, the author defends their support for Jill Stein by stating that it is a moral choice, not a practical one.
“I can cast my ballot without guilt, knowing that she represents who I am as a person. People tell me to compromise and vote for the lesser of two evils — but I cannot compromise when it comes to my beliefs, especially when they involve human rights and systemic oppression. If Stein didn’t happen to fall deeply in step with my views, I would abstain from voting entirely. I vote based on principle, not because of party loyalty.”
“It is a moral, not a pragmatic, act.”
I believe this is the wrong way to approach voting.
While I in no way doubt the sincerity of people who believe this — Jill Stein has proposed some arguably strange policies and made some outright dangerous claims, including leaving open the idea that 9/11 was an inside job, suggesting that the government can use quantitative easing to erase student debt, and yes, flirting with the idea that vaccines are dangerous.
It is perfectly acceptable in a free society for some people to believe these things as well. However, many of these ideas are outside the mainstream, and in some cases reveal a lack of understanding of how government works. An objective analysis would conclude that these positions would make any candidate unable to win over a majority of the country. There are additional obstacles to a Stein presidency as well.
A 3rd party candidate has never won a presidential election. And most never come close. While outsider candidates can have the ability to bring a singular issue into the national spotlight, they are more commonly known for pulling votes away from one of the major party candidates. Aside from the historical precedent, Jill stein is on the ballot in 45 states + DC, and is allowed to be written in in 3 more, and is currently getting 4% of the national vote. The success of previous 3rd party candidates has relied on a skilled politician whose message and charisma enabled them to build a nationwide movement, something that neither Stein nor Johnson seems capable of doing. All this points to the inevitable conclusion, Jill Stein will not be elected president.
The issues with moral voting
An argument I often hear from Jill Stein supporters is that they refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils. The idea being that just because Trump is terrible does not mean they should be forced to vote for a less-terrible Hillary Clinton, even if it may increase the likelihood of Trump getting elected. If you have a moral objection to voting for Clinton, then voting for her may also feel like throwing away your vote, and compromising your moral character to do it. However, this reasoning breaks down upon examination.
1. A vote based solely on personal morals, can lead to the immorality the voter wanted to avoid. Moral conviction is always a positive trait, and a strong moral conscious is useful when voting in a democratic society. However, a strict adherence to personal morals can lead to the very immorality the voter wanted to avoid.
As an ardent believer in the political process, I would never discourage anyone from voting. I think every single vote cast strengthens our democracy and should be applauded. And as citizens we have to accept the consequences of our actions. If people vote for a 3rd party candidate because they can’t neglect their moral conviction and vote for Clinton, then they have to do so with the knowledge that one of the consequences may be that Trump is sworn in on January 20th.
When the greater of two evils poses as fundamental a threat to our democratic institutions as Trump does, it is worth taking into consideration the importance of keeping him out of office.
2. There is a time and a place to vote passionately, and that’s in the primaries. To withhold your vote until a perfect candidate decides to run for office is to never vote in a presidential election. I live in California and know many Democrats who voted for Bernie Sanders in the primaries. They loved his activist liberal agenda as well as his outsider status. But now that he is no longer a viable option, they have moved to Clinton. Primaries are the ideal platform to vote in a more idealistic manner. It is the way for political parties to explore their identities, and the values of their members.
3. Voting for Clinton — even though you disagree with her on a few issues — to prevent a Trump presidency, is a moral vote as well. The chance of Trump getting elected is a real possibility, and so is the harm such an event would bring. Voting against Trump and for the candidate that would do the most good for the most people is a moral vote. The voter who believes Trump would be more harmful to the country, and still can’t vote for Clinton is the one occupying the morally dubious position. How much are you willing to put at risk in order to satisfy your personal moral convictions?
An individual’s motivations for voting are complex, but elections are very simple. There are two people with a chance at becoming the next president. Which one do think would be better for you and the country? It’s not more complicated than that.
American Election Blog 