Is voting for a third-party candidate effective or is it a wasted vote? (And other third party questions) | BU Today

Q&A

With Bruce J. Schulman and Arjun Vishwanath

BU today: Is there a world in which a third-party candidate could ever receive the 270 Electoral College votes needed to win the presidency?

Bruce Schulman: You can never say never, but it certainly seems like no. The most successful third party candidacy came in 1912, when Theodore Roosevelt came second, receiving around 27 percent of the vote. Of course, he was a former President of the United States who had not been renamed by his party and was starting his own party. More recently, H. Ross Perot's third-party candidacy in 1992 received 19 percent of the vote, the second-highest in U.S. history – but he received zero electoral votes. Because of the electoral college system, it is extremely unlikely that a third-party candidate could win an election.

The best way to understand third parties, in my opinion, was said by the famous post-war historian Richard Hofstadter. He said third parties are like bees: once they sting, they die. For example, for the more substantial third parties that receive enough support to qualify for debates, they often emerge from a social movement because the two major parties do not appeal to any issue or constituency. What almost always happens is that they sting and then die because one of the major parties appropriates their message. This is the role of third parties, so to speak – they can bring about important changes in the political system. But no one has ever threatened to take power in the last century.

BU today: What factors are causing voters to look beyond the two-party system in this election?

Arjun Vishwanath: There are several reasons why voters might consider third parties. First, they may have ideological belief systems that do not align well with party platforms. For example, someone might hold more libertarian views and feel that neither the Democratic nor Republican candidates are articulating their views. Similarly, they might be more extreme – a socialist, for example – and think neither party is good enough. In the 2024 election, this was most clearly manifested in the debates over Israel and Gaza. Some voters believe that neither Joe Biden nor Kamala Harris have adequately responded to the plight of Palestinians, and are turning to other candidates like Stein or West. The second type of voter is someone who is dissatisfied with the broader American political system. You might think that the system between Wall Street and Washington is rigged, that the elites are all the same and achieve similar results, and so on.

BU today: We know this race is likely to be close in the swing states. What influence could these third-party candidates have on the election results?

Schulman: We don't really know yet. Different states have different third parties on the ballot – control of voting is entirely local in the United States, which is unlike almost any other modern democracy in the world. Right now it looks like votes for the Green Party will be votes taken away from Harris and the Democrats, and votes for the Libertarian Party will be votes taken away from Trump and the Republicans. That has certainly been the pattern since 2000.

If the poll results for this election are to be believed, it looks like third party candidates will actually do less well than in previous elections. According to polls, the two largest parties, the Greens and the Libertarian Party, have about one percent of the vote, whereas in 2016 they received about four to five percent of the vote. However, if this election is as close as predicted, (remember) key states were decided by 40,000 to 80,000 votes in some places last time. This year that could be the difference between victory and defeat.

BU today: You often hear it said that voting for a third-party candidate is a “waste of votes” because America is, for better or worse, a two-party system. Do you agree?

Schulman: It is common to view third party votes as wasted votes. Anyone who supports either major party will certainly tell you that. But it all depends on what you think the purpose of voting is: If you think it's just about deciding who wins and takes elective office, then third-party voting is certainly a waste. If you think it's a way for citizens to make statements about how they feel about the political system and what options they think they have or would like to have, then you can consider it a statement. Now these statements can often be counterproductive. For example, if you believe that the two major parties both serve conservative corporate interests and don't really support progressive causes, and you vote for the Green Party and that's why Trump becomes president, those views won't help you. But it is a way to make a statement.

Vishwanath: It depends on the context. Most general elections are not all that close, and so the effect of a marginal vote in these cases is essentially nil. Take Massachusetts for example: there is no way Trump will win this state. I think that in these cases it is more accurate to view one's vote as an expression of preference for the person one prefers most, because whether someone votes for Stein or Harris has no bearing on the final result (here).

Things get a little more difficult in more competitive jurisdictions. The likelihood of one vote deciding Michigan is infinitesimally small — but a group of, say, 10,000 voters deciding they prefer Stein over Harris could be crucial. The concern here is that these Stein voters may prefer Harris over Trump, but if they vote for Stein they would be allowing Trump to win, which is their least preferred outcome. This may or may not be the case – going back to the Israel/Gaza example: if these voters care primarily and believe that Trump and Harris are similar on this issue, then perhaps they won't mind too much if Trump wins. But even if they favor major party candidates, there is another reason why their vote can “count.” The threat – and knock-on effect – of third-party voting may cause major party candidates to alter their platforms accordingly. The logic goes that if Harris is afraid of losing these voters, she might take a more pro-Palestinian stance. And if she fails to do that and those voters cast the decisive votes against her, then future Democratic candidates will realign their positions to win those votes.

BU today: At the end of the day, what are the pros and cons of voting third party in a race where you don't like the traditional candidates?

Vishwanath: The pros and cons are the same as any other race – unless you're running in a crucial election. The advantages are that the voter is likely to vote for a candidate they most prefer, thereby sending a message. The downside, especially in close elections, is that they may end up with a worse alternative than the one they most prefer. If a pro-life voter dissatisfied with Trump's turn on the issue instead votes for the Constitution Party candidate (Randall Terry, an anti-abortion activist), thereby creating an election for Harris, Harris will likely become worse on abortion perform better than Trump from the perspective of pro-life voters. These are always the compromises that come into play in third-party voting.