The usage of the term “evils” when it comes to the two dominant American political parties, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, has always fascinated me.

You often hear the term “evils” in the following statement: “I’m voting for this candidate because they are the lesser of two evils.”

Upon reflection, it’s evident that this statement implies two things: First, both candidates and their respective parties may have negative impacts on America, and second, Americans are willing to vote for someone they do not believe is qualified to lead against their own better judgment. They are the “best choice,” but hardly a choice that any American can say that they feel confident in.

However, on a ballot given to me by the Los Angeles County Registrar’s Office, there were other choices than just Vice President Harris and former President Trump. These alternative candidates included Chase Oliver, Claudia De la Cruz, Jill Stein and even a space for a write-in candidate.

The idea of a third political party is not a novelty within America and ultimately dates back to the 19th century. But in most cases, members of third parties were originally members of either the Democratic or Republican Party. So what deterred them from those parties and ultimately led them to become a member of a third party?

“I started out as an anti-war Democrat, opposing the Bush wars, and what drove me out of the Democratic Party was after Barack Obama was elected, he kind of fell back on all the anti-war promises he had made when running for president,” Oliver, the Libertarian Party presidential candidate, said. “That drove me out of the Democratic Party, and I discovered the Libertarian Party at the Atlanta Pride festival in 2010 and haven’t looked back.”

Oliver’s political journey made me think about how many Americans feel this way about our political party system. Why are Americans often only aware of Democrat and Republican presidential candidates? Why doesn’t America care about alternative options?

The reason is simple.

Although there is a rising interest in alternative parties in respect to international relations, alternative parties are systematically excluded from the American political party system through ballot access, the Electoral College and media recognition.

Ballot access, the process by which candidates and political parties are listed as options on a ballot, is the primary way in which alternative parties are systemically excluded from the political party system. According to the Federal Election Commission, a federal agency that enforces campaign finance laws, granting ballot access is a power reserved for state governments.

Since ballot access laws are not enforced consistently across the country, third parties are significantly disadvantaged at the national level. There is no guarantee that third parties will even be listed on all voters’ ballots. Democrats and Republicans have the financial and political resources that put them at an advantage for ballot access, but newer third parties ultimately are not given those privileges.

With the use of volunteer work to collect signatures from various districts across all 50 states, third-party candidates such as Libertarian candidate Oliver, Green Party candidate Stein, Justice for All Party candidate Cornel West, Party for Socialism and Liberation candidate De la Cruz and The Constitution Party candidate Randall Terry are working to ensure that their names are on the 2024 election ballot.

“So, in some states, we had automatic ballot access because we have run previous elections and earned the numbers needed to just continue to maintain ballot access,” Oliver said. “But in many states, we had to participate in signature-gathering drives. Some states had tens of thousands of signatures that were needed.”

Third-party candidates have also appealed to state Supreme Courts that rejected their petitions to be on a state ballot. A Georgia Supreme Court ruling rejected appeals by both De la Cruz and West for ballot access within the state. West has publicly indicated his disapproval of a similar ruling in Pennsylvania.

State rulings such as this one not only hurt third-party candidates but voters as well.

When voters do not have the same options on their ballot across all 50 states, it is no longer an equitable election for all candidates.

In order to get on some ballots, some third-party candidates have opted to be write-in candidates. This option allows voters to fill out their desired candidates’ missing names themselves. Nonetheless, what this line ultimately demonstrates is yet another form of discrimination experienced by third-party candidates.

The write-in ballot capitalizes on a skill that a lot of Americans may not engage in, especially when it comes to politics – research.

Many Americans receive political information from the extremely polarized media outlets and rarely fact-check the information that they are digesting. State officials are aware that voting citizens are more likely to vote based on name and party recognition.

“It’s harder to get someone to write a name on their ballot – it’s not as easy as filling in a bubble,” said Kameron Hurt, an organizer with the De la Cruz campaign. “We’re getting emails every day saying, ‘How can we write you in?’ ‘Can we write you in in my state?’… And I just think what we’re really trying to emphasize is that we need a better system that’s an actual democracy.”

A more recent example of the consequences of the issues that third-party candidates face in securing ballot access was demonstrated in a joint press release Oct. 30 by the press teams of De la Cruz and West.

Sharing similar values such as ending wars and giving the American people an alternative party outside of the main two-party system, De la Cruz and West advise their supporters to vote for each other in states where one candidate is a ballot option and the other is not, the press release stated.

Another joint press release Nov. 2 from the De la Cruz campaign also advocated for a similar set of cross-party voting initiatives in several states with Stein and the Green Party.

De la Cruz’s joint press releases with the West and the Stein campaigns are the epitome of political unity in an election period where America is extremely polarized and divided.

Another systemic issue that third-party candidates must face is the Electoral College.

“The last thing that the two parties, either of the two parties, want is competition,” said Laura Wells, a spokesperson for the Green Party of California. “For example, in the presidential race, where they narrow it down to seven states – seven states out of the 50, where they even have to pay attention to what the voters want.”

When voters select their presidential and vice presidential picks, they are voting for the state’s electors. To win the presidential election, a candidate has to win 270 electoral votes or more from the Electoral College, which consists of 538 electors from all 50 states.

However, the majority of states give all their electors to the candidate who wins the state’s popular vote, so most if not all of the electoral votes go to either Democrats and Republicans – not alternative candidates.

The Federal Electoral Commission itself, when converting the popular votes into electoral votes, lumps all alternative candidates and parties together in a category known as “All Others.” By putting the alternative parties in one category together, their individuality is erased completely.

Here, the implication is clear: The votes going to the other two “popular” candidates are more important than the votes for “Others.”

Although the third-party candidates may not win the presidential election, these candidates accomplish major things: introducing the American people to their parties and inspiring policy change.

“I hope to put really good ideas into the political atmosphere, so hopefully that, if I’m not president of the United States, other people can adopt those great ideas and try to bring those ideas to fruition,” Oliver said.

The media, a crucial asset of political education, also systemically excludes third parties.

The nonprofit organization that runs the mainstream presidential debates, known as the Commission on Presidential Debates, contributes to this bias with rules that dictate only candidates with 15% of the national electorate’s support can participate in a presidential debate.

In an effort to be inclusive, the nonprofit organization Free & Equal Election Foundation has held four presidential debates, with Vice President Harris and former President Trump being invited but ultimately choosing to not attend.

Oliver, Stein and Terry, on the contrary, have all been in attendance at the majority of these debates.

Third parties that are even smaller than the average are forced to endure a disproportionately greater bias compared to their more prominent third-party opponents. One such example is the Party for Socialism and Liberation.

Many articles refuse to even mention PSL, putting forth the notion that it is insignificant, Hurt said.

The American political system should reflect the various opinions of its people and allow for a spectrum of political opinions to exist on a major stage rather than in the shadow of Democrats and Republicans.

There is no reason why ballots across the 50 states should be different for the presidential election. If all Americans are to be considered equal under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, then there should be nationwide consistency among the names on an election ballot and equal treatment for all potential presidential candidates.

To address these barriers, the American government must reckon with the idea of transformative change to ballot access and the Electoral College.

If we fail to allow alternative parties to have their voices heard in our political system, we risk going against our principles of democracy altogether.