every vote for Harris is stealing a vote from third-party candidates who represent ~~real change~~ Trump, transparently even

Yes, in local elections. No, in national elections. Even if everyone dropped the DNC and voted a third party into the Presidential office, third parties don't just appear as permanent major contenders due to winning one election. Not to mention the congressional support they'd need to pass anything. You sound kinda like me when I was younger, so I really do hope you're trolling so you can avoid the sudden realization of what exactly you're suggesting. Splitting the vote is a real thing that can happen if a majority faction schisms into two minority factions. Unless you're absolutely positive that whatever third party is already going to get more votes than Harris, voting third party is splitting the progressive vote. If you want to establish a third party, go out into your county and campaign for one at a local level. Get a regional voter base and work toward a congressional campaign. Seriously, nobody's stopping you. I would love to see people doing that. But please don't pretend this pipe dream of electing a third party straight to the highest office in the land (with no legislative or judicial support) is the answer to the future.

Where have these third parties been for the past 4 years?

But remember: every vote for Harris is stealing a vote from third-party candidates who represent real change.

I suspect that's not true as there do exist folks who may prefer Harris to any of the third parties. Never-trump Republicans, for example.

This differs from the usual argument about voting third party since the additional aspect of voting for a non-viable candidate is not present here - Harris has a real shot at winning.

If you really want to avoid a Trump win, supporting a viable alternative outside the two-party system is the only way to push the conversation forward.

A couple of points in response:

There are multiple ways to push the conversation forward. For example, one can fully back Harris but still push for different policies (such as more support for Gaza, backing single payer healthcare, free college for all, or even a universal basic income).

Pushing the conversation forward is good and all, but it seems like a non-sequitur in terms of avoiding a win by the GOP candidate.

Finally, currently there do not exist any viable alternatives outside the two-party system for the president. (In downstream elections like Senators and House reps and such, we do see independents.) The closest is Socialist and independent Bernie Sanders - he's not a member of the Democratic party but he caucuses with the Dems and he ran as a primary candidate for the Democratic nomination for President.

This acknowledges the reality that an independent president would have to govern with the cooperation of a coalition of Senators and Reps.

In practical terms I suspect if there ever was an independent president, that person would have to "caucus" with either the Dems or the GOP of Congress.

By sidelining those voices, you’re indirectly helping Trump win!

I'd give credit to this. For example, some voters who identify as Muslim in some battleground states are preferring to vote for Stein over Harris and giving the reason of policy differences over Gaza and Palestine. If we sideline voices, this is how we lose votes.

By instead listening, we have a better chance to win them over, and thus turn the tide.

Also, I do really like Claudia de la Cruz, but I'm not voting for her. Thank you!

Oh right, you’re supporting Fruit - who has ONE event in the next month. https://themilitant.com/events/ Sorry, you just spend all your time talking about literally anyone else, I guess it slipped my mind.

And they only have access to 25 out of 538 electors because of how limited their ballot access is. Really backing a dynamic and legitimate campaign there, friend! So brave.