This election certainly has been an unusual one.

Most perplexing to me is how we reached the “but you gotta vote for our nominee to stop the other nominee” stage of energizing the base.

Because nothing gets people out to the polls like a sense of duty to vote for the lesser of  two evils.

I really hate this strategic voting argument.

The Republican National Committee has a dumb “loyalty pledge.”

The Democrats are posting aggravating “vote Democrat in November, no matter who wins the primaries” social media posts.

Both parties are trying to ensure that everyone follows the party line, whatever that line might be.

And of course that’s reasonable. We don’t want a spoiler candidate coming in and snatching the election away from the majority’s favorite, right?

Except that this whole argument is mostly a load of bull.

It does apply to people who are registered to vote in swing states such as Ohio or Florida. But if you live in a non-swing state, then strategic voting is meaningless.

No matter what Texas will vote for the Republican nominee, California will vote for the Democratic nominee and those electors will vote for their respective parties.

In Louisiana, for example, a vote for the Libertarians or the Greens does just as much to prevent a Republican presidency as does a vote for the Democrats: which is to say nothing at all.

This is unfair and undemocratic but that’s the Electoral College for you.

I don’t want to imply that you shouldn’t vote for president. Because while your vote may not count, your voice can still be heard.

And this is why I’ll probably be voting for a third party come November.

By voting for one of the two big parties, I’m either endorsing the choice my state makes, or directly repudiating it.

But if I vote for a third party I can reject both options and say something more. I can reject the establishment wholesale and not just offer token opposition.

I can help build alternatives to both parties.

My vote is my own. I get to decide where it goes, nobody else.

If I’m tired of constantly setting aside issues I care about to choose the “lesser of two evils” (and I am), then I have a right to actually express my beliefs at the ballot box. Even if it’s a shout in the dark.

Ultimately, the “elect the lesser of two evils” argument is an argument for electoral reform. There are numerous other voting systems that are far more fair and democratic.

If we must keep the Electoral College, then we should at least transition to allocating electors proportionally, so that it isn’t “winner take all.”

All the better if we overhaul to a system like the alternative vote, where voters are asked to rank candidates in terms of favorability, with the aim of establishing some form of consensus. This system, also called instant run-off voting, also prevents spoiler candidates since it’s not “winner take all.”

However, considering that the only party with any significance seriously talking about electoral reform is the Green Party, do the next best thing:

This election year, don’t let anyone guilt you into voting for a president you don’t like just to prevent the alternative.