As Jill Stein’s Green Party campaign gains traction in key swing states, shades of past third parties loom large in the 2024 presidential race. But that shadow falls differently among three generations of American voters, each shaped by their own experiences in elections where a few thousand votes and third-party candidates made a big difference.

For those who lived through the 2000 elections, mathematics remains dry to the memories: George W. Bush claimed Florida and ultimately the presidency by just 537 votes. Green Party candidate Ralph Nader received 97,488 votes in the state. In New Hampshire, where Al Gore trailed by nearly 7,000 votes, Nader garnered more than 22,000 votes.

The new generation is facing Similar math in 2016. In Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, third-party voters could plausibly have influenced the outcome. Hillary Clinton lost Michigan by less than a percentage point; He could close the gap with half of Stein’s votes. The story was similar in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania; Here Clinton had lost by one point, and Stein’s votes made up for her loss.

“Democrats don’t take anything for granted. “We’ve learned the lessons of 2000 and 2016, when third-party candidates took the White House to Republicans, and we won’t let that happen again in 2024.” Lis SmithDemocratic Party communications consultant, he told ABC This week.

Now in 2024, Kamala Harris and Trump are locked in what pollsters call a “showdown.” latest issues suggests that history may once again rhyme. Last Times/Siena vote It shows Stein claiming 2% support in Michigan, while Harris and Trump are deadlocked at 45%. In Wisconsin, where Stein received 1% of the vote, Harris has a narrow three-point lead. Pennsylvania sees Stein at 1% and Harris and Trump at 47%.

In the tense final days before the election, social media has become a battleground over third-party voting. “Waging an imaginary war with non-voters or people who vote third party is not productive, and you will recycle the same BS every four years.” wrote Instagram user @lilnativeboyIt reflects growing tensions between those who see strategic voting as a civic responsibility and those who question the two-party system itself. “Once again, people are blaming individuals who don’t vote or those who vote for third parties rather than the system as if it were equally designed and accessible to all.”

But the reality of third-party voting is more complex than social media discussions suggest. “These are people who generally don’t show up to vote unless it’s a third-party candidate. Even though they are more likely to be Democrats, they are wrong. “These were people who would generally vote for Donald Trump as a second choice,” says Bernard Tamas, a political science professor at Valdosta State University. He told US News.

Although third parties have largely failed in U.S. elections, voting for an unlikely candidate is often done as a statement or against two-party options, but experts say those small numbers of votes could have big consequences in 2024.

“The vote is so close right now that even a slight shift in one direction or another could change the situation,” said Tamas, who is also the author of the book. The Death and Rebirth of American Third Parties: Are You Ready for a Political Revival? said Guard This week.

2024 presents new dynamics, especially in Michigan’s highly volatile state environment. Council on American-Islamic Relations reports While 40% of Muslim voters in Michigan support Stein, only 18% of Trump and 12% of Harris support Stein. This shift among Muslim and Arab American voters, traditionally Democratic-leaning constituencies, adds another layer of complexity to the spoiler calculation.

Action Without CommitmentHe faced a constant dilemma in this election, voting for a presidential candidate in protest of then-democratic candidate President Biden’s stance on Gaza. Although the movement has chosen not to support either candidate, it has publicly He opposed Trump’s presidency and called on voters not to vote for third parties. Co-founder Abbas Alawieh He said last week he would vote for Harrisco-founder Layla Elabed he told NBC He said he would not vote for president in October.

According to a survey conducted by Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) In late August, 40 percent of Muslim voters in Michigan supported Stein. The latest poll, released on November 1, shows that nationwide: Stein ahead with 42 percent among Muslim votersHarris follows with 41%; This is considered a statistical equality.

“The significant decline in support for the leading presidential candidates compared to 2020 and 2016 is almost certainly a result of society’s concerns about the genocide in Gaza. “We encourage all presidential candidates to address the concerns of Muslim voters in these final days of the campaign, and we encourage all American Muslim voters to participate, regardless of who they support.” CAIR Director of Government Affairs Robert S. McCaw said in a speech: November 1 statement.

The results of Stein’s campaign also attracted international attention. In an unprecedented move, Green parties from eleven European countriesGermany, France and Ukraine, among them, issued a joint statement calling on Stein to stand down and support Harris.

“The race for the White House is too close for comfort,” European Greens warned. Statement to POLITICObut Stein’s campaign vehemently rejected this request. “Grassroots democracy is a fundamental principle of the Green movement around the world, and one group of Greens telling another to stop participating in democracy is disappointing and unprincipled,” his team said, highlighting growing fissures within the global Green movement.

Green votes could still decide a race too close to call

History shows that voting numbers can change before Election Day. Third-party candidates often see their support wane as voting approaches. the model appeared clearly in 2016 Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson’s support has fallen steadily in recent months – from 9.2% in early September to 8.4% in mid-September, then to 7% by debate time and between 3-5% by the time of the final vote. Recent polls show that about 3-4% of voters nationwide say they will vote for candidates who are not Trump or Harris. In Michigan in particular, the number is even higher; About 6% of voters say they plan to vote for other candidates, according to one poll. CNN/SSRS poll.

This pattern of declining third-party support is not universal. Independent candidate Ross Perot in 1992 Received 18.6 percent of the votes—The strongest showing for a third-party candidate in modern American history. Its success shows that under certain conditions, candidates who could be alternatives to the two major parties can gain significant support from dissatisfied voters.

These percentage point gains are magnified by the razor-thin margins between the leading candidates. Recent national polls show Harris and Trump generally separated by just one percentage point. As Boston University historian Bruce Schulman told Forbes“Third parties appear to be gaining little traction this year and are likely to play a very limited role, but in an extremely close election where a few thousand votes in three or four states could decide the outcome, even a tenth of 1% from a third party could make a difference.”

The similarities with previous elections did not go unnoticed by party strategists. The Times/Siena’s latest poll It shows the potential impact: Trump leads nationally to 47% to Harris’ 46% when third-party candidates are included. But when voters have to choose between just two major candidates, the race is deadlocked 48% of the time each.

“The reality is they are very strategic voters: ‘I want something. Can you give it to me? No, okay, then I’ll vote elsewhere.’ It’s a logical choice they made. And I guess my only concern is the idea that this is irrational. “This makes sense.” Nura Sediqeassistant professor of American politics at Michigan State University he told The Guardian.