The U.S. political system is currently structured for two parties. Voting for a third party presidential candidate is not a good idea.
At best, a vote for a presidential third party candidate is potentially bad for one of the two major party candidates. It is a common belief that Ralph Nader prevented Al Gore from winning Florida in 2000. The thought is that without Nader, who received thousands of votes in Florida, more Nader voters would have voted for Gore than would have voted for Bush. We can't know that for sure, but it does make sense given the platforms of each candidate. Bush beat Gore in Florida by only about 800 votes while Gore won the national popular vote by more than 500,000. If Gore had won Florida he would have been the next president. Imagine how that might have changed world history. Like no war with Iraq.
There are some people who think that third party voters kept Clinton from beating Trump in the 2016 race.
But worse than that is what happens if a strong third party candidate divides the vote totals so that no presidential ticket gets a majority of the electoral college vote (>=270). This situation is called a contingent election and it will get ugly very quickly.
According to ChatGPT here is roughly what would happen:
If nobody secures a majority of the electoral votes for president, the U.S. House of Representatives chooses the president from the top three vote-getters, with each state delegation casting one vote, and a candidate needs 26 state votes to win. Meanwhile, if there’s no VP majority, the Senate chooses the vice president. If the House hasn’t selected a president by Inauguration Day, the vice president-elect acts as president, or if there’s no VP-elect either, the Speaker of the House becomes acting president.
Read that paragraph carefully. It is just a summary, but even this exposes several issues with this process.
Representatives from each state vote as a group to determine their single vote from their state to elect the next president. Do you see any possible problems with that? The Representatives that vote are those from the new Congress just elected.
That means in a contingent election the state of California with 54 electoral votes (and approximately 16 million voters) has the same power to elect the next president as Wyoming with 3 electoral votes (and approximately 300,000 voters).
The vice president is selected by a similar process, but with a separate vote in the Senate. Senators must vote for one of the top two vice presidential candidates (the House chooses from the top three presidential candidates). Each Senator gets one vote. Fifty-one votes are needed (not just a majority of the Senators present at the time of the vote). So the vice president selected by the Senate could come from a different party than the president selected by the House.
I believe if the Senate selects a vice president elect, but the House has not selected a president elect by Inauguration Day, the vice president-elect is the acting president until the House selects a president-elect. If neither chamber has made their selections before Inauguration Day, the Speaker of the House is the acting president.
The Constitution originally had the presidential election and vice presidential election as separate. The 12th Amendment changed that. Now a party chooses a team of a presidential candidate and a vice presidential candidate, but the contingent election process still sees the presidential race and the vice presidential race as separate.
Without going into great detail, we might see candidates try to form coalitions to get the necessary votes in the House. Building a coalition might force a presidential candidate to elevate the power of some minor party or selected Representatives just to get enough votes to win the presidency. For an example, look at how Israel has had to suffer with the extreme religious right's hold on Netanyahu. He absolutely needs these extremist in his coalition so he must accept some of their absurd demands.
My point is, we don't want to ever get into a situation where the election goes to the House. Voting for a third party presidential candidate that can't possibly win is not just your way of making a statement, it could allow a candidate you would never vote for win.
If you think gerrymandering is a hot topic now, hold your breath if no candidate gets a electoral majority. Given that Trump thinks he is above the law, who knows how he (or a subsequent Republican presidential candidate) would deal with an election that went to the Congress. Again, it will get ugly very quickly. And if a third party is strong enough, contingent elections could become the norm and generate seismic changes to the political landscape. Small state Representatives will receive huge increases in campaign contributions since they will probably elect the next president.
I don't have a problem with third parties. I think the country would benefit from a more robust discussion of issues. But we need to abandon the Electoral College and change the presidential selection process. Allowing the House and Senate to determine presidential elections results seems like a very bad idea.
You can double check my information by asking ChatGPT or your AI for information about Presidential contingent election rules, Election & contingent election timeline, Electoral College rules.
