a vote for jill stein is a vote wasted, if she doesn't get into the debates (she won't) she has no shot of winning
i feel the same about gary johnson but i also think if he DOES get into the debates (which seems 50/50 at this point, according to the NY Times he's polling around 9% and needs to hit 15%) he'll steal away lots of conservatives who would otherwise hold their nose and vote for trump, so i don't think he's nearly as outlandish a prospect as stein
The fact of the matter, though, is that unless she's involved of a scandal of epic proportions (one that would have to dwarf the email scandal in size, severity, and clarity of ill intent), HRC is probably going to be president. That's not so much a statement of support as one of fact - Trump's tanking his own campaign, Johnson can steal Trump voters but it's incredibly unlikely he'll sway much of Hillary's camp given that his economic stance is literally the opposite of the Democratic platform, and no other 3rd party candidate is going to make it to the debates and thus won't have enough name-recognition with the average American.
what constitutes a wasted vote? i believe that disavowing third party voters on the premise that their candidate isn't going to win is missing the point of why they're doing it. the 'pick the lesser of two evils' supposition forces voters into being complicit with a candidate that they may find vile and appalling. in lieu of this, a voter can opt to vote for neither candidate and make a stance. advocating for a third party makes reform all the more likely for the main parties. if no one voted atypically, why would anyone bother reconsidering their stances? republicans are lacking a conservative candidate. if that doesn't scream that reform is necessary, i don't know what does.
i have no qualms with who anyone votes for as long as it isn't trump--many of his views negatively affect me, and i'm shook from the plethora of outlandish statements he's provided. i'm just a proponent of voters simply following their consciences. if it leads them to someone outside of the two parties, so be it.
I think that your statements strike right at the heart of an issue that isn't covered enough.
Fact: unless Jill Stein gets into the debates, her chances of winning the lottery are a lot higher than winning the election.
Also fact: we have a huge problem with our electoral system, and this election in general is showing it for the whole world to see. We have the two most disliked candidates I've ever seen, and perhaps the most disliked in history, for many reasons.
I also have a huge problem every time my father gets angry at Jill Stein, and claims that she is only running to get Donald Trump in office, so he can then nuke us all or declare himself emperor. People like him miss the point entirely of why people like Stein run for office, and that is because our politicians, including Hillary Clinton, are in bed with large corporations, the banks, and Wall Street, amongst other things and policies that Bernie has chosen to bypass, which resonated with voters, and they don't want to take it any more. As far as they're concerned, only a complete moron would vote for Trump anyways. It's not the voter's fault. It's our political establishment not listening to us.
There is rightful idea that Bernie was cheated, and so were the voters, and why the hell should we support the Democrats in beating Trump, when the establishment wants to have their cake and eat it too, and only leave us the crumbs, as usual? Maybe they should be taking responsibility of earning the votes, and throw their wealthy donors under the bus for now, and do what is right. Failing to do so, and earning the trust of Bernie supporters I think could have a huge influence on getting Trump elected. Hillary should be earning the more skeptical voters by proving that she cares about what is good for them. Like stop supporting fracking, making it clear she won't support the very unpopular TPP or will tear out parts that would hurt America, and propose using her ample influence to give GMO some much needed regulation, a health issue that I think is quite frankly not talked about enough. Win over the environmentalists, and give them less reason for vote for Stein. Hillary needs to prove that she is not in it for the big corporations, and will stick her neck out for us. I think she'd find activists would the same for her in return.
If Hillary and the Democratic establishment wants to be all "what you see is what you get, now vote us in or you're voting for Trump", maybe they should look in the mirror.
It's true that Stein doesn't stand a chance, but many voters don't care, because they are angry, and hate Hillary as much as they hate Trump, and so are willing to take their chances.
