So you're disappointed by your choices for the 2016 election. You wanted to vote for Bernie, but Hillary has the nomination. Despite Bernie's endorsement, you don't want to vote for her, and you don't want to vote for Trump. It seems like you're stuck between a rock and a hard place. But then you find out about Dr. Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate. She's a woman, graduated from Harvard medical school, and looks like a great option, right? Wrong.
I see the appeal for many who would want to vote for Stein. You might feel she's a continuation of Bernie's progressive movement. However, all of the positions that she holds the line up with positions of Hillary Clinton's. Jill Stein also has some downsides that you might not have considered, or that you haven't heard about.
First, Stein has never held an elected office higher than city council for the town of Lexington, Massachusetts. The Green Party prides itself of being made up of ordinary people, but the Presidency is not an entry-level position. Choosing to vote for someone only very slightly more qualified for the position than Donald Trump is not smart; instead, it's reckless.
Stein has called President Obama a "tool of the capitalists" and a war criminal. She has also said the passage of the Affordable Care Act, which is helping millions of people get health insurance, was a huge mistake. Her top 5 campaign contributions are not from grassroots organizations, they're from corporations. AON, Xoom Global Money Transfer, IBM, Thoughtworks, and UPS have all made massive donations to Stein. For someone parading as anti-capitalist and different from other politicians, saying she's "not for sale" is a lie.
In addition, Stein gives leniency to the anti-vaccine movement. As a medical doctor, she should know better than to pander to these people. Rather than using her position and name recognition to quell the fears of the anti-vaxxer movement, she's perpetuating their dangerous and harmful beliefs. It is extremely irresponsible of her to continue speaking out of both sides of her mouth on this issue. On one hand, she will say that vaccines have been a great asset to public health, putting a near end to diseases like smallpox and polio. On the other, she has implied that the FDA, the organization in charge of regulating and ensuring the safety of vaccines, is controlled by drug companies. In reality, most members of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee work at academic or medical institutions, not Big Pharma.
Jill Stein is aiming to appeal to the anti-science crowd with her position to put a moratorium on GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) until "proven safe". On a daily basis, GMOs save millions of lives. Without GMOs, people all over the world would starve. Billions of acres would have to be devoted to agriculture. Stein is using her position, again, to sustain the idea that GMOs are scary and unsafe.
The idea that Jill Stein is the perfect alternative to Bernie Sanders is wrong. Voting for her isn't a good way to push the progressive movement forward. If you truly want to make a difference with your vote, if you want to vote for the environment and lessening the cost of college, if you want to vote for science and a better future, then consider who Bernie Sanders gave his endorsement to.
