And just like that, the countdown begins for the 2024 presidential election with headliners Kamala Harris and Donald Trump taking center stage. As the world watches the show with a bucket of popcorn and an iced lemonade in hand, Americans across the country toy with the idea of casting a vote for the first nonwhite female candidate or a criminal. However, a subset of Americans are looking elsewhere for their next president. Entering from the thickets of independents and third-party candidates is Dr. Jill Stein, a Harvard Medical School graduate representing the Green Party. With her call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and an emphasis on international affairs, many Muslim-Americans have defined her as the most ideal person for the Oval Office. However, despite her compelling rhetoric, the reality is that voting for Stein, with her limited track record and scant chance of winning, risks diluting the impact of the vote and failing to address the immediate needs of Muslim-Americans through more viable political avenues.

First and foremost, who really is Jill Stein? Starting off with a career in medicine in the Boston area, Stein shifted to a focus on advocacy after becoming concerned with several of her patients’ exposure to environmental problems. From there, she conducted research and co-authored several papers and books related to the environmental threat on health. Stein also became an advocate of campaign reform when she led Massachusetts to pass a “clean elections law” limiting the impact of large corporations on political campaigns. However, this reform was never financed and was subsequently repealed at a later date.

Despite her outspoken advocacy and considerable contribution to the field of medicine, Stein is known by few for her success and known by many more for her failures—particularly in political elections. Joining the Green-Rainbow Party, Stein ran for governor in Massachusetts and finished with 3.4% of the vote in 2002. Two years later, she ran for a seat in the House of Representatives, gaining more votes than the Republican candidate but still not enough to clinch the position. This trend continued as she failed to win the gubernatorial election in 2010. Despite one failure after the next, Stein remained determined as she threw her hat into the ring for the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections.

Given such a pathetic track record of one failed election after another, why are Muslims across America supporting Jill Stein? Though there could be a number of reasons, a large portion of it has to do with how the Biden administration is handling the Israel-Hamas war. Since Oct. 7, 2023, the Biden administration has sent more than 100 military aid transfers to Israel, with two of them totalling $250 million. The United States has also agreed to lease Israel two Iron Dome missile defense batteries used to intercept short-range rockets and artillery shells. In addition to the flow of ammunition, bombs, rockets and small arms, the Biden administration’s unconditional support for Israeli apartheid has infuriated the Muslim population in America. Generalizing the rest of the Democratic Party, many Muslim-Americans now associate the genocide of the Palestinians with Harris. With Trump as the only other mainstream alternative, Muslims want other options. Thus, they are turning to Stein.

With her emphasis on the need for an immediate ceasefire and harsh critique of both candidates’ stance on the Israel-Hamas war, Stein has garnered great popularity amongst Muslims. She has generated the support of 35% of Muslim voters in Arizona, 40% in Michigan and 44% in Wisconsin, states which have played a crucial role in determining the outcome of presidential elections. With weak polling in almost every other demographic, Stein is relying on the Muslim population to break into the mainstream and split the popular vote.

Preying on Muslim-Americans frustrated with the genocide in Gaza, Stein is aligning her messaging to appeal to this demographic. This is problematic in that she is treating Muslims as single-issue voters and is catering her campaign to align with their goals of ending the genocide in Gaza. Putting much less emphasis on other aspects of policy such as immigration and the economy, Stein is branding herself as someone ready to “end the war” and do what the Biden administration has failed to do. As a result, Stein has become a single-issue candidate. Persuading Muslims to vote for her on the basis of empty promises is a disservice to both the voters and the broader political discourse. By reducing a complex community to a single issue, Stein not only risks alienating those who prioritize a range of policy concerns but also undermines the genuine need for comprehensive solutions to global and domestic challenges. This approach diminishes the potential for meaningful progress, instead focusing on symbolic gestures that may ultimately fail to address the systemic issues facing both the Muslim-American community and the people in Gaza.

Even if Stein were successful at taking the Oval Office, she and the rest of the Green Party lack the governmental experience needed to implement effective policy as they have promised in their campaign. Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has criticized Stein for resorting to quixotic presidential campaigns without growing the Green Party through down-ballot electoral gains. Calling her “predatory,” Ocasio-Cortez attacked Stein in a social media showdown to which Stein responded by saying that Democrats are “running scared” because voters do not want to support genocide. This is just one of many times that Stein has resorted to her stance on Palestine as a way to defend herself from critique and constructive discourse. Ocasio-Cortez’s critique highlights how important it is for a candidate to have experience implementing change through governmental policy and having that change last. Outside of the “clean elections law” that was never funded and subsequently repealed, Stein has virtually no experience in delivering on promises made during electoral campaigns. Rather than focusing all their efforts on seizing the White House, Stein and the rest of the Green Party should focus on small-scale change to establish themselves as a party serious about governmental policy. Only by demonstrating a track record of tangible successes can Stein and the Green Party hope to prove their viability and earn the trust needed to effect meaningful change on a larger scale.

In light of the approaching 2024 presidential election, it’s crucial to remember the gravity of our choices. While Stein’s focus on ending the Gaza conflict resonates deeply with many Muslims across the nation, her lack of a proven track record and the risk of a fragmented vote underscore the need for thoughtful consideration. As the world watches, let’s not allow our frustration with specific issues to cloud our judgment. Instead, let’s vote with a mind toward the broader implications of our choices and ensure that our votes contribute meaningfully to the resolution of both domestic and international issues. Make your voice heard, but vote mindfully.