Until President Joe Biden announced he was dropping out of the race, the 2024 presidential campaign offered voters a choice between two deeply unpopular candidates. Biden’s approval had suffered because of perceived failures during the 2021 military withdrawal from Afghanistan and persistent inflation. Meanwhile, many look unfavorably at the Republican candidate, Donald Trump, because of his involvement in the Capitol riots of January 6 and controversial policies during his term in office, such as the separation of migrant families at the border.
Since becoming the Democratic nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris has seen a dramatic rise in her approval numbers, but even so, almost half of Americans still view her unfavorably. Increasing political polarization in the United States makes it nearly impossible for any major-party politician at the national level to obtain the approval of more than half the country. Consequently, election campaigns frequently focus on dragging down the opposing candidate, driving up their disapproval ratings, and depressing voter turnout. In this dreary situation, many Americans might be tempted to vote for a third-party candidate, as demonstrated by the fact that, until he ended his independent campaign in August, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was polling at or above 5 percent in most major surveys.
Catholics, in particular, have reasons to seriously consider voting for a candidate who doesn’t represent either of the two major political parties. Every election cycle, the U.S. Catholic bishops publish a voting guide that encourages Catholics to vote for candidates whose positions embody the church’s social teachings while also taking into consideration other factors, such as a candidate’s character. Since the 1980s, however, neither major party has been closely aligned with all of the church’s teachings, creating a dilemma for conscientious Catholic voters.
In recent decades, for example, the Republican Party has supported certain priorities of the church, such as overturning Roe v. Wade and opposing same-sex marriage. The Democratic Party, however, has been closer to church teaching on issues such as immigration, combating poverty, and addressing climate change. If there were a third-party candidate whose platform better aligned with church teaching, then perhaps it would be worthwhile for Catholics to give that candidate a look.
But before deciding to vote for a third-party candidate (or any candidate, for that matter), it’s important for Catholics to think about what they’re doing when they vote. On the one hand, voting is a matter of individual conscience in which we express our views on the issues facing our nation and the world. As Catholics, we have a responsibility to form our consciences through studying the church’s social teachings and to vote in a way that puts those teachings into practice. When faced with a situation in which no candidate is clearly aligned with those teachings, voting for a third party could be seen as a solution to this dilemma.
For example, the American Solidarity Party (ASP), which was established in 2011, has ideologically modeled itself on European Christian Democratic parties, drawing on Catholic social teaching and various Protestant influences. The ASP takes pro-life positions on the issues of abortion and euthanasia but has progressive stances on other issues, such as immigration and health care. It also promotes greater worker ownership and management in business firms, an important but often overlooked aspect of Catholic social teaching.
Other political parties also prioritize issues that may appeal to Catholics. The Green Party, for example, represented in this year’s presidential election by Jill Stein, takes a more radical stance on issues such as environmental protection and renewable energy than the Democratic Party and is arguably more in line with Pope Francis’ teachings on climate justice. It also has clear positions on issues such as racial justice and workers’ rights, but, like the Democrats, the party also seeks the restoration of the right to abortion at the federal level.
Despite the fact that these parties offer positions appealing to some Catholics, however, even established third parties have difficulty breaking through in the United States’ two-party system. That’s an important consideration because, although voting is an expression of individual conscience, we also need to think of voting as a collective action that includes all eligible Americans in the process of deciding on our leaders and setting the political direction for our country.
Advertisement
In Catholic social teaching, politics should be aimed at the common good, which requires us to work together with other members of our community in governing and finding workable solutions to the issues we face. Although we should be faithful to our principles, democratic participation requires us to compromise and to seek candidates who can garner enough support to effectively govern, ensuring that at least some of our priorities will be transformed from ideals into practical policy. For that reason, the U.S. Catholic bishops suggest that we should consider not just the stances taken by the candidates for whom we vote, but also what those candidates will realistically be able to accomplish. That should lead us to ask, first, whether a candidate even stands a chance of being elected, as well as the political environment they would face if elected.
This question of realism is one reason why Catholics might hesitate to vote for third-party candidates. But if third-party candidates face nearly insurmountable odds of victory, is voting for one throwing your vote away? Not necessarily. Although giving our vote to the candidate we think will best promote positive policy outcomes is one way we can contribute to the common good, under certain circumstances we may decide that our vote is best used as a protest against the current political climate. Protest votes for third-party candidates and parties have often been used to bring attention to issues ignored by the major parties. For example, in 1992, Ross Perot ran a surprisingly successful third-party campaign for president, highlighting issues such as balancing the federal budget and campaign finance reform that have galvanized voters ever since.
When casting a protest vote, however, it is important to make sure the vote is consistent with one’s conscience and to consider the big picture. For example, while polls show that many voters may have been tempted to vote for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in protest against the problems in our two-party system, such a vote would have also arguably provided support to his conspiratorial views on vaccines, the COVID-19 virus, and even the September 11 attacks, contributing to the further eroding of our political discourse. A protest vote should be as carefully considered as any other vote.
On rare occasions, a major-party candidate may be perceived as so dangerous to the country that a vote for a third-party candidate—whether as an act of individual conscience or as a protest vote—could be considered too risky. For example, some people argue that, given his role in attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to interfere in the workings of the Department of Justice, Donald Trump is a threat to democratic institutions and must be opposed in the most effective way possible—through a vote for Kamala Harris. In this environment, a vote for a third-party candidate is, in essence, a vote for Trump, because it diminishes Harris’ chances of victory. This concern should be taken seriously, although the urgency of the question may depend on whether one lives in a swing state where the election results will be close or in a solidly red or blue state.
There are good reasons, then, for Catholics to consider voting for a third-party candidate but also reasons to be hesitant. At the ballot box, Catholics need to appeal to their consciences and be informed by Catholic social teaching, but they should also consider how they can realistically further the common good given the available choices. It’s OK for Catholics to reach different conclusions in the voting booth; the important thing is for us to prioritize Catholic values and critical judgment.
This article also appears in the November 2024 issue of U.S. Catholic (Vol. 89, No. 11, pages 29-30). Click here to subscribe to the magazine.
Image: Shutterstock.com/Amy Lutz
