Emily Theroux | staff writer |

Nov. 5, 2024, is a date that will alter the course of American history.

Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump are polar opposites: a prosecutor and a felon. There is no world in which this election does not shape the country for better or for worse.

You may wonder if there could be a secret third option, a yellow brick path that departs from the current fork in the road toward a Utopian United States.

We are stuck with the nominees from the Democratic and Republican parties, though, because of the structure of America’s two-party system. It would be virtually impossible to elect a third-party candidate unless a massive nonpartisan display of civil disobedience was strategically planned for years on end.

To my knowledge, no far reaching coup has been staged, so I do not think an independent would be successful in this particular race. Given the political polarization that seems to increase by the minute, I don’t think a third-party candidate who leans more left or right would be able to gain a large enough following to turn the tide either. This begs the question: What should someone do if their ideologies do not align with either prominent candidate?

The largest critique that Harris has received within her own base is that she has not done enough to effectively address the conflict in the Middle East, specifically the Israeli invasion of Gaza. Palestinian civilians have been under attack; collateral damage of the ongoing war between the terrorist organization Hamas and the military superpower of Israel.

For over a year, the humanitarian crisis in Rafah has continuously been ignored and denounced by many politicians, causing a demand for change from younger generations who share their dissatisfaction on social media. The “Free Palestine” movement begs for a ceasefire and a permanent end to the persecution that Palestinians have been subjected to for decades. Many young leftists have threatened to withhold their vote for Harris or vote for a more progressive third-party candidate like the Green Party’s Jill Stein. Although this sentiment is rooted in empathy, it does more harm than good: a withheld vote for Harris is a vote for Trump.

Imagine someone walking with a man they know is blind and deaf and that man crosses the street into oncoming traffic in front of them. If that someone just stands there and watches him walk into the street, it is arguable that they aided in the outcome by not intervening. If they attempt to reach out and pull the man off of the street to safety, but are ultimately unsuccessful, they did everything they could to prevent harm and therefore bear no responsibility on that outcome. If they successfully pull that man off of the street, they have prevented a harmful outcome.

This is analogous to the presidential election because voting is a strategic tool to avoid a less desirable outcome. The two party system has grown cancerous to the American people. The vitriolic rhetoric used to solve human rights issues is deplorable, dialogue in Congress is dysfunctional at best, and mainstream news networks have legally had to clarify that they are entertainment channels because of bias and misinformation in their reporting. Many political changes would have to happen for me to be proud of the government that represents me.

However, I will be casting my vote for Harris because she is the only candidate that will make strides toward the America that I want. No other candidate who even slightly resembles my ideology has a chance of being elected. If I opt out of the election, I am pretending that a system can be changed through disorganized withdrawal. I agree that the conversation of Palestine has seemed aggravatingly forgotten by politicians, but I can almost guarantee that a Trump presidency would be worse for Palestinians. He and other members of his party have made that abundantly clear.

Trump’s former Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley was pictured signing Israeli bombs that read “Finish them! America loves Israel!” Because of the United States’ historical alliance with Israel, I don’t think any presidential candidate would actually follow through with breaking that partnership regardless of the harm being done.

Donald Trump himself said that he hopes Israel will “finish up” soon. He also said Gaza could be rebuilt “better than Monaco,” implying that whatever remains of Palestine should become a haven for the wealthy. He fully supports Israel and has no care for the autonomy of Palestinians.

The only plan on the table for a ceasefire in the United States is being brought forth by the Biden/Harris administration. It is not a perfect plan by any means, but it would guarantee a ceasefire in Gaza and a return of Israeli hostages. It has been adopted by the U.N. Security Council. Harris has more than a concept of a plan. She has a compromise that is likely to become this conflict’s resolution. It is frustrating to compromise, but it’s the reality before us.

There should never be an end to critiquing the government, but there is no way to actually change things without utilizing the right to vote. The right to vote should be aimed toward the future that is more desirable even if it’s not completely ideal.

Look at the options that are available and contemplate if this is an election where the withholding of a vote is worth it when that vote could prevent an outcome that is the antithesis of one’s own ideology. We have the right to determine America’s representative. It’s all we have so that progress is possible. Otherwise we can expect our country to go all the way back to 1798.