“A vote for Stein is really a vote for Trump.”

That’s what an attack ad released by the Democratic National Committee on Oct. 11 claims. The Stein they are referring to is Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate for president. The ad also claims that Stein stole votes from Hillary Clinton in 2016, handing the election to Trump. Whether these claims are true or not, they certainly raise questions about the place of third parties in a political system dominated by just two.

Stein supports a national fracking ban. She also takes a hard stance on Israel, proposing to “immediately end all military aid to Israel and adopt sanctions until Israel complies with international law” according to her campaign platform. 

Kamala Harris won’t ban fracking. That’s what she said during the presidential debate held on Sep. 10. 

She does not take this stance because she believes in it, considering how her stance has changed since her 2020 presidential campaign; she takes it because she needs to in order to win. Pennsylvania, a crucial swing state, has a sizable population of people employed in the fracking business. 

Kamala Harris won’t take a definitive stance on the conflict in Gaza. In her speech at the Democratic National Convention on Aug. 22, she said, “President Biden and I are working to end this war, such that Israel is secure, the hostages are released, the suffering in Gaza ends and the Palestinian people can realize their right to dignity, security, freedom and self-determination.”

How does she propose to achieve this? It’s anybody’s guess. This is another stance that isn’t meant to achieve anything substantive; it’s meant to appease voters on both sides of a divisive issue. 

Young progressive voters who might typically vote Democrat might be dissuaded by Harris’ positions on fracking and Gaza, and they don’t see Donald Trump as a good option either.

When it comes to the environment, Donald Trump has said “drill, baby, drill.” He seems to have no qualms when it comes to drilling for oil and continuing to use fossil fuels. During his presidency, he withdrew the United States from the Paris Climate Accords, an agreement intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit the effects of climate change.

On the topic of Israel, Trump’s administration recognized Jerusalem as its capital and moved the U.S. embassy there, a controversial move that showed support for Israel. Recently, he has become more critical of Israel, saying that they need to get the war done quickly as public opinion is on a downward spiral. However, he has not been as vocal as Harris in calling for a ceasefire, even criticizing such an agreement.

If neither the Democrat Kamala Harris nor the Republican Donald Trump represents the views of young progressive voters, they may turn to other candidates like the Green Party’s Jill Stein.

They may also turn to independents like Cornel West, who, similarly to Stein, wants to end military funding to Israel. He also wishes to declare a climate emergency, acknowledging that climate change is an urgent crisis.

West joined pro-Palestinian protestors outside of the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in August, voicing opposition to the current administration’s support for Israel.

“This is not about some Machiavellian politics or some utilitarian calculation about an election,” West said. ““This is about morality. This is about spirituality.”

It is, in fact, about the calculations about an election. The morality of a candidate should factor into one’s decision to vote for them. However, we cannot expect anybody, particularly a politician, to be a flawless angel. Instead, we should vote for the candidate who best represents our values.

For some voters, though, West or Stein are the ones that represent their values best. The question then is whether or not they even have a chance of taking those values with them to the White House. The unfortunate truth is that, short of an electoral miracle, neither West nor Stein has any chance of winning the election in November.

The political game should be changed, but until it is, we have to keep playing it. That means progressives should vote for one of the two major candidates, even if neither candidate wants to ban fracking or end support for Israel. At least those two candidates have the chance to get into the White House and at least represent some of their values.

Voting for third parties may be naive, but these parties have a right to exist. While the claim that “a vote for Stein is really a vote for Trump” may ring true, attacking Jill Stein or other third party candidates is quite tactless, especially when those candidates seem to be appealing to your own voter base.

Instead of attacking Stein, Democrats should be making policy changes that make it so people won’t be tempted to vote for her. However, Democrats, having a much broader base than the Greens, have to appeal to moderates, not just die-hard progressives. The chances of any policy changes being made this late in the game are low.

In this political climate, it is impossible for Democrats to completely represent their voter base’s values. But if you care about progressive values, vote for Kamala Harris, not Jill Stein. Jill Stein would follow through with her progressive promises if she miraculously gets elected. Kamala Harris might not to the same extent, but at least she has a chance to win.