Fact check: What role did third-party candidates play in the 2024 presidential election outcome?

1. Summary of the results

Third-party candidates played a minimal but measurable role in the 2024 presidential election outcome. According to the data, third-party candidates collectively received 2.13% of the total vote, which was slightly higher than the 1.86% received in 2020 ^[1]. The three main third-party candidates were:

• Jill Stein (Green Party): 868,945 votes (0.56%)
• Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: 757,371 votes (0.49%) before withdrawing from most competitive states
• Chase Oliver (Libertarian): 650,120 votes (0.42%) ^[1]

Despite pre-election concerns about potential "spoiler" effects, third-party candidates did not determine the election outcome. An AFP fact-check analysis concluded that even if all third-party votes in Michigan and Wisconsin had gone to Kamala Harris, she would still have fallen short of the 270 electoral votes needed to win, with Trump winning decisively in key swing states ^[2].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several important contextual elements:

• Historical comparison: Third-party vote share actually increased from 2020 to 2024, contrary to some reports suggesting a decline ^[1]. However, one source noted that third-party candidates received fewer votes compared to some previous elections ^[3].
• Strategic campaign decisions: The Democratic National Committee actively worked to mitigate third-party impact by portraying candidates like Jill Stein and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as spoilers who could inadvertently help Donald Trump ^[4]. This represents a significant institutional effort to shape voter behavior.
• Voter motivation beyond "spoiling": Third-party voting serves as a way for citizens to make a statement about the political system and express dissatisfaction with mainstream options, particularly among voters disillusioned with major party candidates ^{[5] [6]}.
• Structural electoral barriers: The electoral college system makes it highly unlikely for third-party candidates to win the presidency, regardless of their popular vote performance ^[5].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself is neutral and factual, but the surrounding discourse contains several biased narratives:

• "Spoiler" framing bias: Multiple sources reveal that Democratic Party operatives and media outlets consistently framed third-party candidates as "spoilers" rather than legitimate political alternatives ^{[7] [4]}. This framing benefits the Democratic Party by discouraging votes for alternatives.
• Selective historical analysis: Some sources suggest that third-party candidates "typically underperform and hurt the Democratic ticket" ^[7], but this analysis ignores instances where third-party candidates might draw votes from Republican candidates or represent genuine political alternatives.
• Oversimplified causation: The narrative that Donald Trump's presence caused fewer third-party votes ^[3] may oversimplify complex voter motivations and ignore other factors affecting third-party performance.

The Democratic establishment clearly benefits from promoting the "wasted vote" narrative around third-party candidates, as it helps consolidate opposition votes against Republican candidates ^{[7] [4]}.