2020, D win, R runner-up - 3rd parties received 2.2 of 158.4 million votes, 0 of 538 EC votes
2016, R win, D runner-up - 3rd parties received 7.8 of 136.6 million votes, 0 of 538 EC votes (7 faithless electors defected)
2012, D win, R runner-up - 3rd parties received 2.2 of 129.0 million votes, 0 of 538 EC votes
2008, D win, R runner-up - 3rd parties received 1.8 of 131.1 million votes, 0 of 538 EC votes
2004, R win, D runner-up - 3rd parties received 1.2 of 122.2 million votes, 0 of 538 EC votes (1 faithless elector defected)
2000, R win, D runner-up - 3rd parties received 3.9 of 105.4 million votes, 0 of 538 EC votes (1 faithless elector abstained from voting)
1996, D win, R runner-up - 3rd parties received 8.1 of 94.7 million votes, 0 of 538 EC votes
1992, D win, R runner-up - 3rd parties received 20.4 of 104.4 million votes, 0 of 538 EC votes
1988, R win, D runner-up - 3rd parties received 0.6 of 91.5 million votes, 0 of 538 EC votes (1 faithless elector defected)
1984, R win, D runner-up - 3rd parties received  0.6 of 92.6 million votes, 0 of 538 EC votes
1980, R win, D runner-up - 3rd parties received 7.1 of 86.5 million votes, 0 of 538 EC votes
1976, D win, R runner-up - 3rd parties received 1.5 of 81.5 million votes, 0 of 538 EC votes
1972, R win, D runner-up - 3rd parties received 1.4 of 77.7 million votes, 0 of 538 EC votes (1 faitheless elector defected)
1968, R win, D runner-up - 3rd parties received 10.1 of 73.2 million votes, 46 of 538 EC votes (George Wallace with the American Independent party, a far-right party, whose running mate implied he would use nuclear weapons to bring the Vietnam war to a close)
1964, D win, R runner-up - 3rd parties received 0.3 of 70.6 million votes, 0 of 538 EC votes
1960, D win, R runner-up - 3rd parties received 0.4 of 68.8 million votes, 14 of 537 EC votes (1 faithless elector defected, 14 were the only "unpledged electors" to ever cast EC votes)
1956, R win, D runner-up - 3rd parties received 0.4 of 62.0 million votes, 0 of 531 EC votes (1 faithless elector defected)
1952, R win, D runner-up - 3rd parties received 0.3 of 61.7 million votes, 0 of 531 EC votes
1948, D win, R runner-up - 3rd parties received 2.6 of 48.7 million votes, 39 of 531 EC votes (Strom Thurmond with the Dixiecrat party, the infamous politician behind the longest filibuster ever, against the 57' Civil Rights Act, as well as supporter of the invasion of Grenada)
1944, D win, R runner-up - 3rd parties received 0.3 of 47.9 million votes, 0 of 531 EC votes
1940, D win, R runner-up - 3rd parties received 0.2 of 49.9 million votes, 0 of 531 EC votes
1936, D win, R runner-up - 3rd parties received 1.2 of 45.6 million votes, 0 of 531 EC votes
1932, D win, R runner-up - 3rd parties received 1.1 of 39.7 million votes, 0 of 531 EC votes
1928, R win, D runner-up - 3rd parties received 0.3 of 36.8 million votes, 0 of 531 EC votes
1924, R win, D runner-up - 3rd parties received 5.0 of 29.0 million votes, 13 of 531 EC votes

In 100 years of electoral history, a single politician running on a 3rd party platform has won a single states presidential election. Robert M. La Follette under the Progressive-Socialist-Farmer-Labor party. It was his home state of Wisconsin, where he pulled out the win with 453,678 of the total 840826 votes cast. A whopping 53.96%. A commendable achievement, truly.

In total, he drew 4.8 million votes of the total 29.0 million votes cast in 1924. While impressive, was barely half of the runner-up candidate, John W. Davis, of the Democratic party. John himself was behind by nearly half of the winning candidate, Calvin Coolidge, of the Republican party, who took home more than half of all votes (15.7 million) cast in the election. This, in combination with the idiocy of the EC, means he took 382 of the 531 EC votes. Easily clearing the threshold of 266 EC votes.

Now, Robert did pull off something incredible. He excited nearly 1 in 6 American's that voted that year to vote for him. That's wild.

For context, Strom Thurmond only got 2% of the popular vote. He still won 4 states netting him 39 EC votes from the South. And George Wallace only netted 13% of the popular vote, ultimately garnering all his EC votes from Southern states, as well. Which would be close to 1 in 8 Americans.

La Follette is clearly the highest preformer third-party candidate in the last century. And not only was he the higest preforming, it was on a ticket to make American lives better. As Governor, he enacted a series of reforms under the idea of "the Wisconsin Idea". He helped Wisconsin set a nation-wide trend in progressive policies, such as labor reform, environmental protections, attempted to reign in police brutality in an era when many politicians were signing off on Jim Crow laws.

All his work is probably why there is such a strong progressive core in the region to this date. But regardless of his great works and good intentions, it still only got him 13 of the 266 he would've needed to win a presidency.

Since 1924, the presidency has been won by a Republican or Democrat. In 1992, 19.5% of votes did NOT get cast for either the Republican or Democrat candidate. Even La Follette's ~16% of the vote doesn't even come close.

The last time a runner-up WASN'T a Republican or Democrat was in 1912, with TDR garnering 27.4% of the vote, and 88 of the 531 Electoral College votes. Ultimately losing to the Democratic candidate, Woodrow Wilson, who received 41.8% of the vote, landing on 435 of the 531 EC votes. And he barely beat out Taft, who pulled 23.17% of the vote, though this only gained him 8 EC votes.

Before that, the previous serious 3rd-party candidacy was James B. Weaver of the Populist party in 1892, who gained 8.5% of the votes. Before that was 1872, with Horace Greeley the Liberal Republican party, that was allied with the Democratic party. Though, he died before the electoral college votes could be cast.


And before that we begin to get to the civil war era of politics, where parties had begun to take the shape that they would retain til the modern day. This is where the Republican party hardly existed in any meaningful capacity, instead elections focused on the Whig vs. the Democrats, as well as other parties such as the Democratic-Republican tickets. And before that, we had the Federalists. And before that, was the US's founding.

So to be clear, the last 100+ years of US politics has seen a centralization of power around the Republican and Democratic parties. That's horrific. And we'll need to put in work over the next few decades to reverse that. But being honest about our current predicament, there is no conceivable reality in which a 3rd party candidate in the modern era -- whom would have a platform nowhere near as sizable as the most SUCCESSFUL 3rd-party candidates in contemporary history -- will be able to win the presidency. Win a state? A long-shot, but it's been done. Win the presidency? Not happening. Not this year. There's no amount of wishing upon a star for that.

There are no serious 3rd party candidates. And that's not me saying it, that's polls. That's American people telling everyone and their mother, "I am voting (Democrat/Republican) this year."

So let's be frank. No 3rd party candidate will win this year. There is 0% chance of that. Not only is there no serious candidate, but the owners of massive media conglomorates and institutional politicians will not allow someone to garner a serious platform. They have vested interests in ensuring that they stay in power. Why wouldn't they? They have nothing to lose by simply not covering someone that could be seen as a legitimate threat to their power.

Indepedent journalism has been destroyed over the past couple decades. That, too, is a problem we'll need to work to correct. But that won't be fixed by November either.

So, unless there's a hidden 3rd-party candidate (with a massive platform) lying in wait for some golden opportunity to rewrite the course of US history with a revolutionary campaign that can compete with (and outspend) both the Democrat and Republican parties, I'm not holding my breath for a 3rd-party win this year.

If you disagree with the historical realities and contemporary horrors that we must reckon with over the course of generations, that's your choice. However, if you're willing to accept for a moment that a 3rd-party candidate will not win this year, I'd like to take a moment and ask:

What does abstaining from the 2024 presidential election accomplish? Biden sucks massive donkey dicks, to put it lightly, especially (though not only) for his efforts (or lack thereof) in Gaza. I believe he has allowed, condoned, and fueled genocide against the Palestinian people. It's truly unthinkable and unconciousable. And in the primary, while his candidacy is assured (for the very same reasons as why the Republicans and Democrats are always the two candidates Americans are told to choose between), I cast my ballot in my primary against him.

But I recognize four other truths, as well:
1. Trump will not be more compassionate in Gaza. We know he has no interest in helping the Palestinian people. He has tried to frame himself as "the most pro-Israel president", as if it's a badge of honor to support an apartheid state.
2. Trump will make the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans miserable, at an accelerated pace compared to his prior administration. He has already embedded much the infrastructure in congress, the courts, and state-level politics that he would need to act out on his most vicious and contemptable policies.
3. The Democratic party is infinitely more likely than the Republican party to bend its political trajectory in favor of the American people and our Palestinian brothers and sisters.
4. The Democratic party is unlikely to change their entire platform in the face of a presidential loss. They lost 2016 and didn't change anything substantive, outside of what outsider party members have been pushing.

I am not saying I have faith in Biden, nor am I saying I support him. But if my choices are between:
1. Voting 3rd party, knowing it will fail, leaving me powerless in our winner-takes-all system
2. Abstaining, again leaving me powerless, as I did not even grit my teeth and vote against a candidate that will make the lives of my family, friends, and community worse
3. Voting for the genocidal maniac, who is promising to make my, and everyone I know's lives harder, whose party will never listen to any reforms or changes I would ask them to make
4. Voting for the genocidal maniac, whose party I have a non-zero chance of bending their platform in favor of helping Americans and Palestinians.

I care for my community and I know the threats against marganilized members of my community; women, queer, and bipoc groups, the poor and the homeless, the working and unemployed; I cannot in good concious allow my grievances against Biden to manifest in the form of allowing for a Trump administration that would seek to hurt my community. Not when there is no reason to believe there will be a 3rd party win, or that Trump would be any less bloodthirsty in his handling of Gaza.

If you think that abstaining or voting 3rd party will have the biggest impact on the political landscape, I won't tell you that you're wrong. I only disagree with your framing of what those changes might be and whom they would most effect.

In solidarity, I hope you all have a great life and I look forward to the day that we can look back on disputes such as these and think, "look at the progress we've made to the future that we want to live in". Keep up the good fight, even we don't agree on what's the best way to fight.