...And The Use Of Protest Votes
Third-party voters were blamed for indirectly helping Trump win his election in 2016. This year, some took a more active role.
– electoral-vote.com, 11/18/24
When the Democratic party rigged the primaries against Bernie Sanders during the 2016 election cycle, they fatally damaged their relationship with many of his supporters. While Donald Trump pretends to be a populist (ask any of the people he has cheated by refusing to pay his bills how pro-worker he is), Bernie gave an actual voice to the victims of the corporatists who control the Democratic and Republican parties. By silencing this voice, the Democratic Party confirmed the belief by many that neither major political party cared about the issues that were important to them. The results were catastrophic.
In the 2016 Presidential Election, 6,464,094 people voted for someone other than the two major party candidates, encompassing approximately 5% of the total vote. This was more than Hilary Clinton’s 2,868,691 vote margin of victory over Donald Trump. It was also significantly higher than the previous three elections:
Clinton may have decisively won the popular vote, but the undemocratic Electoral College system gave the presidency to Trump. This is where “other” is credited by some for changing the political landscape.
Trump won the Electoral College vote 306 to 232 in 2016. However, if Green Party candidate Jill Stein’s votes in three states were added to Clinton’s, Trump would have lost the lead. Clinton would have then won the Electoral College 278 to 260.
Of course, this projection severely oversimplifies a very complicated electorate. First, it assumes that if voters did not have the option to vote for Stein, they would not have stayed home or left that line blank in their ballot. Similarly, there is no guarantee that Stein’s voters would have automatically chosen Clinton in her absence. Finally, the Libertarian candidate was also on the ballot in the three flippable states, winning three times the votes for Stein. If we are going to fantasize about removing Stein, should we also remove Johnson? There is a good chance that his absence would have increased Trump’s count.
With the remote possibility that Stein cost Clinton the election, what did her voters accomplish with their vote? The common refrain from third-party voters is that there is no difference between the two parties, but is this accurate? While both are controlled by corporate interests that prevent policies that would help non-billionaires from being enacted, there are clear differences between the two. For example, with Clinton as president, we would not have a Supreme Court that decimated protections for women or granted Presidents king-like protection from accountability when breaking the law.
Amid the chaos of Trump’s presidency, the percentage of “other” voters in the 2020 election dropped back down to previous levels. Perhaps it was the hundreds of thousands of people needlessly dying because of his mishandling the COVID crisis or maybe it was the abhorrent reaction to demands for justice in the wake of the murder of George Floyd, but the electorate did not seem to have the stomach for a protest vote.
In the runup to the 2024 election, there was much handwringing over what effect third-party candidates would have on the results. Would the return of Jill Stein to the ballot, joined by Cornel West, drain votes away from Biden (then Harris)? Would Chase Oliver draw voters away from Trump or would the Libertarian hurt Harris by taking “Never Trumpers” away from her?
Nobody bought into this hype more than Robert Kennedy Jr. whose effect on the race was hotly debated. He tried to use this to his advantage as he offered to drop out and sell his support to the highest bidder. Harris passed and Kennedy endorsed Trump. He then spent his time in court either trying to remove or add his name to the ballot depending on whether he thought his presence in that state would harm or help Trump. He was rewarded with a nomination to run the Department of Health and Human Services despite his lack of medical experience and willingness to embrace every conspiracy that floats past the worm in his brain.
When the votes were counted, third-party candidates had no real effect on the race. Jill Stein and the Green Party only secured third place in the race, winning about .50% of the vote. Despite his “strategic” withdrawal, Kennedy received .49%. West earned the votes of a paltry 0.05% of the electorate.
These results should have been expected as the trendline over the past 25 years is flat, showing just a slight downward tilt. Americans talk a lot about the need for a third party, but very few seem willing to back that up with their vote.
What was surprising to me was the number of voters who instead of depositing their protest vote with a third party gave it to Trump. It is bewildering that the man who continues to rally against the Central Park 5 despite their proven innocence was able to increase his share of the black vote. Despite his rhetoric against immigrants and promises of mass deportations, Hispanic men also increased their support of Trump. Most perplexingly, Muslims in Dearborn, Michigan bragged about helping Trump defeat Harris even though he instituted a Muslim immigration ban during his first term. Even if these voters believed that Biden should have done more to end Israel’s continued killing of Palestinian civilians, do they think that Trump will do any better?
_____
Carl Petersen is a parent advocate for public education, particularly for students with special education needs, who serves as the Education Chair for the Northridge East Neighborhood Council. As a Green Party candidate in LAUSD’s District 2 School Board race, he was endorsed by Network for Public Education (NPE) Action. Dr. Diane Ravitch has called him “a valiant fighter for public schools in Los Angeles.” For links to his blogs, please visit www.ChangeTheLAUSD.com. Opinions are his own.
About the Creator
Carl J. Petersen
Carl Petersen is a parent advocate for students with SpEd needs and public education. As a Green Party candidate in LAUSD’s District 2 School Board race, he was endorsed by Network for Public Education (NPE) Action. Opinions are his own.
Reader insights
Nice work
Very well written. Keep up the good work!
Top insights
Compelling and original writing
Creative use of language & vocab
Easy to read and follow
Well-structured & engaging content
Expert insights and opinions
Arguments were carefully researched and presented
Heartfelt and relatable
The story invoked strong personal emotions
Masterful proofreading
Zero grammar & spelling mistakes
On-point and relevant
Writing reflected the title & theme
Keep reading
More stories from Carl J. Petersen and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
Man Jailed for Supplying Gangs With Thousands of Channel Small Boats
A major blow has been dealt to criminal networks operating across the English Channel after a man was jailed for supplying gangs with thousands of small boats used in dangerous migrant crossings. The case has highlighted the complex and often hidden supply chains that fuel people-smuggling operations and has renewed debate about border security, organized crime, and the humanitarian risks faced by migrants. The Hidden Backbone of Smuggling Networks While public attention often focuses on the boats intercepted at sea or the migrants arriving on British shores, this case has exposed a less visible but crucial link in the smuggling chain: suppliers. According to investigators, the jailed man was not steering boats or recruiting migrants. Instead, he acted as a key logistics provider, supplying inflatable vessels in bulk to organized gangs who then used them to transport people across one of the world’s busiest and most dangerous shipping lanes. Authorities revealed that thousands of small boats were distributed over several years, allowing smuggling networks to operate at scale. These vessels, often cheaply made and poorly equipped, were never designed for long sea journeys. Yet they became the primary tool for criminal gangs seeking to maximize profits while minimizing costs. Profits Over Human Life Investigators stressed that the boats supplied were frequently overloaded, lacking basic safety features such as reliable engines, life jackets, or navigation equipment. This disregard for safety has contributed directly to numerous incidents at sea, including capsized vessels, rescues in freezing waters, and tragic loss of life. Prosecutors argued that the supplier was fully aware of how the boats would be used. Financial records reportedly showed substantial profits generated through bulk sales, with little concern for the fate of those placed aboard the vessels. In court, the case was framed not just as a crime of illegal supply, but as an act that enabled life-threatening journeys. A Case With Wider Implications The sentencing has been described by officials as a warning to others operating behind the scenes of people-smuggling networks. Law enforcement agencies emphasized that tackling illegal crossings requires dismantling entire supply chains, not just intercepting boats at sea or arresting facilitators on the ground. By targeting suppliers, authorities hope to disrupt operations earlier and make it harder for gangs to replace equipment quickly. However, experts caution that smuggling networks are highly adaptive. Cutting off one supplier may raise costs temporarily, but demand for dangerous crossings often remains driven by conflict, poverty, and lack of legal migration routes. The Human Cost Behind the Crime Beyond the legal significance, the case has brought renewed attention to the human suffering linked to Channel crossings. Migrants who attempt the journey often flee war, persecution, or extreme hardship. Many are misled by smugglers who promise safe passage, only to place them in unseaworthy boats with little chance of rescue if something goes wrong. Human rights groups argue that while criminal suppliers must be held accountable, enforcement alone cannot solve the crisis. They warn that tougher crackdowns may push migrants toward even riskier routes, increasing the likelihood of tragedy. Government Response and Policy Debate The government has welcomed the conviction, describing it as proof that authorities are serious about dismantling organized crime linked to illegal migration. Officials reiterated commitments to stricter border enforcement, enhanced international cooperation, and stronger penalties for those involved in smuggling operations. At the same time, critics have questioned whether current policies sufficiently address the root causes of irregular migration. Some argue that without expanded legal pathways for asylum and labor migration, criminal gangs will continue to find customers willing to risk everything. A Signal to Criminal Networks The jail sentence sends a clear message that supplying equipment for illegal crossings is not a low-risk activity. Prosecutors emphasized that those who profit indirectly from human smuggling can face severe consequences, even if they never set foot on a boat. Security analysts suggest that future investigations may increasingly focus on manufacturers, distributors, and financial backers who enable smuggling operations from afar. This approach reflects a broader strategy used against other forms of organized crime, such as drug trafficking and arms smuggling. Conclusion The jailing of a man for supplying gangs with thousands of Channel small boats marks a significant moment in the fight against people smuggling. It exposes the industrial scale at which these operations function and underscores the deadly consequences of treating human lives as cargo. While the conviction represents progress for law enforcement, it also serves as a reminder that the Channel crisis is driven by a complex mix of criminal exploitation and human desperation. Ending the cycle will require not only tougher action against smugglers and suppliers, but also long-term solutions that offer safer, legal alternatives for those seeking refuge and opportunity.
By Fiazahmedbrohi 4 days ago in The Swamp
Comments (13)
A valid and insightful piece. I, for one, am tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. I would love to see some qualified and dynamic opponents. Thought provoking article, for sure.
Worth looking at preferential voting system in Australia. There’s an excellent satirical group called Australien Government (note the e) that has an explanation of how preferential voting works. The major parties are doing everything they can to nullify it.
Thank you for this well-researched and eloquently expressed piece! As someone who has been torn between third-party and lesser-of-two-evils voting for the past couple of elections, this discussion is wonderfully thought-provoking.
I protest didn't vote. Well, since 1992. None of those people are on your side IMHO. It's like leaving a suggestion card in a restaurant with 350 million customers, and thinking the chef will cook your steak better the next time you go thee.
Back in the 90s when Bill Clinton was President, I had voted Libertarian. People mocked me and said that I wasted my vote. They told me that I was Republican, but I knew that the party platforms were different. Though 5% of the votes were on "losers" and many will continue to state that voting for a 3rd party is "wasteful" I disagree. I'm glad to know that those votes have increased. It is a statement from voters saying "We do not want to vote for the lesser of two evils." We want to vote for good even if good is a loser. Our vote matters even if you call it wasteful.
Thank you so much for sharing your insight. It clarifies some specific points but sadly, doesn't soften the blow of the outcome. 4 years of antics, here we come!
Crazy times and politics. Great article and congrats on the Top Story!! 🎉🥳
Carl, congrats on your top story.
You should also take into account the elections in 1992 and 1996, and arguably, 2000. In 1992 the first time I could vote, Ross Perot used his fortune to actually buy prime time airtime so he could present the problems America was facing and his solutions. This was key because no other third party candidate has these resources, and the networks won't allow anyone in the debates aside from the major parties, so most of America, unless they're already dialed in to the alternative candidates, has no idea what anyone else stands for. They're just thought of as the fringe, crackpot candidates. As a result of putting himself out there, huge numbers of Americans voted for Perot. It wasn't quite a three-way tie, but Clinton only won by a plurality. He received 5 million more votes than George Bush, Sr. and Perot had 19.7 million votes. Far more people voted against Clinton than voted for him, and it was assumed that those who voted for Perot would have voted for Bush. If Perot hadn't run, the Clintons would be a footnote in history. Perot wasn't sure he was going to run in 1996, so he came in late, which made his supporters wonder if his heart was in it the second time. He also had a very weak running mate, so he only had about half as many votes as in the previous election. Still, if you added Perot's votes to Bob Dole's, the difference between Clinton and Dole would have been only about 200,000 votes, a narrow victory. This was forgotten in the highly contested election of 2000. That time Gore won the popular vote by about 540,000 votes, but George W. Bush won by 5 electoral votes. Ralph Nader was the big third party candidate that time, with 2.8 million votes. If his votes had been added to Gore, the victory would have been decisive, not narrow and divisive. His supporters largely ignored the irony of Gore only being Vice President because Perot ran, giving Clinton his victory. Also, people who vote third party may actually be voting their conscience. I've seen these statements on social media before and after this year's election, as people discussed whether the votes were wasted. If you find both candidates objectionable, are you obligated to vote for them or should you actually vote for a candidate you'd like? Some said voting for who you actually wanted to win rather than one of the two parties makes a statement, one that's growing, as you've shown, that we need more alternatives. Finally, in some states, it doesn't quite matter. There are deep red and deep blue states. If you live in one, and you vote the other way, in the big scheme of things, your vote is lost. Your state will still go red or blue. I live in one of those states, and I voted my conscience just so my vote would be counted in the popular vote total, knowing how much people point to it as evidence of popular opinion.
Congratulations on Top Story!!
I appreciated the research that went into this story.
Its weird how 3rd party voting persists. At best, understanding that it won't matter and can only hurt them, they'll suggest that it will at some point in the future matter. How? Idk. Like after the election is over, everyone who voted for major party candidates and circle back and feel bad that they were unmotivated and change our constitution to some parliamentary system or something. In reality, the party that wins has the power and they're glad you didn't vote. And then we just repeat 4 years later. As if the country just started or third parties just started. Anyway ...
The voting system does need adjusting, how I don’t know. I live in Canada where we allow too many parties to run and not enough people to support that system. It always ends up with a minority Gov’t.