It was November 7, 2000. Election night. George W. Bush vs Al Gore. No clear winner had yet emerged because the initial vote tally in Florida was still close, triggering a machine recount and later one done by hand. Dec. 12, 2000. The Supreme Court ended the recount and ruled Bush as the next President of the United States. However, Gore had won the popular vote over Bush by some 500,000 votes—the first inversion of the electoral and popular vote since 1888.

But there was a reason that the election was so close, other than the ballot issue in Florida, and it’s something I’ve heard Democrats talk about in agonized tones since I was a kid: the Democratic vote was split between Gore and Green Party candidate Ralph Nader. If the nearly three million people who cast their votes for Nader had voted for Gore, we wouldn’t have ended up with eight years of Bush. As Bill Nye mentioned in his speech at Macalester this past weekend, the effects of this election were long-lasting. The United States invaded Iraq, lost precious time in fighting climate change, and witnessed the destructive effects of super PACs due to the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC.

None of these federal actions are necessarily the fault of the people who voted for Nader. We should live in a country where a third-party candidate could feasibly win, but we don’t — at least not yet. It is important to have our opinions and choices represented by our elected officials, which is why it is so critical we vote in primaries and participate in local elections. But right now a third-party candidate is not going to win the presidency. We cannot afford to be single-issue voters in this election.

This election will either result in the re-election of former President Donald Trump, a fascist, whose second term would surely be much, much worse than the first; or the election of the first woman president, the first Asian American president, and the second Black president of the United States. Aside from these demographic firsts, Vice President Kamala Harris would represent a continuation of many of President Joe Biden’s most progressive policies, and some shifts in focus towards other areas including combatting the high cost of housing, something that will directly impact young people.

I know that some people are upset with some aspects of Harris’ record. I would like to address two issues I’ve heard from progressives that are preventing them from committing to vote for Harris.

First, the claim that Harris, as Attorney General in California, held prisoners past their release date. It refers to, but misconstrues, a legal argument made in 2014 by attorneys in her office in response to a court order aimed to decrease the prison population in California. The court order said that repeat offenders were eligible for parole after serving half their sentence to reduce overcrowding. The attorneys in her office argued (unsuccessfully) that releasing some of these offenders early would hurt prison labor programs. Obviously, this is a problematic take, and since Harris was in a leadership position she should have (and has) taken responsibility. However, I think it is also important to note that she likely wasn’t closely involved in these arguments because California Department of Justice policy didn’t require state lawyers to seek approval from the Attorney General.

The second, and to me, more important thing to recognize is that she did take responsibility for the lack of oversight when she was confronted about it in an interview less than a week after the argument was made. The ability to admit when you’ve made mistakes is something I want in my next president.

Second, an issue I’ve heard discussed at length at Mac, is the Biden Administration’s policies on the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict. The last year has been a despicable display of human cruelty in the Middle East and of apathy in the insufficient response that has taken place in the United States at the legislative and executive levels. We have seen some of the worst things that one human being could do to another. There has been a devastating and infuriating lack of proper action by our Congress, and lawmakers must do a better job listening to both their own constituents and protesters who have committed their time and energy to pushing for change. Many students at Mac have been among them, and many of us have not seen the changes we’ve wanted to see. There isn’t anything I can say to disregard this, and I wouldn’t want to. So here’s what I’ll say. There is clearly a better and a worse option in this election. One candidate has encouraged Israel to “get the job done,” and would aggravate the situation with his inflammatory remarks and baseless claims. And while we might wish that the other would distance herself further from Biden’s policies, Harris has already been more receptive to criticism and calls for change. With regards to the ongoing war in Gaza, you probably won’t feel inspired to vote for either candidate, but there is nevertheless a clear choice: only one candidate has called for a ceasefire and acknowledged Palestinians’ right to dignity, security, freedom and self-determination.

This election presents us with an opportunity to block a divisive and dangerous presidential ticket with a 900 page plan to restructure America by stripping us of our rights, imposing upon us a system with fewer checks and balances and bringing us closer to authoritarianism than we have ever been in American history. Project 2025 is much more from a “concept of a plan” than we’d like to think.

For most Mac students, this will be their first time voting in a presidential election. This is huge. By electing Harris and Tim Walz, we have the opportunity to bring back hope and choose leaders who will listen to progressive coalitions.

I know there are students at Mac who are planning to vote for a third-party candidate or simply not vote at all, and I sincerely hope that those students will reconsider. A third-party candidate will not win this election – I don’t think anyone is under the illusion that that will happen.

So it comes down to a protest vote, right? I understand why people feel the need to vote that way, but there is a reason that leaders like Putin and Netanyahu are hoping the progressive vote will be split between Harris and third-party candidates like Jill Stein or Cornel West. It’s because they want Trump to win. Let’s not play into the hands of war criminals.

Let’s learn from the presidential election of 2000. We do not have the luxury of doing otherwise.

We can work together to build coalitions, and we can protest and push a Harris-Walz presidency on as many policies as we want, but only if they win.

• [email protected]