BRAT summer may still live on in popular culture as partygirl canon, but its connection to the Kamala Harris campaign—reported on in previous Spectator coverage—hasn’t fully captured youth voters, leaving young prospective voters to consider third-party candidates for the upcoming presidential race.
“I’m 90% sure that I’m voting for Jill Stein… I feel like the democratic party has failed a lot of people—myself included,” Sadie Nelson, a fourth-year history major, said.
Nelson voted for Biden in 2020, believing him to be the lesser of two evils. In 2024 however, she feels morally unable to support the Biden/Harris administration’s policies toward Israel and Palestine.
“I don’t think I can vote for anyone who supports genocide,” Nelson said.
More significant to young voters than any social media campaign effort are the nominees’ stances on actual policy. Associate Professor of Political Science Patrick Schoettmer commented on this stance often taken by Gen Z.
“[Young voters] tend to care much more about the policy outcome rather than the performance of the party,” Schoettmer said.
For this reason, young people are more likely to be what Schoettmer calls “purist voters,” or voters who vote on moral principles rather than strategically.
Examining where Harris stands on major issues such as climate change, immigration, policing and the genocide in Palestine, it’s clear the campaign is supporting positions considerably more moderate than those expressed during her 2020 presidential campaign.
“Both parties have very similar opinions… I don’t think they speak to the lives of regular Americans,” Nelson said.
This sentiment was also reflected by Lucy Cress, a fourth-year social work major who has a leadership position in both Students For Justice in Palestine (SUSJP) and Sustainable Student Action (SSA). Cress says she is considering voting for Claudia De La Cruz who is running as a socialist. Her most popular plan is a proposal to nationalize the top 100 wealthiest U.S. corporations in order to increase power among workers.
Cress recognizes that Washington is almost certain to go blue, regardless of her vote. As a result, she feels like she has the privilege to vote third party in-step with her beliefs. However, she still finds the prospect of a Trump presidency distasteful.
“Obviously I’m going to celebrate when Kamala wins,” Cress said, “But there are also just so many issues she supports that are not representative of my values.”
Harris has declined to firmly define her position on specific policy measures such as support for renewable energy development or the Green New Deal. She has openly said she would not support an arms embargo on Israel and has advocated for funding increases for border security forces and domestic police. These positions are not popular with many young left-leaning voters.
Polling shows that young voters identify with progressive policy positions more than other groups. Maybe most importantly, voters who are undecided or voting third party are disproportionately young. This is a volatile constituency and has been a subject of high concern for mainstream Democrats.
Every election cycle, prominent political figures encourage voters to vote pragmatically, for the candidate they align with more closely, even if they are not fully in agreement with either candidate. After all, if U.S. democracy is what’s at stake, minor candidate preferences should take a back-seat. Some third-party voters disagree with this argument.
“It feels like the Democrats always go to abortion,” Cress said.
To her, it feels like Democrats lean too heavily on abortion in order to distract from other areas and keep more left-leaning constituencies at bay. Cress feels like the struggle for liberation in Palestine is connected and relevant to the struggles minorities and people of color go through in the United States.
“There are so many more things that fall under the same blanket [as the genocide in Palestine],” Cress said.
Nelson brought up a similar concern.
“I’ve seen a lot of people… being upset about single issues voters… [but] the genocide in Palestine is so deeply entrenched—it isn’t a single issue,” she said.
To what extent could voters like Nelson and Cress actually impact the upcoming presidential election?
Schoettmer and other political scientists say probably none at all. Ultimately, there likely aren’t enough voters willing to defect from the Democratic party—even in swing states like Michigan which have large Arab and Muslim constituencies who are deeply disturbed by the U.S.’ continued support for Israel.
Additionally, the hope that a large third-party defection would successfully move the Democratic party further to the left may be misplaced. Political precedent suggests that voting third party in order to punish another comes with great risks, like what happened to the Dixiecrats in 1948.
“Not only are they [third-party movements] not successful, they usually backfire… [the party] could see your faction as unreliable, so instead of moving toward you, they move away from you… to compete for more center-right votes,” Schoettmer said.
Some young voters on campus find third-party candidates earning their votes this election. These figures don’t have to appeal to as many coalitions as Trump or Harris, and are able to more closely align with constituents’ policy positions.
However, there is evidence to support the idea that the most transformative ideological shifts take place when actors work within mainstream parties—but the slow incremental change it produces can feel alienating and disingenuous.
