5 Reasons Why Voting for Gary Johnson Doesn't Mean Voting for Clinton or Trump

You've heard it, I've heard it, we've all heard it:  

"But voting for [3rd Party Candidate] means voting for [Clinton/Trump]!  You don't want [her/him] to win, do you??"

You should be free from fear to vote your with a clear conscience for whichever candidate you want to vote for in November.

To that end, I hope to persuade you with five reasons why this kind of assertion should be discarded:

1. The statement is illogical. Voting for [3rd Party Candidate] directly helps [3rd Party Candidate]. (period)
2. Underlying this notion is the assumption that a 3rd Party Candidate could never win. Not only is this untrue historically (Abraham Lincoln being the prime example of running as a 3rd party candidate in his time… and winning), but it is an extreme to say that a 3rd Party Candidate could never win. “Never”? Really? If one ever could win, it would be in 2016, when the nation is so divided and so fed up with the “two-party” political system. 
3. Neither current statistics nor history prove beyond reasonable doubt that voting for a 3rd party candidate would cause the presidency to be given to any other candidate. 
• Recent polls have presented conflicting conclusions - some say that Gary Johnson, for example, attracts more Democrat voters. Others say that Gary Johnson attracts more Republican voters. My interpretation? Those voters probably aren’t hard-line Democrats or Republicans in the first place, which causes me to point you back to bullet point #2.
  
  I, for one, am currently registered as a Republican. Ask me what I’m registered as after voter registration re-opens in September here in Oklahoma… It won’t be Republican or Democrat.
  
  My observation is that while many who can’t stomach the major parties right now won’t re-register, many will, in fact declare their independence from those parties’ candidates this fall. 
• As far as history goes: People often point to Perot and Nader as “spoiler” candidates who allowed Bill Clinton or George W. Bush to become President. Post-election analysis has not supported these conclusions. Joshua Leinsdorf’s analysis is illuminating in Ross Perot’s case, and the data simply doesn’t add up in Ralph Nader’s case. Chris Powell has an excellent summary analysis. The bottom line is this: One cannot be faithful to the data and say “___ cost ___ the election” or “___ allowed ___ to win the election”. It simply isn’t the case. It is unknown whether it would be the case in 2016. Don’t let fear inhibit rational analysis of your options in November.
4. It is unknown what voters who are considering a 3rd party candidate would do if they were forced to choose Clinton or Trump. Would disgruntled Republicans, with certainty, vote for Donald Trump? Would dissatisfied Democrats, with certainty, vote for Hillary Clinton? Would Independents, with certainty, vote for either of them? Would any/all stay home in protest?
• Since it is unknown what such a voter would do if he/she were not given a 3rd (or 4th) choice, it is unsafe to assume that his/her vote would count for any other candidate for the presidency. If you're a Republican or Democrat trying to convince a 3rd Party Voter to join your cause, it’s definitely unsafe to assume that said Voter would vote for whichever candidate you feel needed it to defeat [the Enemy Candidate]. 
5. The argument is used as a silencer on those who want their voices to be heard. Asserting that one must stay within the two party system, when neither represent your beliefs or your conscience, is “saying your beliefs aren’t worth being represented. That you should silence your voice so theirs can be louder.”, as Gary Johnson puts it.

Vote without fear this November.  Live free.