Disquiet with the Duopoly
Third Party Options in the 2024 Election and Resistance to the War Economy
Part one of two exploring third party voting in the 2024 election and beyond.
Eighty million eligible voters did not cast a ballot in the 2020 presidential election. That means about 33% of all eligible voters did not vote during an election with historically high voter turn-out compared to prior elections.
Lost in the mainstream media’s 2024 electoral coverage is the fact that a large portion of the U.S. population is dissatisfied with the two major political parties. A 2024 Pew Research Center survey found that 32 percent of voters identify as Republicans and 33 percent as Democrats. That means that the 35 percent of the population who identify as independents or with a non-major party constitute a segment of the population larger than those identifying with either major party. And while most of these voters lean toward the Republican or Democratic party in voting practices, a closer inspection reveals significant disquiet with the electoral status quo. This disquiet may well explain why so many third party candidates are vying for the presidency in 2024.
Gallop’s October 2024 poll showed that many Republican and Democratic voters believe alternative political parties are needed. Only 37 percent of U.S. voters believe the Democrats and Republicans do an adequate job of representing the electorate’s interests. This is an almost 20-point shift from 2003 confidence in the two empowered parties.
Since 2013, a majority of adults have reported believing a third party is needed to improve U.S. politics. In 2024, 58 percent of the adult public held this position. But we would be mistaken to think this figure is driven exclusively by independent voters. More than half of all Democrats—53 percent—believe a third party is needed. This position is also held by 48 percent of Republicans. The provocative and thought-provoking artist Mr. Fish’s depiction of the 2024 election, titled “Roll Call,” seems to express the judgment of many dissatisfied voters.
2024 Third Party Candidates
Perhaps in response to this growing dissatisfaction, a panoply of candidates outside of the two dominant political parties will be on ballots across the nation for the 2024 presidential election. Avowed Marxist, Joseph Kishore, is one of 21 candidates running for president. Kishore has qualified to be on the ballot in three states and is write-in eligible for 11 more.
Running as the Constitution Party's candidate, evangelical anti-abortion activist, Randall Terry, will be on the ballot in 12 states and eligible to be written on the ballot in another seven states. According to the New York Times, Democratic Party-aligned donors and activists aided Terry’s efforts to get on the ballot in states like Pennsylvania to undermine Republican Donald Trump and aid Democrat Kamala Harris.
Six of the 21 candidates currently running for president outside of the two major parties are on the ballot or write-in eligible in enough states to theoretically win the 270 electoral college votes needed to win the presidency. They include Peter Sonski of the American Solidarity Party, Chase Oliver of the Libertarian Party, independent candidate, Shiva Ayyadurai, Jill Stein of the Green Party, Claudia de la Cruz of the Party for Socialism and Liberation, and Cornel West of the Justice for All Party.
Peter Sonski (American Solidarity Party)
Peter Sonski of the American Solidarity Party, will appear on the ballot in seven states, with a combined 74 electors. He is also eligible to receive votes as a write-in candidate in another 35 states worth up to 400 electors. Sonski is an avowed Christian candidate running on a platform of “Christian democracy” to include economic security, anti-abortion, and a “biblical” conception of marriage as “the union of husband and wife.”
Chase Oliver (Libertarian Party)
Libertarian candidate, Chase Oliver, will appear on the ballot in 47 states. He is a write-in candidate in Illinois and New York. The only state voters can't vote for Oliver in is Tennessee. He is eligible to earn up to 528 electoral votes, including 481 from states where his name appears on the ballot.
Oliver is an openly gay man who favors limited government and expansive individual liberties. He is personally pro-choice and believes women deserve the right to choose abortion nationwide. But he is opposed to taxpayer funding of abortions. Oliver supports “market-driven” solutions to climate change, and wishes to end the death penalty and federal mandatory minimum sentencing. He supports abolishing the U.S. Department of Education, legalizing marijuana, ending U.S. military aid to Israel and Ukraine, and has labeled Israel's actions against Palestinians in Gaza as “genocidal.” Like other third-party candidates, Chase supports ranked-choice voting.1
Oliver's predecessor, Jo Jorgensen, earned 1.9 million votes or 1.2 percent of the popular vote in the 2020 election. In 2016 Gary Johnson ran for president on behalf of the Libertarian Party, earning 4.5 million votes, 3.3 percent of the popular vote.
Shiva Ayyadurai (Independent)
Shiva Ayyadurai is an independent candidate for president. He is on the ballot in seven states (57 electors) and an eligible write-in candidate in 26 states (304 electors). In total, Ayyadurai is eligible to receive up to 361 electors. Ayyadurai, who has a doctorate in biological engineering and goes by “Dr. Shiva,” supports ending funding to Israel and the liberation of the Palestinian people. His platform includes support for making election day a national holiday, reinvesting in U.S. infrastructure, and training all Americans in the use of “weapons in school from K-12” to ensure citizens “know how to defend themselves.” Ayyadurai also believes that “life begins at conception” and that abortion laws should be dealt with at the state level.
Jill Stein (Green Party)
Green party candidate, Dr. Jill Stein, will appear on the ballot in 40 States and is eligible as a write-in candidate in another seven states. Stein is eligible to win up to 508 electoral votes with just 71 from write-in only states. The labor rights group, Workers Strike Back, voted to endorse Stein and is engaged in a grassroots campaign for her candidacy in the swing state of Michigan. Stein was also endorsed by the Abandon Biden/Harris movement, a group opposed to the Biden-Harris administration’s material and diplomatic support for the cataclysmic destruction of people, cultural sites, and infrastructure in Gaza.
A survey by the U.S.'s largest Muslim civil rights group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), found that 42 percent of Muslim voters prefer Stein compared to 41 percent favoring Harris. The statistical tie marks a significant shift in Muslim voter preference away from the Democratic Party. Just 10 percent of those surveyed support Donald Trump.
Stein has a long history of environmental, peace, and healthcare activism. She supports an “economic bill of rights” ensuring all in the U.S. are guaranteed employment, healthcare, housing, food, and education. She is a vocal supporter of student debt forgiveness, ranked-choice voting, and government intervention to address what she contends is the emergency of climate change.
Stein, a medical doctor, criticized the Democratic Party for failing to enshrine women's abortion rights during their control of both chambers of Congress and the White House. “With his trifecta in 2021-2022, Joe Biden could have guaranteed abortion rights before OR after Dobbs,” read an October 2024 campaign email. “He didn't.”
Stein supports slashing military spending and has been a leading political opponent of U.S. diplomatic and military support of Israel's invasion and assault of Gaza. She also believes reparations are necessary to remedy structural racism resulting from slavery and segregation. Stein is also an advocate of the single-payer healthcare system.2 Stein garnered just over 1.4 million votes or 1.07% of the national vote in the 2016 presidential election.
Claudia de la Cruz (Party for Socialism and Liberation)
The Party for Socialism and Liberation's (PSL) candidate, Claudia de la Cruz, is on the ballot in 18 states and write-in eligible in 23 more. She is eligible to win as many as 475 electoral votes, but just 216 of those votes are from states in which she will appear on the ballot as a named candidate.
Cruz’s platform calls for women’s total and unrestricted right to abortion, cutting the military budget by 90 percent, and ending all aid to Israel. Cruz also calls for the public takeover of the “100 largest corporations” to facilitate the material guarantee of new constitutional rights including “healthcare, education through college and beyond, free childcare, decent housing and a living wage with union representation.” The socialist candidate also calls for the public takeover of fossil fuel corporations and converting their businesses to producers of renewable energy in order to address climate change.
On November 2nd, the Cruz and Stein campaigns issued a joint statement encouraging supporters to vote for the other in states where they are not on the ballot. Cruz's campaign called on supporters in Montana and Arkansas to vote for Stein since the PSL candidate would not be on either state’s ballot. The Stein campaign is urging supporters to write-in Cruz in Indiana and North Dakota where the Green Party candidate is not an option. The joint statement explained that the campaigns aim to unite to “send the strongest possible message that people are fed up with the war machine, genocide against Palestinians, and the other injustices that characterize this system dominated by the billionaire class!”
Cornel West (Justice for All Party)
Dr. Cornel West of the Justice for All Party and other aligned third parties is on the ballot in 15 states and write-in eligible in 20 more. Dr. West is eligible to win up to 366 electoral votes, but just 132 of those votes are from states where his name will be printed on the ballot.
A professor of philosophy and lauded activist and public intellectual, West is a vocal and eloquent critic of white supremacy, economic exploitation, and militarism. West’s campaign is rooted in prophetic and inclusive spiritual-ethical principles. Identifying with the legacy of Jesus and Rev Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., West calls for an end to what he terms U.S. imperialism, the enactment of policing reform, abolition of homelessness, and a radical transformation of what he insists is a racist and dehumanizing carceral state.
West's platform includes affirmation of women's right to “safe and legal abortion, contraception, and fertility treatments,” and a Workers Bill of Rights to include a four-day workweek, paid family leave, and the democratization of the workplace to minimally include enhanced unionization rights.
West’s candidacy has been aided by unsolicited legal support from Republican political operatives seeking to undermine Harris’ candidacy and strengthen Trump’s election chances. West failed to make it on the Florida ballot due to errors made by campaigners in providing the required list of electors to the state.
Though West and De la Cruz’s names will appear on the ballot in Georgia, the state’s Supreme Court ruled that votes cast for the candidates should not be counted, effectively eliminating them as options for voters. Lawyers representing the Democratic Party argued that the petitioners failed to meet the state’s new requirement and should not have been added to the state’s ballot.
On November 2nd, the West and Cruz campaigns issued mutually supporting statements urging voters to support the other candidate in states where they were not present. Their statement read,
“United by shared values like opposition to war for empire, a commitment to Black liberation, and determination to build an alternative outside of the two-party system, the two-party progressive third-party campaigns announced that they would be urging their supporters to vote for each other's tickets in selected states where one has ballot access but the other does not.”
Cruz has called for supporters to vote for the West campaign in Alaska. West in turn has called on supporters to vote for Cruz in Florida, Hawaii, New Mexico, Mississippi, and Tennessee.
Though competing against each other for votes, the Stein, West, and Cruz campaigns have been unified in their condemnation of the war economy and the Biden-Harris administration’s role in what they describe as an active genocide perpetrated by the Israeli government in Gaza.
Challenging the War Economy
According to an October 7, 2024 report by Brown University's Costs of War Project, more than 41,000 Palestinian men, women, and children have been killed between October 7, 2023 and October 1, 2024. An additional 10,000 Palestinians are unaccounted for and believed to be dead. Medical workers estimate another 67,413 Palestinians have been killed due to starvation, lack of access to care for chronic diseases, and other health conditions all brought about by Israel's military onslaught.
The U.S. government under the leadership of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris supplied Israel with 69 percent of its arms imports in 2023. CNN's investigations have found “multiple instances that US-manufactured munitions were used throughout the war, including in strikes that killed civilians. Recently, CNN found that US-manufactured 2,000-pound bombs were likely used in the Israeli attack that killed Hezbollah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, in Beirut.” The strikes “demolished multiple residential buildings,” and killed an undetermined number of civilians.
In her Democratic National Convention speech accepting the party’s nomination, Harris affirmed her unwavering support for current U.S. military policy.
“As commander in chief, I will ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world. And I will fulfill our sacred obligation to care for our troops and their families, and I will always honor and never disparage their service and their sacrifice.”
In an August 2024, CNN interview with Dana Dash, Harris stated, “I am unequivocal and unwavering in my commitment to Israel's defense and its ability to defend itself. And that's not going to change.” When pressed by Dash if she would make any policy changes in the arms provided to Israel, Harris responded with a resolute, “No.”
While Harris has described Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as a “visionary” organizer dedicated to “the ideal of freedom,” the logical implication of her endorsement of U.S. military power is that she rejects Rev. King’s explicitly “revolutionary” analysis. In his 1967 speech, “Beyond Vietnam,” King described the U.S. government as the “greatest purveyor of violence” and insisted that non-violent conflict resolution was as morally necessary in international affairs as it was in interpersonal relationships. King consistently identified militarism as one of three components of a giant “triplet of evil” that included racism and materialistic economic exploitation of people.
During the 2024 presidential campaign, Jill Stein and Cornel West each repeatedly cited King’s analysis in criticizing current U.S. military policy and the Republican and Democratic parties embrace of the “war economy.” The interconnectedness of U.S. business interests and war is made clear by the record-breaking increases in stock value for weapons makers.
Both Raytheon, recently rebranded “RTX,” and Lockheed Martin have reached “all-time highs” in 2024 as they manufacture munitions used in the destruction of Gaza.
Meanwhile, Raytheon has contributed over $78,000 to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and more than $220,000 to Kamala Harris’s campaign. Raytheon supplies Israel with “guided air-to-surface missiles for its F-16 fighter jets, as well as cluster bombs and ‘bunker buster’ bombs.” Harris has received nearly $275,000 from Lockheed Martin, which supplies Israel with F-16 and F-35 fighter jets and Hellfire missiles used by Apache helicopters. Trump has received nearly $127,000 from the company as well.
In an October 2024 interview with Democracy Now, Elena Stein, an organizer with Jewish Voices for Peace, noted that the billions of dollars given to Israel for “aid” isn't what some might think it is. Stein explained, “when we hear the word ‘aid,’ we might think, ‘Oh, that’s for recovery from a natural disaster or for housing or education.’” The reality, Stein explained, is that the money is really for military equipment. “And not only that, but all that money has to be used then back in the United States on U.S. defense contractors, on U.S. weapons corporations.”
According to Stein, “over 50, at least, members of Congress and their spouses are invested in Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, two of the leading weapons manufacturers. So, we can see they are, quite literally, profiting from this genocide. And these are the people who are voting on increased funding and arms to the Israeli military. Our elected officials should never be able to profit off genocide. They are there to carry out, supposedly, the will of the people.”
Stein was one of 500 Jewish peace activists and allies who engaged in mass civil disobedience at the New York Stock Exchange on October 14, 2024, in protest of the U.S. funded Israeli onslaught in Gaza. Exemplifying the prophetic tradition within Judaism that emphasizes the infinite worth of each individual human being, the peace activists challenged the war profiteering of U.S. corporations and elected representatives. 200 participants including Stein were arrested during the peaceful action.
The day before the peace action at the Stock Exchange, the Israeli military turned a Gaza hospital and tent encampment into an inferno with U.S.-made munitions. Video footage captured the morally obscene death of Palestinian, Shaaban al-Dalou. Horrified bystanders watched on as the 19-year-old cried out for help while burning alive with an IV in his arm after being struck by an Israeli missile as he slept. The implications of militarism could not be clearer nor the moral impetus behind Rev. Dr. King’s objections to warfare as a normalized means of resolving human conflict.
Please share and like this post by clicking the heart icon.
Invite Dr. Nall to Speak
Dr. Nall delivers energetic live presentations and engaging workshops on the subjects featured in Humanities in Revolt. Those interested in booking a workshop or talk can get in touch through Facebook or by leaving a comment.
What I have advocated without, I confess, ever expecting it to appear, is a party for people without money. The PWM party would not send mass e-mails asking us to" save democracy" by sending money like the Democrats like to do. To get my vote, I need to see a party that has a platform not based on stocking weapons of mass destruction and serving the wealthy but rather supporting people and our environment.
I'm an avowed anarchist for very good reason. I last voted in 2008 and voted for Chuck Baldwin.