I would like to state now that this article is neither endorsing any particular political figure nor is it arguing against one. This is simply an issue of principle. With the upcoming presidential election, many individuals are expressing their distaste of the two primary candidates: Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. 

The Free Press claims that “…most of us vote the ‘lesser of two evils’ – a defensive vote, rather than an offensive one.” What most people seem to forget is that there are indeed other candidates out there, and they might just fit in line with one’s views much better than the Republican or Democratic nominee.The three primary parties with candidates registered in the 2016 election are the Libertarian Party, the Green Party and the Constitution Party.  

Likely even those not particularly politically savvy have heard of the Libertarians and their nominee Gary Johnson. In short, Libertarians run on a platform of social and cultural liberalism and fiscal conservatism. 

The Green Party is one that identifies as “eco-socialist,” which means that it is far-left with an emphasis on protecting the environment. Their candidate, Jill Stein, is a favorite amongst former Bernie Sanders supporters. 

Lastly, the Constitution Party is a far-right leaning party with an emphasis on Christian ideals. Darrell Castle, their nominee for president, embodies the ideals that many Republicans who do not support Donald Trump would be on board for. 

If it is not apparent, there is a second choice for everyone, whether they be liberal, moderate or conservative. There just is not a reason not to vote third party if you are not satisfied with the “mainstream” choices.…Or is there? For those familiar with the debate on the validity of voting third party, a common argument against the practice is that it is basically a wasted vote. Opponents state that voting for a third party candidate is voting for someone that has basically no chance whatsoever of becoming the president of the United States. 

While I do not have any intention of challenging that claim, as the chances of any of the aforementioned candidates winning the 2016 election are slim to none, claiming it is wasting a vote is just not accurate. 

Voting is not simply about trying to have a specific person win and take a certain political seat. While this is certainly the most important aspect of it, voting can be about making a statement as well. Sure, it sounds overly idealistic and most of us probably scoff at such a prospect, but with more and more people becoming angry with the two big parties in America, it might be time to make these angry voices heard by pushing a new party to the top. 

For a third party candidate to earn a spot in the national debates, which would in turn create massive exposure for them and their party, he or she needs to garner support of 15 percent of the public in five national polls. As The Hill stated in August of this year, “Johnson currently averages 9 percent in the three most qualifying polls, while Stein sits at just under 5 percent. In Fox’s most recent poll, Johnson scored 12 percent, but the poll did not include Stein.” 

This would suggest that at the very least, Gary Johnson was only a hair away from having the opportunity to be on equal footing with Clinton and Trump, at least as far as debates are concerned. All that is needed is for people to stop having the mindset that only voting between the two proverbial big dogs in the fight is worthwhile. While a third-party vote may not yield immediate results, establishing a trend towards voting third party instead of choosing from two candidates one does not agree with might change future elections for the better. Americans tend to be impatient. 

We seem to want immediate results, and if they are not obtained in such a speedy fashion, a lot of us just give up. Being open to third-parties is about slowly ushering in a new way of looking at things. It is about making a statement. 

This election has made it incredibly obvious that when both candidates do not appeal to a sizeable portion of the country, it creates a sense of hopelessness and anger towards the state of the nation at large.

The only way to fix this is to stop allowing uncertainty and ignorance to keep us from truly exploring our options.