Senior government and politics and information systems major

During elections, we clearly aren’t always offered the best candidates. Before the Nov. 5 Virginia gubernatorial election, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart compiled a clip mocking Ken Cuccinelli and Terry McAuliffe, candidates in the race, for being utterly terrible — citing the Virginia election as a decision between “pond scum” and “dog poop.”

The election had Cuccinelli, who has far-right tea party attributes, competing against McAuliffe, whose sleazy business deals didn’t make him the ideal gubernatorial candidate. That election was close, with McAullife beating Cuccinelli by less than 3 percent. Libertarian Robert Sarvis pulled in about 7 percent of the vote, a high percentage for a third party candidate.

Voting for a third party seems like a growing trend. An October Gallup poll found 60 percent of Americans believe Republicans and Democrats do such a poor job that a third party is needed. USA Today even did a spotlight on young people’s desire to give third parties more of a say in the electoral process. However, as much as third parties shine light on issues the major parties aren’t talking about, voting for them, in some cases, seems to do more harm than good.

Libertarians do a good job of shifting Republican policy to be more liberty-oriented (and therefore more appealing to young people). Republicans could perform better among young voters if they realize that relaxing their immigration, drug and other social policies could win them more votes. The Green Party can keep Democrats’ environmental positions in check.

But when it comes to actual elections, is voting for a third party an effective decision? If you wanted to vote for a candidate who’s likely to win less than 10 percent of the vote, then are you really trying to win?

Dissenters likely will cite the importance of voting for yourself — of choosing a candidate who reflects your exact positions rather than voting for someone who belongs to a major party.

Although that idea sounds sweet, there comes a time when you have to realize the realities of the world of politics. As much as we have to choose between the disgusting choices of “pond scum” and “dog poop,” other options won’t win an election. The rough truth is that politics is about winning — it’s always about winning.

Maybe we should just get rid of our two-party system and our electoral college? Though this is another choice that sounds nice on paper, having more than two parties will mean a winner of an election could win with, say, 30 percent of the vote. Do we really want a winner who only three in 10 voters have sympathies toward? And if we establish a system based on the popular vote, do we really want populous states such as California and Texas —– which lean heavily liberal and conservative, respectively — determining our president?

An exit poll from last week’s Virginia race showed that more of Sarvis’ votes would have gone to Cuccinelli, with McAuliffe still winning if Sarvis didn’t run. However, this poll also showed 5 of Sarvis’ 7 percent of voters wouldn’t even have showed up to vote in the first place. If more get-out-the-vote methods were put in place, who knows what the margin would have been?

As college students, we’re surrounded by intellectual diversity. We crave debates with other students, and many of us support third parties. As much as these parties give us alternative opinions, in the battleground of politics, the sad truth is we have to choose the lesser of two evils if we really care about winning and influencing policy.

Caroline Carlson is a junior government and politics and information systems major. She can be reached at ccarlsondbk@gmail.com.