tl;dr Vote for libertarian Gary Johnson for president.
I did my best, I really did, to encourage Democrats to vote for Bernie Sanders and to encourage Republicans to vote for literally anyone except for Donald Trump. My post on the presidential primaries continues to receive daily search traffic.
But it wasn’t enough. The Clinton family is a well-oiled political machine. Trump is an oily businessman who knows how to get what he wants. Unless either the DNC (Democratic National Committee) or the RNC (Republican National Committee) pull some last-minute strings, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump will be on the 2016 presidential ballot.
And a lot of people are not okay with that. In fact, a recent poll of over 16,000 Americans reveals that the majority of Americans dislike both Clinton AND Trump. From the NBC News summary:
Nearly six in 10 Americans said they either “dislike” or “hate” Clinton, while slightly more — 63 percent — expressed negative opinions about Trump. Four in 10 voters said they “admire” or “like” Clinton, and 36 percent said they “admire” or “like” Trump.
More than that, the number-one reason both Clinton supporters and Trump supporters like their preferred candidate is because they oppose the other candidate. Which raises the question…
Why are American voters settling for the “lesser of two evils”?
There is a third option. Or rather, a third-party option.
What are US third parties?
Most Americans are aware of the two major political parties: Republican and Democratic. However, other small political parties also exist, three of which are somewhat major. These major third parties are:
Each of those links are to each party’s official website if you’d like detailed information.
In the simplest of terms, the Constitution Party is very conservative, the Green Party is very liberal, and the Libertarian Party is fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
Who should vote third-party?
Are your values more closely aligned with a third-party than with either major party?
Then you should vote third-party.
Do you “dislike” or “hate” both Clinton and Trump?
Then you should vote third-party.
Do you think the presidential primaries do not adequately reflect the wishes of the voters?
Then you should vote third-party.
Are you upset with the current political system?
Then you should vote third-party.
Is the future of your country more important to you than winning?
Then you should vote third-party.
Do you live in a red state or a blue state? In other words, does your state always vote for either the Republican presidential candidate or the Democratic one? Based on historical precedent, a majority of voters in your state will still vote Republican or Democratic. If so, then your vote will not affect your state’s presidential vote.
And you should vote third-party.
A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll indicates that 44% of voters want a third-party option against Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Now is the time to vote third-party.
Furthermore, my own totally-not-scientific poll* indicates a very split electorate. I asked, “Out of the following candidates, which would you elect as president?” Their answer choices (randomized) were:
- Hillary Clinton
- Donald Trump
- Gary Johnson
- Jill Stein
- Other
Out of 100 responses, 36% chose Hillary Clinton, but 35% chose “Other.” Those responses included:
- Bernie Sanders (17%)
- Undecided (3%)
- None of the above (5%)
And a few select direct quotes from those “Other” replies:
- Sweet, sweet oblivion
- Don’t want to choose any of these but if I had to it would be anyone but Trump.
- I have not researched the third party candidates enough to know about them. Out of the two main party candidates, HRC.
- Is this an appointment thing? Whoever I pick gets the presidency, no other votes counted? Stein.
- Bernie Sanders or John Kasich
- I really don’t support any of the listed candidates, but if you put a gun to my head and made me pick, I suppose I would choose Hillary
*Really not scientific. My demographics are 71% female, 46% aged 21-29, and 89% white. Also I did get over 100 responses, but the free version of SurveyMonkey only lets me access the first 100. If I hit 250 responses, I’ll spring for a month’s subscription and do a whole blog post on the survey results.
What is the Libertarian Party?
Founded in 1971, the Libertarian Party is the third largest political party in the United States measured by votes cast. In the 2012 presidential election, Gary Johnson and Jim Gray won 1% of the popular vote, with a record 1,275,821 votes, the most received by any libertarian presidential candidate.
If you’ve been around my blog before, then you know I’m a libertarian. Like I said above, the simplest way to describe myself is socially liberal and fiscally conservative. In fact, I described myself that way for a long time before I even discovered the Libertarian Party!
But defining libertarians that way is using the language of Republicans and Democrats instead of emphasizing our core beliefs. While it’s helpful to find a shorthand description to introduce libertarian values to Republicans and Democrats, I think it’s better to emphasize personal freedom. From the preamble of the Libertarian Party Platform, as adopted at the 2014 Convention:
As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.
We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.
Consequently, we defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.
Basically, we believe in a limited government. And not the whole faux limited government espoused by Republicans, who want a government small enough to fit inside my uterus. Libertarians are pro-choice on pretty much everything, from how you spend your money to what you do to your body.
2016 Libertarian National Convention
Yesterday concluded the five-day Libertarian National Convention, held this year in Orlando. This year’s theme was #LegalizeFreedom. Yes, with a hashtag.
While we probably won’t get to see a contested convention with the Republicans or the Democrats, the Libertarian National Convention ended up contested as delegates first voted for the presidential nominee and then the vice-presidential nominee. In the first round of voting, candidate Gary Johnson (former Republican governor of New Mexico) received 49.5% of the vote, just shy of a majority. On the second ballot, Gary Johnson secured the nomination with 55.8% of the vote.
While the Republican and Democratic presidential nominees choose their respective running mates, the delegates at the Libertarian National Convention vote for the vice-presidential nominee. Gary Johnson’s choice, William Weld (former Republican governor of Massachusetts), received 49% of the vote on the first ballot. In the second round of voting, he just won the nomination with 50.6% of the vote.
When Dan and I still lived in Ohio, we attended the 2014 Libertarian National Convention in Columbus. There we met several libertarians from around the country, including Nathan Grabau. Nathan and I are Facebook friends, and I noticed he was at the convention this weekend. I reached out to him for his thoughts on Gary Johnson.
The Double Governor ticket has the ability to shift us from a think tank to a true political party. The Libertarian Party of Radical Caucus members stripping at the convention will soon be in our past. We are ready to be a serious option for American Voters, and I cannot wait to see Governor Johnson in the Oval Office.
While Nathan is not an official spokesperson for Gary Johnson’s campaign, he supports the Libertarian Party with both passion and eloquence, and he previously served as the Chair of the Libertarian Party of Colorado.
Who is Gary Johnson?
Gary Johnson is the Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate for the 2016 general election. He was also the candidate in the 2012 election, with running mate Jim Gray.
Gary Johnson also served as the Republican governor of New Mexico from 1994-2003. During that time, he vetoed over 750 bills, more than all the other governors combined. When he left office, New Mexico was one of only four US states with a balanced budget.
When Gary Johnson and Jim Gray ran in the 2012 election, they received the most votes of any libertarian presidential candidate. And that was in an election with an incumbent Democrat and a moderate Republican. Imagine how successful Gary Johnson will be on a ballot against Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
Why should you vote for Gary Johnson?
If you’re worried about the $20 trillion national debt, vote for Gary Johnson. He “has pledged that his first major act as President will be to submit to Congress a truly balanced budget.”
Are you frustrated by the political machine in Washington, D.C.? Are you tired of career politicians? Gary Johnson wants to implement term limits for senators and representatives.
If you think the US tax code is too complicated, vote for Gary Johnson. He wants to overhaul the tax system and eventually replace income taxes and payroll taxes with a consumption tax.
Do you support the legalization of marijuana? So does Gary Johnson.
“Fifty percent of Americans right now are registering themselves as independent, meaning new voters are registering themselves as independents. Where’s that representation? Well, I happen to think it’s libertarian. I happen to think that most people in this country are libertarian, they just don’t know it. Here’s the great opportunity leaving here today.”
Or you could read more of my words! If you’re a Republican, I’ve shared 5 reasons to vote libertarian instead. If you’re a Democrat, I’ve also shared 5 reasons why you should vote libertarian.
Read more about the specific issues on Gary Johnson’s website or on his page at On The Issues.
Why you should vote for Gary Johnson even though he probably won’t win
I’ve seen people argue over and over again that voting third-party is “wasting your vote.” Honestly, that’s an immature and self-centered understanding of our political system. The only vote wasted is the vote not cast.
Realistically, Gary Johnson probably can’t beat Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. Although, honestly, considering how many Republicans are “Never Trump,” and how many Democrats can’t stand Hillary, this is the year when Gary Johnson could actually win.
Regardless, out of all the third-party presidential candidates, Gary Johnson has the best chance at winning 5% of popular vote nationwide. And that 5% matters a lot more than you realize.
If a third-party presidential candidate gets 5% of the vote in an election, that political party receives federal funding for the next presidential election. Federal funding would make a huge difference in the next election.
Also, if the margin of victory is smaller than the percentage of votes earned by third-party candidates, then the two major parties might realize that they need to listen to dissident voters. Once upon a time, our political system was not so polarized. It’s not too late to practice bipartisan politics again.
Gary Johnson is already polling at 10% against Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. If that number jumps to 15% in enough national polls, the media networks should invite Gary Johnson to the presidential debates.
To quote my husband, “Repeatedly voting for the lesser of two evils is what has brought us to the ridiculous evil we have today.”
There are multiple third-party choices, but only one on the ballot in all 50 states: Gary Johnson. Only one third-party candidate has a chance of earning that magical 5% of the popular vote, or even winning: Gary Johnson.
You can make a difference in the political system by voting third-party, even if your candidate doesn’t win.
How do you feel about third-party candidates? What is your opinion on the 2016 presidential race? Share your thoughts below!
P.S. Keep up with all my political thoughts on Twitter!
I voted Bernie, and will probably still write in Bernie; but of course my fear is that by digging in my heels against the establishment that we will hand the election to Trump. But only time will tell. Being from New Mexico, even though I was a kid, I do remember all the Johnson years and he was always quite popular across party lines.
Semi-related question for you. As an ex-pat, do you vote absentee in your home state, or do you vote as part of the Democrats Abroad?
If it’s any reassurance, unless you’re voting in a swing state, your write-in vote won’t affect Hillary or Trump. Of course, your vote for Gary Johnson could help the political system in four years… I’m just saying!
Unfortunately, New Mexico does tend to be a swing state with a slight democratic leaning at the moment. In the primaries I voted as part of Democrats Abroad but in the election I’ll vote absentee in New Mexico.
Amanda, don’t write in Bernie. They only look at write-in ballots if they need to do a recount. Even then they won’t care about yours, because it won’t say Clinton or Trump.
Ron Paul expressed that he should not be written in during the last election. He said it would be better to vote third party than write his name down. At least they will count your third party vote. That sends a message. The high voter turn out for Libertarians was due to some people not writing in Ron Paul. If you want the Dems to feel the Bern vote third party.
I don’t particularly want to stick it to the Democratic Party aka to feel the Bern. The way that the Democrats have been acting recently makes me question if it’s a party that I want to be a part of. I want to vote for someone that I support wholeheartedly, and at the moment, no 3rd party candidate ticks all the boxes for me. If I wanted to vote for someone just so my vote would be “counted” I’d have blindly voted for Hillary. So yes, I still might write in, if only for my own conscience. However, it’s my understanding (but of course I could be wrong) that write in law varies from state to state so ultimately it depends on where you are voting.
Essentially since any third party candidate has very little chances of winning, voting for a third party isn’t so much a vote for that candidate to win as much as it is registering a vote against the two major party candidates. Every single 3rd party vote is counted if the candidate is on the ballot. Unless Republicans or Democrats lose an election by a margin that 3rd party votes could have overcome, they have no reason to appeal to voters that don’t like what the parties have become.
Voting for a R or a D to spite the other candidate is a vote for worse candidates in the next election. Writing in a vote is a complete waste for lack of being counted at all (might as well stay home and complain on Facebook). Voting for a 3rd party makes ballot access easier, makes the two major parties consider their candidates more seriously to appeal to a broader voting group, and may even help get election laws changed to make it possible for more candidates to be eligible for the ballot in the first place.
Voting 3rd party doesn’t win you this election, it wins you a better election in the future. We’ve pretty much lost any hope at this point of having a good president for the next 4 years…
I’m a staunch Democrat and I’ve been a Hillary Clinton supporter since 2007. BUT I absolutely agree with you about third-party options and would encourage folks to vote for a third party candidate if they aren’t wild about the D or R nominee. Ever since I took my international politics class in college, I have always believed that America needs to rethink it’s political system and get rid of the two-party nonsense. Also, huge props to you for consistently covering politics on your blog! Though I’ve done it before, I’m nervous to do it this election cycle.
I’ve had a few Trump supporters leave nasty comments, but otherwise people really like my political posts. Everyone has a bias, and it’s disingenuous to pretend objectivity, but I do try to provide as many solid facts as possible. How to act after reading those facts is up to my readers, but I want them to be informed on the stuff the media doesn’t cover properly.
I won’t vote for either Clinton or Trump, to me, neither is preferable to the other. I don’t want either one president-ing our country, but being from Michigan…it’s most likely going to go to Clinton. I’ll decide who I’m voting for (absentee, of course) when it’s closer to the big event. Every country has its issues with the leadership…it’s been very interesting getting to know how our friends in China and our friends in Malaysia view their own leaders.
Hey, if Gary Johnson doesn’t appeal to you either, there are other third-party candidates. You’ll just have to figure out if they make it on the Michigan ballot or not. I don’t think it’s too late for other third-party candidates to get on some state ballots.
I definitely enjoyed discovering other perspectives when I lived in France. I learned so much about other countries just by hanging out with my international friends. <3
We have a two-party system. Specifically, we have single-seat plurality elections for all significant offices. If we want multi-party politics, we won’t get there by voting for third parties within a
two-party system. We can get there only by changing the election system away from single-seat plurality.
There are lots of other alternatives, but the two that are most well-known (still not very) are majority voting and multi-member “superdistricts”.
Many people would be surprised to hear that we don’t already have majority voting. But a candidate can win an election with 43% of the vote (to pick a number not at all randomly). “Majority” means over 50%. (Sometimes people say “50% plus one vote”, but that’s wrong: two votes out of three is a majority, but 50% of three is 1.5, so 50% plus one vote would be
two and a half votes.) To have majority voting would mean some kind of runoff elections. The most often recommended option is instant runoff voting (IRV), where you don’t have a separate election. Instead, second-choice options are designated somehow, and if no candidate gets a
majority, the candidate with the lowest vote total is eliminated and if you voted for that candidate as first choice, your second-choice vote is counted instead. The process is repeated if necessary, until some candidate has a majority.
Superdistricts apply only to offices there’s more than one of, like representatives in Congress or in
the state legislatures. They’re the only way to truly end gerrymandering (without getting rid of geography-based representation entirely). If you assign the task of drawing districts to some
institution that’s supposed to bipartisan or nonpartisan, the main effect is to put pressure on that institution to become partisan. But if you make districts have enough representation that they’re going to have at least one representative from each of the major parties, the
incentive to gerrymander them almost disappears.
To the general public, the main selling points of IRV and superdistricts are, respectively, that it’s undemocratic to elect someone who doesn’t represent most people, and that it’s undemocratic to have the politicians choose their voters instead of the the other way ’round. Majoritarianism and
anti-gerrymandering. But to those of us who want to see multi-party politics, the relevant thing about them is that they both would help change the two-party system.
IRV means that voters and activists no longer need to worry about the spoiler effect,
so they can show their true level of support for third-party options. However, there can be at most two parties with a plausible chance of getting a majority. So, for donors and volunteers trying to make a difference, it would still make sense to focus their support mostly on
the less objectionable of the major parties. IRV would help, and it’s applicable to all offices, not just representative. By itself, though, it wouldn’t create a truly level playing field of multi-party politics.
The effect of superdistricts depend on the details. In particular, it depends on how many candidates you vote for.
If you vote for as many candidates as there are seats up for election, it’s better for third parties than single-seat voting, but you would still have the two most popular parties each running a full slate of candidates. As long as differences between parties were bigger than differences within parties, most voters’ best option would be to vote for the full slate of candidates from their first-choice party. The spoiler effect would be diluted, but it would still be there: you could vote for your favorite third-party candidate while giving up a vote only for you least-favorite major-party candidate, but you would still be casting a vote for a candidate less likely to win, and thereby probably letting the other major party elect one of their candidates.
On the other hand, if you vote for only one candidate and the top N vote-getters win, the natural way for activists to organize themselves is into several separate parties each focused on being the first choice of a different group of voters. That’s the system that would really
favor multi-party politics.
I actually prefer yet another option, but superdistricts and IRV at least are things that some people have heard of. I’m getting long-winded already, just describing superdistricts and IRV, so I won’t go into my favorite options in this comment. I’m not a consequentialist, not a majoritarian. I want whatever system will produce sound policy that protects everyone’s rights, and balances everyone’s wishes as long as they don’t infringe anyone’s rights. If that means majorities for some purposes, fine by me. But if it means supermajority requirements for some things, or even unanimity, that’s fine too. And if it means some things can be done with less than a majority, I’m ok with that as well. Likewise for the number of parties. I think it would work best to have multi-party politics, and (among other things) a majority requirement for a candidate to become president. But vote thresholds and party structure are a means to an end as far as I’m concerned, not an end in themselves.
If anyone made it through all that, thank you for reading.
Where in the constitution does it say we have a two party system?
Where in the Constitution does it say that the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be diddly-squat? Where does it say that in each state, the manner that the legislature thereof shall direct for choosing of electors, shall be of no consequence?
We have election laws, saying that all significant offices are elected by single-seat plurality voting (or the equivalent via the electoral college). That means we have a two-party system. We wouldn’t need to change the Constitution in order to have majority elections and no more gerrymandering, but we would need to change a bunch of laws.
While I agree with you that we need to change the electoral systems in this country, I’d like to know how you propose doing anything about it without supporting a third party. The two major parties benefit from the current broken voting system and will not entertain any process to change it. This is true from the local level to the president. Citizens have no power to change the laws except through their elected representatives. So unless you can find a R or a D willing to actually vote against their best interest, you need to vote for third parties or independent candidates to have any chance of fixing the voting process.
I’m talking about changing the party structure, not about eliminating the overwhelming advantage that incumbents have over challengers. The incumbents would almost all stay in office, in any particular election, just as they do now. But instead of being all Democrats and Republicans, with some Democrats from the Warren/Sanders wing of the party and others from the Clinton/Blue-Dog wing of the party, and with some Republicans from the Establishment wing of the Party and others from the Tea-Party wing, they would have an incentive to intensify the identification until the wings became separate parties. At that point, candidates from other parties would be able to compete on an even footing with challengers from the parties that began as parts of the major parties. Neither would be able to compete on an even footing with incumbents: breaking the stranglehold of incumbents is a much harder problem, because it would run into exactly the problem you raise. But as seats become open, through retirement or through moving up to a higher office, all parties would be able to compete equally for those seats. So in a generation there would be an equitable representation of former third parties and former wings of the major parties.
Not as soon as one might hope, but it’s a lot sooner than never, which is what we get by voting third-party within a two-party system.
As I said, the rhetorical focus would have to be on how undemocratic gerrymandering is, and on majority voting. Action would have to be focused on major-party primaries, because it’s in a candidate’s best interest to accept support in a contested primary, when there’s no major downside to it. And, for a candidate who would rather be a Green or Libertarian or Socialist, but has to run as a Democrat or Republican if they want to have any chance at winning under the plurality system, it’s definitely in their interest to support changing the election system.
A well written piece! You asked for thoughts, so here they are!
Buyer beware! Brita presents an image of the Libertarian Party that seems quite pragmatic and a good fit for most voters. BUT a little digging shows that the Libertarian party has some very radical conservative views that are conveniently omitted or distorted in this piece. Let’s offer just two examples:
Environment– Johnson thinks it is the “proper role of government to enforce reasonable environmental protections [like] preventing a polluter from harming our water or air”. But while coal plants pour harmful gasses into our atmosphere creating acid rain, while fracking risks polluting our air and water with methane leaks and secret chemicals, and while fossil fuel emissions take a huge public health toll with growing numbers of Americans suffering from asthma and respiratory conditions– Governor Johnson explicitly says the Government’s “proper role” is to step back and watch. What are fossil fuel emissions if not pollution? Perhaps he believes fossil fuel corporations will show the same self-restraint that Wall Street did before the financial collapse.
20 Trillion dollar debt– who doesn’t want to get rid of it, or at least stop adding to it? A balanced budget is sound fiscal policy we can all get behind right? But the public at large, most economists, and even a bi-partisan commission specifically set up to address the debt (Simpson-Bowles) all agree on one thing: Any politically viable solution to the deficit must include a combination of spending cuts AND revenue increases through taxation, ideally on the very rich. Gary Johnson’s radical position says he’ll veto ANY budget that isn’t balanced AND any budget that includes ANY tax increases of any kind, whatsoever. That’s a critical omission, Johnson wants a balanced budget, but he isn’t open to an creative ideas about how to balance it.
Brita says “It’s not too late to practice bipartisan politics again,” as if the Libertarian Party
provides bi-partisan solutions. Closing off an entire pragmatic lane of debate (taxes on the super rich) isn’t bi-partisan; it’s a recipe for even more gridlock.
I respect the Libertarian Party for being consistent in their anti-government ideology, unlike the Republican party which picks and chooses when it’s convenient for the government to be big or small. But many Libertarian positions don’t seek out a middle ground, instead they’re pretty right-wing extreme! So do your own digging and learn more- this third party coming to the rescue on a shining white horse might be a lot more risky than it at first appears!
On the environment, Libertarians believe in regulating hazardous pollution. CO2 and methane are naturally occurring substances with unquantifiable negative externalities. Focusing on this one pollution source as a reason to not support a Libertarian candidate is a bit unfair considering when the major parties talk at all about pollution Republicans are less likely to consider any regulations (due to lobbyists) and Democrats talk about CO2 emissions while ignoring the massive known and quantifiable pollution that the government causes and has caused in the past.
For the debt, Libertarians support cutting the size of government and using those cuts to pay off the debt. There are well more than enough cuts to the government that can be made to reduce and eliminate the deficit without even cutting into social services if we do it now. Social Security will quickly outrun the rest of the budget if we don’t start making fixes. As far as the tax side of the equation, Gary supports the Fair Tax which would save a lot in just simplicity in complying with the tax code as well as increase the effective tax rate on the rich by taxing what they consume which they can’t hide as opposed to their income which they can move offshore. Gary isn’t open to ideas on taxing the rich more because it’s not creative, it’s based on a false notion of “fairness.”
The Libertarians may be extreme right wing on fiscal issues, but they are on the other side of the spectrum on social issues. If you care about money and freedom, then neither of the two major parties will agree with you closer than Libertarians.