The 2024 Presidential Election: Can Third-Party Candidates or Stay-at-Home Voters Decide the Outcome?

As the 2024 presidential election approaches, the possibility of a third-party candidate or a significant number of stay-at-home voters determining the outcome has captivated many. This article delves into the potential of third-party candidates and abstention to influence the election and discusses historical precedents and current factors at play.

Double Haters and Third-Party Candidates

There is a segment of voters who identify as 'double haters', meaning they don't support either major party's nominee. For some, this stance is not about hating individuals but questioning policy or behavior. For example, a voter might not support Donald Trump for not wanting him re-elected or Joe Biden for not providing sufficient support to Ukraine or addressing economic issues. Such a nuanced position can lead to voting for third-party candidates or abstaining.

Key Points:

Hating a candidate for not wanting them re-elected is not necessarily about hating them. Questioning leadership does not equate to hating a political figure. Centrists and double haters often view extremes equally, leading to indecision.

Staying Home or Supporting Third-Party Candidates

Several major contenders for the 2024 election have faced criticism that may influence voter behavior. Donald Trump's stance on the Russia-Ukraine war and Joe Biden's policies, both economic and border-related, have made voting for them less appealing to some. Bipartisan voters may opt to re-register as independents or vote for third-party candidates like Nikki Haley. If she becomes the nominee, that may change the calculus, but many are still likely to stay home.

Key Points:

No preference for Trump due to his stance on the Russia-Ukraine war. No preference for Biden due to his policies and economic failures. Consideration for voting for Nikki Haley or staying home.

Historical Precedents in Third-Party Influence

History provides two notable instances where third-party candidates had a significant impact on the election. In 1912, Theodore Roosevelt, after leaving the Republican Party, ran on the Progressive (Bull Moose) ticket, leading to a fragmented voting base and helping Woodrow Wilson win the presidency. Similarly, in 2000, Ralph Nader's Green Party candidacy played a crucial role, potentially denying Al Gore the presidency by siphoning votes. In both cases, a third-party candidate managed to alter the balance of power.

Key Points:

Theodore Roosevelt's 1912 campaign weakened the Republican candidate, Taft. Ralph Nader's 2000 campaign underperformed expectations, affecting the Democratic victory.

Current Factors and Historical Evidence

Current political climates and historical precedents suggest that the 2024 election is more likely to see a victory for the incumbent party, as sitting presidents are typically re-elected. Donald Trump's actions during his first term, which included attempts to incite insurrection, may affect his re-election prospects, while Joe Biden might face challenges due to public dissatisfaction with his policies.

Key Points:

Sitting presidents are highly likely to be re-elected. Trump's insurrection attempts may sway undecided voters. Biden's policies and economic initiatives may face criticism.

While the possibility of third-party candidates or abstention influencing the outcome cannot be entirely ruled out, historical evidence and current factors suggest that the major parties are more likely to prevail. However, if incidents of violence or significant threats to voter safety arise, this dynamic could shift dramatically.

Conclusion:

Historical precedents provide limited evidence of third parties significantly altering election outcomes. Current political climates and sitting president re-election trends suggest a likely victory for the major parties. Violent incidents or threats to voter safety may alter the dynamic.

Final Thoughts

While the idea of a third-party candidate or stay-at-home voters impacting the 2024 election is intriguing, the historical and current context suggests that this is unlikely. Nonetheless, the dynamics of the election could shift if unforeseen events occur, such as violent protests or other threats. The outcome remains uncertain, but historical precedents offer some insights.