“Voting for the lesser of two evils doesn’t only help elect an evil, it also perpetuates a choice limited to two evils.”
—the Green Party Twitter account, posted October 5, 2016
With Donald J. Trump and Hillary R. Clinton duking it out to be the President of the United States, many people feel stuck on who to vote for. The 2016 presidential election is widely viewed in a negative light due to the unprofessional and arguably immoral behavior on the part of both major party candidates. As a result, there are many voters who don’t support either candidate and don’t know who to vote for. In fact, some who would normally vote are unsure if they should vote at all. I honestly don’t blame them. So what is a well-meaning citizen to do? Has it come down to choosing the lesser of two evils? How can the American voter emerge victorious during this season of mudslinging and the quagmire of dirty politics?
Donald Trump comes across as unpredictable, emotional, and very irrational at times, believing that America should build a 1000-mile-long wall and “make Mexico pay for it” in order to keep out illegal immigrants. There are also serious questions about his payment of taxes—or, rather, his lack thereof. To her detractors, Hillary is in the pocket of big businesses (recall her delivering private speeches at events hosted by Goldman Sachs and other big banking companies) and seems to have the opposite of the “Midas Touch”—many of the things she’s touched have become scandals, such as the Clinton Foundation, which has been accused of “pay for play” to get official government access. Hillary was also dishonest about her usage of a private email server for classified emails. To make matters worse, she arranged for the deletion of thousands of emails from this server after receiving a court subpoena.
Bernie Sanders attracted the enthusiasm of many young people, but he did not have the support of the Democratic Party and in the end dropped out to endorse Hillary, to the great disappointment of his supporters.
So what does that leave us with? For those who want to vote, but do not like either Trump or Clinton, there is a viable option. Introducing: Jill Stein!
Jill Stein is a presidential candidate nominated by the Green Party, with Ajamu Baraka as the vice-presidential nominee. Rooted in the Green Party are the concepts of equality, pacifism, and environmentalism. It also happens to be a self-proclaimed left-wing and “eco-socialist” party. But enough with the Green Party’s spiel; let’s get into discussing who Jill Stein really is.
Born in Chicago, Stein went to college at Harvard University and continued on to Harvard Medical School. After graduation she fought, and still fights for, the rights of the environment and the rights of people who could be negatively affected by environmental issues. She co-founded the Massachusetts Coalition for Healthy Communities (a not-for-profit organization with a multitude of programs that benefit the people of Massachusetts, including “funding for public health” and “environmental health”) along with the Lexington Solid Waste Action Team. For her efforts, Stein has received a multitude of awards, which include the Salem State College “Friend of the Earth Award” and Clean Water Action’s “Not in Anyone’s Backyard Award”. She heavily emphasizes the core concepts of “climate change, peace, and justice” in her campaign.
“But where is her political background? Is she an experienced politician? Does she even know what she is doing?” some may ask. While those are all very valid concerns, Jill Stein does have a background in politics—sort of. While she didn’t go to law school to train as a politician, she has been a political activist for quite a while. In addition, she was also a local legislator in Lexington, Massachusetts, although she resigned in order to attempt to land a role as Governor of Massachusetts.
The real reason I consider Jill Stein a supreme pick is that she has a clean record and seems to legitimately care about the American people and the environment, instead of being a demagogue that simply seeks to appeal to the general public. Jill Stein’s long history of being a political activist and her establishment of a number of environment-related groups supports this.
For those who might say “Oh, but nobody is voting for Jill Stein in the polls! My vote is totally going to be wasted if she doesn’t have a serious chance, I can’t let that happen!” There happen to be multiple flaws with that argument, not to mention the mentality behind it. Voting should be an act of good conscience, not just picking a winner. If everybody thought that you should pick a winner from the beginning, it would reduce participation in our democratic system. You need people to step up and vote for who they believe in, no matter the chances of them winning. Not only this, but even if Jill Stein doesn’t win, you’re voting for a cause; you’re showing future candidates and voters alike that it is not necessary to be a demagogue or a supporter of big corporations to run for president. Most importantly, running under a third party can help us overcome the tyranny of the two major parties.
Speaking of independent candidates, there are choices apart from Jill Stein as well, such as Gary Johnson. Johnson, the former Republican governor of New Mexico, is running as a Libertarian, and presents a conservative option if you want to avoid voting for candidates from the two major parties. He’s polling at about 7 percent nationally and has even attracted attention in Ithaca. The Cornell University Student Republican Club has decided to endorse Gary Johnson due to their dislike of Donald Trump (much to the disappointment of the New York Federation of College Republicans). As a result, they had their credentials taken away by the Federation.
When it comes to the independent voter with progressive views, I believe that Jill Stein is the way to go. She has the support of prominent intellectuals such as Cornell West and Chris Hedges, not to mention environmentalists and believers in social justice nationwide. If IHS students could vote, I wonder what the result would be. Would the lesser of two evils win the day, or would we vote for whom we truly believe in?