In a FPTP system with no "none of the above" option and no turnout limits, a vote for a candidate does not equal to support of that candidate. It only expresses the preference of that candidate compared to other candidates, and nothing more. So don't think it's a stamp of approval; it's not (but convincing you that it is in order to influence the way you vote can be a very efficient tactic).

It's not even a stamp of approval for the electoral system itself. If you pay me $X, but I believe that you owe me $Y >> X, I don't relinquish my claims to the remaining amount by taking what's currently on the table, unless I claim that I consider the debt settled. Same thing here - you can vote within the existing system without accepting the full legitimacy of that system. You're only accepting the limited power that your voice has in that system as a small part of the greater power that you believe you're owed.

It's not putting your stamp of approval. Imagine a school bully coming up to you and saying, "Would you rather me punch you in the face or in the stomach?" Saying "I don't want either" means he's going to be the one picking. Going with the punch in the stomach doesn't mean you actively want him to punch you in the stomach, it just means you don't want to get punched in the face. When those are the only options, you should probably pick the better one.

Don't think of it as a stamp of approval. It's not. There's no public record. No one is going to say "Klathmon voted for the lesser of two evils; look what a compromised person he is!"

Vote the vote that has the best chance of improving (or screwing up less in this case) whatever you care about.

It is though. It may not be linkable to myself as a person, but the numbers are still there, and they still represent the voting public.

Next election, politicians look at past elections. They look at what percentages each candidate got, they analyze that based on each platform, the numbers, the demographics of each state and what they voted for.

By voting for a candidate, i'm adding to the number of people that voted for them. I'm becoming part of that statistic. So i'm going to use that statistic to my advantage to get my voice heard. I'm going to vote for someone I actually believe in, even if they won't win. Then next time, at least those numbers are on the table. Maybe the next candidate will consider that by supporting "platform Y" they can get a percentage of those votes, and maybe i'll eventually have someone I support.

> Next election, politicians look at past elections. They look at what percentages each candidate got, they analyze that based on each platform, the numbers, the demographics of each state and what they voted for.

There doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence for this? In 2012, the GOP did a huge study on why they lost and came to the conclusion they needed to court minorities. Not only has that not been attempted by the Presidential nominee, but it's failed at the congressional level too. As for third-party candidates, it's not clear what effect Perot, Nader and others have had over the years beyond helping elect Bill Clinton and W.

A large third-party vote this election is almost certainly going to be a reflection on the likability of the two main candidates, and not on their policies. Meanwhile the risk that our country could be substantially worse off in the meantime is real, and there's precedent for that.

Just look at how Bernie Sanders pushed Hillary to adopt more liberal/socialist policies just because so many voters supported him.

That's in the party primaries - where each vote is literally a stamp of approval. That's the whole point of power in a two party system - you have your vetting and approval at the primary level, where Sanders and his supporters changed the DNC platform. Then at the national presidential level, you have voters side with which party represents them and their interests better. If you aren't satisfied by either then go get people with like minded views to participate in the primary process.

The platform direction is determined by the primary process, not the presidential election. For the election the candidates are trying to engage with whatever groups are on the fence to get them to swing towards them - the aim is the middle.

During the primary candidates don't have the luxury of the middle - they need to find a large enough group of support that can push the party in some direction that's going to get widespread party approval while trying to find a candidate that still has a chance at winning the election.

If you don't want to vote for president then at least go vote for the many other things that will be decided that day!

Oh I'll be voting, just not for one of the big 2!

>Vote the vote that has the best chance of improving (or screwing up less in this case) whatever you care about.

I guess it depends on whether you're looking at it from the short-term or long-term.