In the 2000 presidential election, Florida became the critical swing state. Though Al Gore won the national popular vote by more than 543,000 votes, George W. Bush defeated Gore in Florida by 537 votes. Ralph Nader (the Green Party candidate, drawing largely from Democratic voters) received 97,421 votes in Florida. Other third-party candidates (arguably drawing from Bush supporters) received less than 35,000 Florida votes. The consensus was that Nader’s campaign swung Florida’s Electoral College votes to Bush, who became president with an Electoral College margin of 271-266.

In 2024, Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, and Cornel West (both drawing largely from Democratic voters) are on the Maine ballot. Given Maine’s (almost singular) distribution of Electoral College votes (each district has one vote), Trump, in a conservative 2nd District, has an added leg up to win the district’s one Electoral College vote.

More importantly, in 2024, Stein is on the ballot in over 40 states, including every significant swing state. West is on the ballot in more than a dozen states, many of them swing states. In these states, votes for either of these candidates will draw largely from (and reduce) the Democratic candidate’s vote total.

Further, two long-standing presidential election realities underscore the significance third-party candidates have, particularly in a close election. First, 48 of the 50 states do not split their Electoral College votes, adhering instead to a “winner-take-all” approach. Second, the winner is not limited to the person receiving a majority of the total votes cast, but also includes the person who gets the largest number (a plurality) of the votes cast. Given the large number of states in which Stein/West are participating, none of which they are likely to win, the above realities give Trump an edge in many more states than the one-vote edge he has in Maine.

It is also true that the 2024 presidential race is said to be very close. It follows then that voting for Stein/West type of third-party presidential candidates is actually voting for Trump. These candidates have little chance of winning. In any state they are on the ballot, they depress the Democratic vote.

A presently unresolved legal question is whether, and/or to what degree, may Trump supporters quietly (or more directly) and financially (or in other ways) support these third-party candidates because their being in the race benefits Trump. This is particularly important in the six or eight swing states that almost certainly will decide who will be our next president.

In short, stay tuned – the stage is set for a repeat of 2000. Kamala Harris (as Gore did in 2000) may win the national vote total (quite possibly by a very large margin) but lose the Electoral College vote by votes siphoned off by third-party candidates in one or more swing states. Our system for electing a president allows this to occur. I venture many won’t be happy if this scenario unfolds.