Opinions do not necessarily reflect CUIndependent.com or any of its sponsors.
Amidst the fierce contest between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, third party candidates are also vying for the presidency. Given the record-breaking level of dissatisfaction for both candidates, fringe figures may find some time in the spotlight come Nov. 8.
Third party candidates are, by nature, protesters. With no real chance at winning the presidency, their campaigns essentially bring the picket line into the ballot booth. Yet, this form of campaign protest poses a greater threat than disrupted traffic. If third party votes are to surge, an otherwise unlikely Trump victory could become a reality.
Trump does not need a majority to become our next president. In the Republican primary he only won 46.5 percent of the vote, partly due to the fact that minor candidates such as Ben Carson and Jeb Bush poached support from Trump’s main competitor, Ted Cruz.
Granted, the primary process is a contest where multiple candidates scramble for the party nomination; a ripe climate for a candidate to win without an actual majority. However, given that many Americans are on the search for an alternative to either candidate, the general election could very well have a similar outcome.
One third party opponent, Gov. Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party, poses a considerable threat. Well within striking distance of disrupting the election, Gov. Johnson has garnered 6.6 percent of support among voters, according to the Real Clear Politics average.
If you are a part of this 6.6 percent, know that your ideological purity could play a part in installing a Trump administration.
Voting for Johnson because you love free trade? Johnson’s running mate Bill Weld described their ticket to the Washington Times as “the only free trade ticket in the race.” They have repeatedly supported the North American Free Trade Alliance, or NAFTA, and the Trans Pacific Partnership, or TPP.
Voicing agreement with this position is reasonable, but voting for it in this context is not. A vote for the “free trade ticket” is essentially a vote for Trump, and will only serve to dismantle NAFTA, block the TPP and fortify all other barriers to global trade.
Trump’s trade plan and inflammatory remarks towards foreign countries are the antithesis of the libertarian position, and very well could drown our economy in damning isolation. Allowed inside the Oval Office via a plural victory, his anti-globalization rhetoric will surely turn into anti-libertarian action.
The 1,700 pages of NAFTA and the equally eye glazing discussion of globalization may be beyond Johnson supporters who are simply jumping on the third party bandwagon – but supporting him for a pro-legalization stance is not. But, keep in mind that voting for a candidate that had to make a pledge not to hot box the Oval Office may lead to an administration much less friendly to legal weed.
Pot legalization in a Trump presidency would be a far stretch for anyone’s imagination, even one in the deepest of kush-comas. Breaking from the old school drug policies of his party seems unlikely, especially from a man who praises war-on-drugs era tactics such as stop-and-frisk.
Furthermore, while Trump would be busy making national addresses about his penis size, his supreme court nominees would be handing down a decision on marijuana’s legal standing. In Trump’s own words, new appointees to the court would be molded in the image of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, a legal mind that fiercely defended conservative principals and was unsurprisingly low in THC. The possibility of a case related to marijuana legalization being reviewed by a Scalia-esque court should be a wake-up call to any pot-loving libertarian.
Also gaining attention in the third party spotlight is Jill Stein of the Green Party. In verdant Colorado, where the beloved wilderness faces an even greater threat of extinction under Trump, Stein may seem like a reasonable alternative.
Trump’s “American First” energy policy will ram the Keystone XL Pipeline through our land, reject the Paris Climate Agreement and cease all funding to U.N. programs aimed at minimizing climate change. Worst of all, what Trump puts first with this plan is not America nor its environment; it is energy companies profiting from our damaged planet.
However, a vote cast to protect mother earth should not go to Stein. With Stein’s “power to the people” plan falling far to the left of both Trump and Hillary, she is only leeching potential Hillary voters. Therefore, voting for the Green Party may actually serve to increase already alarmingly high environmental destruction by leading to the election of Trump.
The ideals of libertarians, Green Party advocates and other third party supporters deserve a place in our national discourse. Yet, the notion that the candidates who advocate those ideals can reach the White House is nothing more than a fleeting hope. In reality, Johnson and Stein create a paradoxical threat to their own policies, and to the nation.
In 2000, Ralph Nadir received a meager 2 million votes, but 97,488 of those votes were cast in the key swing state of Florida. Despite the infamous “hanging chads” and other vote tallying issues, Nadir’s 1.63 percent of the Florida vote could have also played a central role in the outcome of the election. If it had instead gone to say, democratic nominee Al Gore, George W. Bush may not have won.
Here in Colorado, another swing state, Johnson, Stein and other fringe candidates are polling at a combined 17.6 percent, a full 15.97 percentage points above Ralph Nadir’s Florida influence. Fortunately, this third party support will inevitably dwindle; as Nov. 8 draws near, most reasonable voters will choose between the top two names on the ballot.
But the steadfast ideologues who choose to vote on the fringe may have to answer for a Trump presidency. No matter your distaste for Clinton or Trump, don’t let this be you.
Contact CU Independent Opinion Staff Writer Jackson Barnett at jackson.barnett@colorado.edu.
