In January 2017, barring death/indictment/withdrawal, the United States will be led by either President Trump or President Clinton. The choice is binary.

Our process is essentially a two-party system. Making would-be third party candidates irrelevant is a feature of this system, not a bug. Of course, like all institutions created and administered by human beings, it has strengths and weaknesses and gravitates toward the status quo. In theory, it is designed to result in a moderate (by the standards of the party in question) consensus candidate, but it doesn’t always do this.

There are other systems, of course. A Parliamentary style system with proportionate representation, as we see in much of Europe, does not render irrelevant the less popular voices, and they can play a critical role in a coalition government. This means that Green Party candidates actually get elected in Europe and maybe have real power. It also means that some parties so far to the right that they make the U.S. Tea Party look moderate also get elected and maybe have real power. That’s a feature of that system, not a bug. On balance, I prefer the two-party system, but that’s just a preference.

Importantly, the two-party system in the United States is not going to change. Not ever. Casting a protest vote for a third party will not change it. Staying home and not voting will not change it. Hell, few Americans even know who Jill Stein or Gary Johnson are, and fewer still care. Our system makes them irrelevant. And not voting as a form of protest is no protest at all.  It does nothing but throw you in with the millions of other unengaged American citizens who can’t be bothered to perform their most basic civic duty.  Voting for a third party or not voting will not change the system. It will just remove your voice from it.

Because the real choice is binary – President Clinton or President Trump.

I would argue, and I would be right, that the world under a Trump Administration will look very different from the world under a Clinton Administration (think SCOTUS, if nothing else). Neither will be a perfect world. Neither will align perfectly with your values. But one will align with them better than the other. By not voting, or by casting a protest vote for a hopeless third party candidate, you make the candidate who aligns less with your values more likely to win.

Because the real choice is binary – President Clinton or President Trump.

Perhaps you hate the two-party system and the moderate/establishment/corporate candidates it nominates. I understand that. So how might you create real change in that system? Interestingly, if you’re a Sanders supporter, you do precisely what you just did. You support a candidate and movement who is not a moderate/corporate/establishment candidate and you fight like Hell to make him the nominee.  And, though you didn’t ultimately get him the nomination, in the process what you did was force the moderate/establishment/corporate candidate (and even the sitting President) to take notice of the progressive wing of the party and grapple with the issues that are important to that wing. You worked within the two party system and wrought change. Perhaps not as much as you would’ve liked, but change nevertheless. That’s a big deal. But the choice now is no longer between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

The choice now is binary – President Clinton or President Trump.

Politics is where the possible meets principle. If you’re a Sanders supporter, the candidate you most wanted is no longer possible. As between the two real choices before you now, one likely aligns more with your principles than the other. The alignment is not perfect. Perhaps it’s even an ill fit overall. But one fits better than the other — President Clinton or President Trump.

And if one fits better than the other, then a protest vote or a third-party vote is not adherence to the principles that caused you to vote for Sanders. It is a betrayal of them. It betrays them because it elevates principle so far above the possible that the end result is to make more likely the election of the candidate who is more misaligned with those very principles you espouse.

And if you think, as I’ve heard some say, that electing a terrible President is precisely the medicine the American public needs to shake them out of their acceptance of this system, then you’re a bad person and should feel bad about yourself. Elections have consequences, this one no less than any other, and perhaps more than most. President Trump’s world would be different from President Clinton’s, and those differences will have real world effects on the lives and well-being of millions of people. And whatever you think about the system or the candidates, one of the two possible candidates for President better aligns with your values than does the other. It is a moral failure to make more likely the election of the candidate who is more misaligned with your values (because by your own standards that candidate, if elected, will do more harm or less good).

All this because the real choice is binary – President Clinton or President Trump.