Following Vice President Kamala Harris’ loss in the 2024 presidential election, disgruntled Democrats are starting to point fingers at groups that they believe are responsible for the loss. Among their targets are third-party voters, who Democrats accuse of spoiling the election by siphoning votes away from the Democratic ticket. This scapegoating has become a reflex for major party loyalists after each close election cycle, but it is an entirely unproductive endeavor because third-party voters were not the deciding factor in Harris’ defeat.
Blaming third-party voters is an oversimplification of why Harris lost and a distraction from genuine issues within the Democratic Party. This finger-pointing habit perpetuates the broken U.S. two-party system that fails to serve the needs of the electorate. Even if every single third-party voter in key swing states had strategically cast their vote for Harris, it is unlikely to have affected the outcome of the election — I did the math myself. The margins of defeat, particularly in battleground states, cannot be explained solely by the mere fraction of voters who opted for third-party candidates. Instead, factors such as unsuccessful party messaging, the rightward shift in the party’s policies and loss of support from long-time Democrats who chose to vote Republican likely had a larger impact on the outcome of the election.
For instance, in Georgia, Harris received a total of 2,548,014 votes, while President-elect Donald Trump received 2,663,110 votes. That is a difference of 115,096 votes. The two most popular third-party candidates running in this election, Chase Oliver, a Libertarian, and Jill Stein from the Green Party, only received 20,684 and 18,229 votes, respectively, totaling 38,913 votes cast for third-party candidates in Georgia, not counting write-in candidates. These numbers demonstrate that even if Harris had received every single third-party vote — an unlikely scenario given the Libertarian Party’s ideological alignment is closer to the Republican Party — she still would not have won Georgia. Swing states Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Nevada and Arizona show similar patterns. Even when factoring in independent and write-in candidates, this would not have been sufficient to close the gap between Harris and Trump.
Furthermore, blaming third-party voters for the Democrats’ loss ignores other factors behind their underperformance this election season. In the 2020 presidential election, President Joe Biden received a whopping 81.2 million votes compared to Harris’ 73.8 million votes in 2024. The difference in the number of Democratic Party votes is startling and should be a wake-up call to party leaders about the number of voters, especially in key swing states, that felt disengaged, alienated or unmoved by the Harris-Walz ticket. Sweeping important platform and policy issues under the rug and blaming third parties is a dangerous distraction from the changes that actually need to be made. If Democrats want to win elections, they need to earn votes — not demand them.
This attitude toward third-party candidates and voters highlights a fundamental problem with the U.S. electoral system: It stifles the expression of diverse viewpoints and discourages voters from choosing the candidate they truly believe in. The United States operates on a first-past-the-post system, meaning that the candidate with the most electoral votes wins, even if they do not secure a majority. This system often traps voters in a cycle of fear-based strategic voting. If voters favor an unpopular third party candidate, they may opt to support a major party candidate with whom they somewhat align instead of their true preference in hopes of avoiding a wasted vote or inadvertently helping their least-preferred candidate win. The Electoral College amplifies this issue, as most states award all their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote there, even if the margin is slim. This winner-takes-all dynamic reinforces the dominance of two major parties and leaves little room for third-party candidates.
With growing dissatisfaction in the two-party system, it is more important than ever that third parties gain traction so all voter interests can be properly represented in government. A promising reform that addresses this is ranked choice voting, which allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate wins an outright majority, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and their votes are redistributed based on second-choice preferences. The process continues until one candidate secures a majority. Ranked choice voting ensures that votes cast for third-party candidates are not wasted — they simply transfer to voters’ next preferred choice. This system empowers citizens to support the candidate that best represents their interests. Through ranked choice voting, voters can express their support for third-party candidates and help grow those candidates’ platforms without being blamed for causing a major party to lose, as many Democrats are doing following the 2024 election.
Several cities and states, such as Alaska, Maine and New York City, have already adopted ranked choice voting with promising results, and it is time to expand this reform nationwide. However, ranked choice voting is still facing significant pushback from the two major parties and voters who fear upending the status quo — while election reforms like ranked choice voting were on four state ballots in 2024, it failed to pass everywhere. This is a clear signal that we must advocate for ranked choice voting. By voting in favor of ranked choice voting and other alternative ballots, starting at the local level, and educating others on its benefits, we can begin to reshape the electoral process. When voters are freed from being forced to choose the “lesser of two evils,” the political landscape can become more reflective of the interests of the people, not just major parties. Reforming the electoral process to include ranked choice voting or other alternative ballot systems is not a radical idea — it is a necessary step to bring American democracy in line with its ideals of representation and plurality.
Instead of condemning third-party voters who sought alternatives to an uninspiring status quo in 2024, the Democratic Party and its supporters should focus on why third-party voters felt excluded from their vision. More importantly, Democrats should advocate for systemic reforms that would allow all voters to have their voices heard. Until such changes are made, blaming third-party voters will remain a hollow exercise. It is time to stop blaming and start building a system in which every vote — for any candidate — truly counts.
Contact Crystal Zhang at crzhan2@emory.edu.
