One does not need to be a philosophical pragmatist to understand that voting is an inherently pragmatic act, to be judged solely by its consequences.

Typically, the intentions of an agent and the objective moral value of an act, not merely its consequences, determine whether an act is blameworthy or praiseworthy.  Not so with voting – at least, not voting qua voting.  Of course, voting is not judged differently from other acts insofar as it is an act.  If you were to cast a vote for Hillary Clinton knowing full well that it would give your dad a heart attack when you told him about it, on some level, you would certainly be guilty of his untimely death.  But your vote itself is merely a truthful answer to a question: what outcome for America bothers you the least?  You are not responsible for every act by your chosen leader; the overall consequence need be your only consideration.

Some people prefer not to be asked this question, or prefer not to weigh in, or admit that they have no idea what the outcome of any vote would be.  These people cannot reasonably be asked to give a truthful answer, because they do not have one.  For this reason, America (unlike Australia or Greece) allows eligible voters to stay home.  Historically, this has always constituted about two thirds of the electorate (and even more for congressional and local elections).

Others vote for a Republican or Democrat knowing that neither candidate is a perfect choice but acknowledging the reality that one of the two will be elected – and having little difficulty identifying their preferred outcome.  In 2016, the difference in outcomes is even clearer than in most elections.  These people are called "clothespin voters" (holding their nose because the candidates stink), and they make up 99% of voters within the two parties.  The other 1% are salaried staff members of the two campaigns.

A third category are voters who refuse to vote for either major candidate but still consider voting a civic duty.  These voters set their sights on one of the lesser-known third-party candidates, such as Greens, Libertarians, or independents.  Almost invariably, they decry what they call the "two-party system," their name for the hundred-and-fifty-year hegemony over electoral politics maintained by the Republicans and Democrats.  These voters rightly perceive that every four years, political elites with few discernible differences get together for a game of "inside baseball," primarily to prevent a real change candidate from ousting the status quo "Republicrats."

What they don't realize, however, is that their votes are the very glue that holds this two-party system together.  They "protest vote" for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson (or a write-in candidate) because they have failed to understand the pragmatic nature of voting, or perhaps they do not understand what will actually happen as a consequence of their vote.  Inevitably, they manage only to "steal" a vote from their second choice, whichever major-party candidate they would have otherwise "clothespin" voted for.  They will argue against the accusation that they are "throwing away" their vote on the grounds that if a third of all voters were to vote third party, the two-party system could be overthrown.  With this argument, however, they commit the "Generalization Fallacy," also known as "What if Everyone Did That?"  A third of American voters will not vote third-party.  If they were ever going to do so, 2016 would have been their year.  Yet neither third-party candidate has polled high enough even to qualify for the debates.

It was stated above that a vote is simply a truthful answer to a question.  Those who vote third-party answer untruthfully, against their own best interests, when they refuse to vote for their second choice even when it is the only way to prevent their last choice.  The only explanation must be that they are voting zealots for whom the act of voting is a higher good than the results of the vote.  Yet their zealotry amounts to no more than a zealous endorsement of the American campaign system.  They are, in essence, loudly challenging Democrats and Republicans to try to win them over in a frenzied push for one or two more percentage points in the polls.

Right now, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are holding major events for the express purpose of drawing a few extra votes from among independents and libertarians.  By participating at all, these third-party voters create a market demand for more campaign contributions from wealthy businessmen, more mainstream media propaganda, more mindless debates, more attack ads, and more disingenuous rally speeches.  In the last few weeks of the election season, these voters become the Golden Fleece that Republicans and Democrats must obtain for themselves, usually by trying to make them hysterically fear the other party's candidate.  If third-party voters really want to protest the election, there are better ways to do so.

Andrew Jacob Cuff is a graduate fellow at The Catholic University of America.  For a complete professional profile, view his page on Academia.edu.