I don't like extending the turn-of-phrase "lesser of two evils" to subsequently label each candidate evil. I realize you're just continue with the phrase, but I bristle a little bit at the implication that major-party voters are voting in an evil.

> If you are saying you have to choose between two bad candidates, you are implying you would choose a better option if one existed.

Well there's a word missing here that changes it. People are not typically implying they would choose a better option if one existed; rather, they are typically implying they would choose a different viable candidate if a different viable candidate existed.

> If you don't think the third party candidate is a better option, that's fine, don't vote third party, but if you think the major party options are evil, the just don't vote.

This is again a suggestion I take umbrage to, and one I feel primarily made by those unlikely to feel the level of personal impact from a given election. Both candidates are the same, unless your voting rights are threatened. Both candidates are the same, unless you're reproductive rights are threatened. Both candidates are the same, unless you depend on food stamps to feed your children and yourself.

Elections have real stakes. It's all well-and-good to take a philosophical stance with a third-party, but that third-party candidate isn't going to win. It's both a self-fulfilling prophecy to say so, and a pragmatic acknowledgement of present-day reality. So, when one of two people will win, and your vote does matter (which isn't a given), then the rational thing to do is vote for the person who you feel will do you the most good or least harm. And everyone that turns their nose up at you for not tilting against windmills can learn to take it easy.

Your argument basically revolves around two points. One is that if you feel one candidate represents your views, then you need to vote for that candidate. That's absolutely, 100% fine and what you should do! I am speaking to the people who don't find their views fit with either candidate, or the negatives outweigh the positives so much, that they feel they are not given a real choice, which is not really true. The second point you are trying to make is saying that you should only vote for a viable candidate, which is like saying you should only cheer for a sports team that has a viable chance of winning a championship. That's ridiculous, and just passive aggressive bullying to get people to feel they need to vote for a candidate you support. People should be free to vote with their hearts for whomever they feel best represents their interests. If the candidate they vote for loses, fine, that's the democratic process, and has a 50% chance of happening anyways if you vote for a 'viable' candidate. If someone feels they have to vote for the candidate who is going to win, that's something more akin to countries like Venezuela or Iran, where there are elections, but we all know how much choice people are actually given in those places.

> One is that if you feel one candidate represents your views, then you need to vote for that candidate.

That is not what I said, though I don't necessarily disagree. I am making the argument that voting is a self-interested exercise one way or the other; even voting for the "greater good" is an exercise in personal self-interest. So if you evaluate the two candidates who have any chance of winning and find a significant difference in how you and your peers' lives will be affected, then it's rational to vote for one of those candidates even if your views align better to a non-viable third-party candidate.

> The second point you are trying to make is saying that you should only vote for a viable candidate

No, that is again not what I am saying or have said. You're inferring something I'm not implying. Everyone should vote how they want to vote. What I don't like is the philosophical grandstanding about how if one doesn't really like either candidate that they should not vote or vote third-party, or that voting third-party or abstaining is some symbol of moral strength or "rightness."

It's easy to laud the nobility of voting third party or abstaining, futility of outcome or not, when you view the outcome of either viable candidate as basically equivalent. But they aren't equivalent, especially to certain subgroups of people. You specifically encouraged people not to vote for "evil candidates"; if you meant the word "evil" literally then fine, ignore this. But I don't think you did, and therefore I found your suggestion quite distasteful.

That's an interesting concept and I'd extend it by saying that one vote for least-worst requires the efforts of two third-party voters to compensate; one just to cancel-out and one to compensate for the lost 'potential' of the original voter.