In the heady year preceding the 2000 Al Gore/George Bush election, Muslims and other (especially young and mostly blue) people of conscience flexed our muscles and reveled in our power to stick it to the man. We would show them, we crowed to one another. We would show both parties that they didn’t have a stranglehold on the electorate. We would protest their predatory foreign policy, their “trickle-down” propaganda, and their two-party system. We would withhold our votes from them altogether and award them instead to the noble Green Party and Ralph Nader. 

The lesson we learned was both harsh and lasting. Nader received 97,488 votes in Florida—181 times the margin of Bush’s “win” (win in scare quotes because although manual recounts were ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, they were prevented by the US Supreme court. Thus the election stood with Gore 537 votes behind Bush, out of almost six million votes cast). If all the Nader voters had cast their ballots for Gore, no recounts would have been needed. Gore would have taken Florida in a landslide. And this happened in five other states as well. Our idealistic throng had literally handed George W. Bush the presidency. 

How dire we thought that mistake, and how many of our grim predictions for a “son of Bush” administration did indeed come true. But those consequences were mere dandelion fluff compared to the possibilities that lie ahead of us if the same mistake should elect Donald Trump in 2024.

Having heard the arguments in favor of “delivering a loss” to the Democrats this year, I remain not only unconvinced, but horrified at the prospect.

No Undying Loyalty

No one I know of is against the goals of campaign reform, two-party system revision, and downright revolution of the electoral college. No one I know is married to the Democrats or the Republicans in a way that would prevent them from jumping ship to a party with integrity—a more fair and moral party. But since we, like everyone else, must go into battle with the army we have and not the army we wish for, let’s consider the consequences of jumping that ship before the new one has been built.

Since  Jill Stein appears on the ballot in only 24 states, there is obviously no way anyone can deliver her a win. Therefore, each vote for her, the vast majority of which would go to Kamala Harris otherwise, is a theft. And unlike Robin Hood’s booty, these stolen votes go to the rich. 

This  means that in states such as Michigan, the Muslim vote could literally turn the state from Harris to Trump. And I contend that those who think this is an acceptable outcome—regardless of their usual voting habits— are underestimating the potential damage a second Trump presidency would do to our systems. 

The Bigger Picture

If we could see the other side of a Trump presidency as just another normal transfer of power, experienced voters would not be as against third party votes as they are. But Trump’s stated goals for a second presidency include eliminating the department of education, defunding public schools that teach critical race theory, appointing more right-wing supreme court justices, and dragging us closer to the point of no return, climate-wise. And even the appealing promises he makes—and there are a few—are not possible through the means he intends to utilize. Exacting high tariffs on imports will not cut inflation. Extending his 2017  tax plan would cut  the income taxes of the lowest-paid workers by $320 per year, while the Harris plan would save them $2,355 annually. Anyone who has even glanced at Project 2025 can see that the structural changes proposed within it will disfigure the face of our democracy. They will corrupt the very systems we rely on in both our day-to-day lives and our elections.

If this happens, we may not be free to organize and influence national politics the way that we are now. In other words, delivering a win for Trump is shooting our own movement in the foot. Much wiser to spend the next four years shouting loud enough for the Democrats to hear us, holding their feet to the fire, and holding them accountable for their actions. Which can be accomplished easily by a myriad of options. We could join a third party or start our own. We could run for local office and call our congresspeople every day. We could cooperate with organizations that are dedicated to electoral reform. THEN we could set a goal of delivering a loss to the Democrats who don’t heed our voices. 

What About the Genocide?

I understand that the aim is for us to make supporting Israel expensive. To realize our power and wield it in a way they can understand. But as of October 2024, we don’t have enough infrastructure, engagement, or organization to follow up that kind of big statement, no matter who is elected. If the goal is real change, we have to plan for that change rather than grasping at the brass ring that is a high profile national election as our first move.

Members of the third-party movement claim that this election is unique because voting for Harris is something one has to step over the bodies of innocent Gazans to do. Those of us who have spent decades involved in the fight for freedom in Palestine recognize this as status quo. The only thing that is different this year is the scale of the illegal occupation’s atrocities. The severity of its atrocities is the same as it has been since 1947. 

And if the two main choices were between a party that would continue supporting Israel and a party that would cut support to Israel, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Neither party, however, has shown through its actions or its words that it is willing to do so. So the choice for third-party voters is: Do we vote blue and elect an Israel-supporting administration that can be reasoned with or vote third party and elect an Israel-supporting administration that has neither the capacity to negotiate nor the humility to be influenced? 

Voting blue this year is also following the sunnah of the precedent set by zakat. When deciding where to allocate your zakat, the sunnah is to distribute it to those in need around you rather than those in need far away. We begin sadaqah with our families. We branch out from there to our neighbors. Using this maxim, our votes should be cast with the well-being of those around us foremost in our minds. Because sacrificing the stability of our own society in order to send a message about injustice to our brethren helps neither ourselves nor them.

Even if we were to base our ballots on what’s best for our brothers and sisters in Palestine, there is no reason to assume a different outcome for them if we throw the election to Trump. Imam Tom Facchine acknowledges that a Trump administration will probably be more “ham fisted”—worse in the short term—for the Palestinians than a Harris administration, but goes on to suggest that perhaps making things worse in the short term is the best way to arrive at a better outcome in the long term. Using this as an argument in favor of voting third party, though, pits unknown actions and their consequences (each of which comes with a million domestic and foreign variables) against the destruction of the structure of our entire democracy. The possibility Imam Tom mentions, while not impossible, is so ephemeral as to not even register on the scale, let alone outweigh the sense it makes to vote blue this year and live to fight another day.

Right now, the only thing this movement is standing for is what it doesn’t want. It doesn’t want Democrats to think they have our loyalty. But just like the participants in so many other revolutions, we need to learn that that is not a basis for change. We need to agree first on what we do want. We need to learn to work together. We need to create a net of effective organizing for that “big statement” to fall back into after the election. And we need to gauge accurately how difficult all that will be if the extreme right wing holds even just the executive branch for the next four years.

[Disclaimer: this opinion article does not reflect the views of MuslimMatters, a non-profit organization that does not endorse candidates and welcomes editorials with diverse political perspectives.]

Related:

[Podcast] “Trump May Be the Lesser of Two Evils” | Ustadh Mobeen Vaid

Imams Call To “Abandon Harris” As American Election Looms