It feels exhausting to hear about how “unprecedented” the stakes are every election cycle. I am only 20 years old, but it feels as though this is what voters have been told for as long as I’ve had a conscience about politics. While I understand the importance of voting in every election, the stakes of the first presidential election I will ever vote in have me feeling especially anxious. 

The 2024 election has certainly been on my mind lately, but the discourse around pop star Chappell Roan’s views on how there are “problems on both sides” really got me thinking about how problematic it is that the average voter is stuck picking between a lesser of two evils every election cycle. 

The thing is, Roan is right. Every election cycle, presidential candidates will do whatever it takes to get the votes of centrist and undecided voters. According to an Oct. 3 NPR poll, 20% of voters nationwide were undecided.

Daily headlines, sent straight to your inbox.

Subscribe to our newsletter to keep up with the latest at and around USC.

Of that group, 15% were leaning toward a candidate, while the remaining 5% considered themselves completely undecided. So, while most voters are set in who they will vote for and likely have strong feelings about the candidates, Harris and Trump are stuck trying to appeal to the undecided group.

What this means is that the candidates will do whatever they can to race to the center, which often means the Democratic candidate will skew conservatively on some issues. And while Harris is the clear choice for voters who place LGBTQIA+ rights as their top concern — with Trump pledging to roll back protections for queer people and ban gender-affirming health care — the same cannot be said for left-leaning voters who prioritize different issues.

Alarmingly, Harris has skewed right on immigration and has taken similar positions to what Democrats condemned when Trump first ran in 2016. Harris, who once called a border wall “un-American” in 2018, is now supporting its construction. One of the most prominent issues among Democratic voters this election cycle, though, is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the Middle East. 

Interestingly, a March 2024 Gallup poll found that 49% of Democratic voters sympathize more with Palestinians than Israelis, with only 38% of voters sympathizing with Israelis more. This marks the first time that more Democratic voters sympathized with Palestinians than Israelis; as recently as 2018, Gallup found that 49% of Democratic voters sympathized more with Israelis while only 31% of voters sympathized with Palestinians. 

This reversal reflects a decadeslong trend in polling of increased support for Palestine, indicating a clear shift in an electorate that has historically been more sympathetic toward Israel. 

Despite this clear shift, Harris has stayed firm that Israel “has [a] right to defend itself” but also argues that Palestinians need “dignity [and] security.” This stance is particularly unsettling to voters who consider themselves more leftist, like myself — an electorate that is more likely to support a Democratic candidate. And while I will cast my vote for Harris come November, what Roan said is right — “settling for what has been offered [is] … questionable.” 

It is also just plain frustrating. Voters like myself are often stuck settling our values in favor of middle voters, which is why many leftists are considering voting for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, in this election. 

While it may seem moral to vote for Stein, a candidate who is pro-Palestine, her chances of victory are next to none. Given that Trump won by fewer votes than what Stein received in key swing states during the 2016 election, voting for Stein is not the way to prevent further Palestinian deaths; voting for Harris is.

While Harris presently takes a pro-Israel stance, her rhetoric has been distinctly different from Trump’s and even from President Biden’s. As early as March — and before Biden — Harris called for a ceasefire. 

Most often, voters are willing to be civically engaged once every four years on election day and not at any other point. But voters must take their civil duties beyond voting by pressuring Harris after election day to reach a ceasefire and disarm Israel.

In June 2012, President Obama signed the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals as an executive order, protecting a group of young, undocumented immigrants who met certain requirements. Obama didn’t sign this order because he had unwavering support for undocumented immigrants. Rather, DACA came into law because of undocumented immigrants and allies working with immigration attorneys to organize large protests outside of Obama’s campaign offices.

But by electing Harris into office and pushing her in similar efforts, we may preserve more Palestinian lives than by voting for Stein and potentially enabling another Trump administration. If voters want third parties to become more viable, efforts must begin with smaller-scale elections. Change happens gradually, not by supporting a candidate with no viability in a national election.