Select Language:
Many Americans are feeling dissatisfied with the leading candidates for president from both major parties. As of October 4, 2024, surveys indicated that 46.5% of respondents held an unfavorable view of Kamala Harris, while 52.6% felt the same way about Donald Trump.
This discontent has led some voters to consider supporting a third-party candidate or even abstaining from the election altogether. They may view these actions as a protest against the two-party system that prevails in the United States or against the candidates themselves.
For instance, a poll conducted in September showed that 3.5% of voters in Michigan planned to cast their ballots for someone other than Harris or Trump.
On the surface, this decision might seem logical: If you’re not a fan of a candidate, why vote for them? However, as someone who studies cognitive biases—systematic errors in judgment—I believe that opting for protest voting may not serve the best interests of these voters.
In fact, protest voting could inadvertently undermine the democratic process, potentially resulting in the election of the candidate the majority of voters—protest voters included—disfavor the most. There are multiple reasons why voters may make this miscalculation.
### The Impact of One Vote
It’s widely recognized that a single vote is unlikely to sway a presidential election. Some might argue that if one vote doesn’t carry much weight, then individuals might as well vote freely or skip voting altogether. This line of thinking is flawed.
Consider a scenario where there are 10,000 voters in a state who feel disillusioned with both candidates. It’s very likely that these voters have a preference, disliking one candidate more than the other. Perhaps they disagree with some of Harris’ policies but feel intimidated by Trump, or the opposite might be true. Their dissatisfaction doesn’t require them to be united on all counts—some may think Harris is too liberal, while others may feel she isn’t liberal enough.
Now, let’s say the remaining voters—those who are content to support one of the major candidates—are closely divided, perhaps by a slim margin of 5,000 votes. If the 10,000 disenchanted voters choose to vote for either of the two major candidates, their decision could tip the scales of the election.
Moreover, these dissatisfied voters do have preferences; they generally favor one of the major candidates over the other. While each wants to keep their conscience clear by not voting, they typically hope that the other 9,999 unhappy voters take the initiative to steer the election toward their preferred candidate.
Parents often instill the principle of the Golden Rule in their kids—treat others as you wish to be treated—and most people genuinely try to abide by it. This means that if you’re among the displeased voters who would like others in your situation to hold their noses and vote for the candidate they dislike the least, you should be open to doing the same.
Yet, not all dissatisfied voters subscribe to this perspective. Some may allow their instincts to guide them, leading them to a protest vote, even if their values suggest otherwise.
### The Boycott Misconception
One reason some voters believe a protest vote is sensible is the belief that boycotting undesirable options is a valid way to foster positive change.
Boycotting a person or institution that you find objectionable can indeed be effective. For example, if there’s a local restaurant with a reputation for poor service or discriminatory practices, not patronizing it could lead to its closure or prompt it to improve its offerings.
However, the concept of “boycotting” when it comes to voting is misapplied; one of the candidates will ultimately win, regardless of personal feelings. Not voting or abstaining from supporting a viable candidate doesn’t achieve the objective of eliminating or improving what one dislikes about the options available.
### Inaction vs. Action
Some voters might resort to a protest vote based on a tendency to prefer errors of omission—failing to act—over errors of commission—taking action. Many individuals feel less culpable when they opt for inaction, even if both choices could lead to undesirable consequences.
For instance, the omission bias could help explain why some hesitated to get vaccinated against serious illnesses. Choosing to get vaccinated can lead to potential side effects, which is seen as a mistake of commission. Conversely, not getting vaccinated might have the same outcome of illness, but isn’t perceived as a direct choice.
In a similar vein, voting for a less-than-favorable candidate might feel like a mistake of commission. In contrast, skipping the vote or going for a third-party candidate seems like a safer omission. Yet, choosing this route doesn’t guarantee avoiding a mistake; it merely shifts the risk to one that feels less troubling.
### Misjudged Similarities
A common rationale for opting out of voting or supporting a third-party candidate is the belief that both leading candidates are equally undesirable. However, this assertion almost certainly misrepresents reality; the candidates have distinctly different stances on a variety of key issues, as well as differing records of actions taken while in office.
Those claiming the candidates are essentially interchangeable often fall victim to a cognitive shortcut that encourages categorical thinking. This mindset can simplify complex situations but overlooks significant differences.
### Pursuing the Best Outcome
Reflecting on the 2000 presidential election, I remember a friend expressing that he couldn’t support Democratic candidate Al Gore, believing both he and Republican nominee George W. Bush were equally problematic. In retrospect, Bush’s victory—partially attributed to third-party votes for Ralph Nader—led to numerous outcomes that Gore would likely have opposed, including the U.S. withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol, military action in Iraq, and tax cuts favoring the wealthy.
The choices were indeed starkly different, and recognizing those differences before casting a vote is crucial.
With the transition of power set for January 20, 2025, the nation will see either Trump or Harris in the presidency. A third-party candidate is unlikely to emerge as a real contender in this election.
In certain states, voters have the option to rank candidates according to preference, allowing them to express their choices more effectively without wasting a vote on an unviable candidate. Those who desire more viable alternatives should work towards implementing ranked-choice voting in their communities or pursue other reform methods that might yield better options in the future. However, none of these changes will materialize in time for the upcoming election.
Ultimately, whether you’re pleased with the choices or not, you face a binary decision: vote for one candidate or the other. Please make your voice heard—get out there and vote.
Add us on ChatGPT
Add us on Perplexity
