Republished with full copyright permissions from The San Francisco Press.

In politics, North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum has recently made headlines with an unconventional campaign strategy, offering a lucrative $20 gift card to the first 50,000 individuals who donate just $1 to his presidential candidacy. While this tactic may raise eyebrows, it urges us to ponder the limitations of traditional approaches employed by political parties. In an era where billions of dollars are poured into elections, I propose exploring alternative strategies that challenge the norm and encourage a broader understanding of political dynamics.

One approach that diverges from conventional practices involves funding third-party candidates who can effectively detract votes from opponents. Notable examples include Ralph Nader in 2000 and Jill Stein in 2016, whose third-party campaigns arguably impacted the outcome of key swing states and consequently influenced the overall election results. Perhaps it is time for parties to embrace the influence third-party candidates can wield, turning a perceived disadvantage into a strategic advantage.

By financially supporting third-party candidates sympathetic to our causes, parties can redirect voter preferences, potentially shifting the balance of power. For instance, a Republican PAC might generously fund Cornel West’s third-party campaign, which could significantly impact the 2024 election in favor of a Republican nominee. Similarly, Democrats could entice individuals like Ron DeSantis or Chris Christie to run as third-party candidates, offering substantial financial support to undermine an incumbent Republican president. These approaches stimulate a fresh perspective on political competition, focusing more on strategic maneuvering rather than relying solely on advertising campaigns.

On the other hand, parties can explore the concept of influencing election outcomes by encouraging their supporters to relocate to key swing states. By identifying fervent Democratic voters residing in traditionally blue states like New York or California, parties can offer enticing relocation incentives, such as substantial financial rewards, to convince them to permanently move to battleground states like Arizona or Georgia. This tactic, though unconventional, aims to shape election results by amplifying the presence of like-minded voters in crucial regions where margins matter the most.

While these strategies may initially seem audacious, they highlight the need for a broader perspective and a departure from traditional campaign methods. Rather than focusing solely on short-term victories, parties can consider the long-term implications of their actions. By effectively conveying to contributors that their support is not confined to a single election but rather extends to future cycles as well, the potential for fundraising intensifies. This shift in political thinking encourages a results-oriented approach that could reshape the future of American politics.