I Was a DNC Delegate—And I’m Not Voting for Harris.

From Powerlessness to Responsibility: My Journey to Voting

For most of my life, voting felt out of reach. As a former undocumented immigrant, I once lived on the margins, powerless to shape the nation I now call home. When I gained U.S. citizenship, the right to vote became more than a symbol—it was a responsibility, a privilege I had once thought was unattainable.

But with that right comes the duty to make an informed choice. To vote based on values, not out of loyalty or fear.

And that’s why, as someone who was a delegate to the Democratic National Convention who cast a vote for Kamala Harris in August 2024, I won’t be voting for her now.

The reasons are simple but critical: words without action, hypocrisy in foreign policy, and an unwavering commitment to a political status quo that prioritizes power over humanity.

The Lie of the Two-Party System

In the United States, we celebrate competition as the driving force of capitalism. Competition improves products, gives consumers choice, and keeps power in check. Yet, our political system is the opposite—a two-party monopoly where competition is actively discouraged, replaced by a cycle of binary thinking.

Both Democrats and Republicans claim to represent the “greater good,” but in reality, they serve the interests of those who fund them. And right now, that means catering to powerful lobbies like AIPAC, whose influence dictates foreign policy at the expense of human rights.

Without real competition, we end up with leaders who say whatever it takes to get elected but do little to deliver on their promises. It’s time to inject the spirit of competition into American politics by supporting a third party that can challenge this broken system.

American politics today prevents critical thinking and taking a nuanced stance on any given issue. Let me give you an example.

Imagine a candidate who takes a stance that’s critical of both excessive military spending and unconditional support for foreign allies like Israel. They advocate for reducing military aid to certain countries—not as an anti-Israel stance, but as part of a broader policy that emphasizes diplomatic solutions and domestic reinvestment.

They argue that a more balanced approach, one that reduces military aid and refocuses resources on urgent domestic issues like healthcare and education, would better serve the American people.

Such a stance would likely be rejected by both major parties, each of which has strong ties to defense contractors and powerful lobby groups (like AIPAC) that support unconditional military aid.

Democrats would avoid supporting this candidate, fearing it might alienate voters who view military aid as a staple of American security. Republicans would dismiss the candidate as being weak on national security. Even though this nuanced position could attract voters across the spectrum who want a shift in priorities, the candidate would struggle to gain traction because of how deeply entrenched military aid policies are in the party lines.

In this two-party landscape, where significant funding comes from defense and lobbyist groups, such a candidate would be shunned and struggle to receive the necessary support to compete, let alone win.

This pressure forces candidates to abandon nuanced solutions in favor of party-aligned stances, perpetuating a system that overlooks innovative, potentially beneficial policies in favor of maintaining the status quo.

The Disillusionment at the DNC: Words Without Action

As a delegate, I had high hopes for Kamala Harris. During the Democratic National Convention, Harris spoke on Israel and Palestine, saying Israel has a right to exist, and Palestine has a right to self-determination. Hearing these words, I felt a glimmer of hope. I thought, Here’s someone willing to take a nuanced stance. Here’s someone willing to acknowledge both sides.

But words are hollow without action. Since that speech, the Biden administration has continued sending billions in military aid to Israel—funding weapons used in ways that don’t align with those promises of self-determination for Palestine.

This pattern isn’t new. Politicians often say what voters want to hear, then act in ways that serve their donors. At the DNC, the narrative that Trump is an existential threat to democracy was hammered into us, a tactic designed to stoke fear and ensure party loyalty.

This fear-mongering distracts from the fact that, while the Democrats criticize Trump, they’re simultaneously reinforcing policies that perpetuate violence abroad. It’s time to see past these narratives and examine actions, not just words.

This Isn’t About Hate—It’s About Humanity

Let me be clear: my decision isn’t rooted in hate, nor is it about being anti-Israel or anti-Jewish. This is about holding a government accountable for policies that disregard human rights. Many of my closest friends are Jewish, and I know that countless members of the Jewish community oppose the actions of the Israeli state.

This issue is not religious; it’s political.

Just as we can say that Hamas is a terrorist organization (which it absolutely is), we can call the Israeli state’s actions what they are: acts of violence against a civilian population. This is not about siding with one group or the other—it’s about condemning violence and oppression, no matter who commits it.

Many Americans, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, recognize this as a basic issue of humanity, not religion. We need leaders who can make this distinction, who understand that the fight for justice transcends nationality or ethnicity.

Choosing the Third-Party Route: A Long-Term Strategy for Change

People often say that voting third-party means throwing away your vote. This is not true because I would tell these people that politics is a long term game.

Voting isn’t just about who wins this election. It’s about creating momentum for real change. When we vote for a third-party candidate like Jill Stein, we’re investing in a future where federal funding allows third-party candidates to compete fairly, which gives us a shot at breaking the two-party monopoly.

The world is more complex than a simple two party system that prioritizes power and self-preservation over nuanced solutions.

Voting third-party is a long-term strategy, a way to challenge a broken system and lay the groundwork for real political competition. If we keep voting for the lesser of two evils, we’re perpetuating a cycle that will never lead to meaningful change.

The Trump Fear-Mongering Narrative: Checks and Balances Exist

At the DNC, we were told repeatedly that Trump poses an unprecedented threat to democracy, that a vote for him could be the last vote Americans ever cast. But this narrative isn’t grounded in reality. The United States has checks and balances that prevent any one person from seizing absolute power. Trump served as president, and when he lost, he left office.

Yes, Trump is unpredictable and ego-driven, but he isn’t the end of democracy. This “Trump is the worst thing that could happen” narrative is a tool designed to keep people in line. It distracts from the fact that, with Harris, we know exactly what we’re going to get: unwavering support for Israel, minimal accountability for international human rights abuses, and more of the same hollow promises.

With Trump, there’s at least a degree of unpredictability that could lead to progress. We don’t have to buy into the narrative that he’s the singular threat to our democratic values.

Why My Vote Will Be for Jill Stein—and Why It Matters

This November, I won’t vote for Kamala Harris, and I won’t vote for Donald Trump. My vote will go to Jill Stein, not because I expect her to win, but because I believe in a future where more than two parties can compete fairly in American politics.

This vote is a message and a way to signal that the American people demand change, that we’re tired of watching our leaders sacrifice values for power and political gain.

Here is how it works: If Jill Stein gets more than 5% of the popular vote on November 5th, federal funding will be available to third-party candidates in future elections. That funding is crucial for breaking the two-party monopoly on American politics.

If this happens, we can actually start having healthy competition in US politics and have nuanced discussions on complex topics.

This election isn’t just about choosing a leader—it’s about choosing the kind of politics we want to support moving forward. Do we want to keep reinforcing a system that holds power over accountability, or do we want to fight for a future where politics is driven by values, not money?

Politics is a long term play, and voting for Jill Stein is a long term strategy.

Vote with Purpose, Not Fear

I believed in the Democratic Party once. I cast my vote for Kamala Harris at the DNC because I thought her words on Palestine meant something.

But words are easy. Actions are what matter, and the Democratic Party’s actions have shown me that they’re not ready to prioritize human rights over political alliances.

This election, I choose to vote with purpose, to take a stand that looks beyond the next four years and envisions a more just, competitive political system.

For anyone reading, my only request is this: educate yourself. Know who you’re voting for and why. If you want to support a long-term strategy for change, vote third-party. A vote for Harris is a vote for a party that supports genocide. A vote for Trump is, ultimately, a vote for the status quo. But a vote for Jill Stein, while unlikely to win, is strategically powerful.

Yes, it may indirectly allow Trump to win but in the long run, this is taking a stand against a broken two-party system.

It’s a vote for real competition, integrity, and a commitment to meaningful change.

Because the fight for justice doesn’t end on November 5th—it begins with the courage to vote for something better.

Call To Action

Our democracy deserves better than fear-based politics and two-party monopolies. If you believe in a future where your vote holds real power, vote with your conscience. Vote third-party. Let’s start building the change we need, one vote at a time.