Ever since Ralph Nader was vilified (at least by Democrats) for throwing the 2000 election to Bush- and, in turn, for the disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with the worst recession since 1929- no third party has garnered more than one percent of a presidential vote. Never mind the fact that if Gore would’ve carried his home state, hanging chads, butterfly ballots and Katherine Harris would have toiled in obscurity. Regardless, the notion of the ‘wasted vote’ became firmly entrenched in our political lexicon. Only eight years earlier, Ross Perot stormed onto the scene, racking up nearly 20 million votes- after leading the polls at one point- marshaling, perhaps, an end to the two-party system. Perot’s calamitous NAFTA debate with Gore and increasing nuttiness, however, doomed him in ’96, thwarting any momentum to crush the 200-year duopoly. If there was ever a time for the pendulum to swing back towards a third party, it’s 2016.

The choice in this election is, regrettably, between the two most unlikable candidates in American history. Truth is, the majority of Clinton and Trump supporters will punch their ballots with gritted teeth and held noses. Only the approval ratings of Congress, hovering around 18%, score lower than the presidential nominees. Sadly, that’s a marked increase from 2013, when they bottomed out at 11%. The root of this unpopularity is a metastasizing polarity, particularly in the GOP-controlled House, a tumorous cancer that destroys moderates, leaving extremism to flourish. After the 2010 midterms, featuring the rise of the Tea Party, Karl Rove and his REDMAP squad carved up congressional districts to assure their gains wouldn’t be temporary. This brazen form of gerrymandering (Google a map of the 10 worst drawn districts) led to the ouster of reliable conservatives such as John Boehner and Eric Cantor, who committed the unpardonable sin of compromising with those across the aisle. In this new era of obstructionist politics, only ideological purists need apply. Democrats, for their part, nearly nominated a tried-and-true socialist for president.

While there’s no doubt that Washington is broken, the solutions to repair it are myriad and largely untested, at least in this country. Perhaps we should look to Germany as a model of political efficacy. The Germans boast a multi-party system that, instead of a Balkanization that has crippled other nations, promotes a far greater accommodation than our own legislative branch. Working with rival factions is not only good politics, it’s a necessity. Currently, five parties share power in the Bundestag- there’s a 5% threshold to keep out the riffraff, i.e. neo-Nazis- forming coalitions to pass laws. ‘Politics make strange bedfellows’ is more than a maxim in Berlin. Based upon the country’s strength, especially economically (zero deficit, low unemployment), multiple, viable parties may just be the answer.

The first step, of course, is to support third parties, whether they be Libertarians or Greens. Which brings us back to the so-called ‘wasted vote.’ For Democrats and Republicans, only the electoral college matters, as Al Gore knows all too well. When Perot collected those 20 million votes, he failed to capture one state. George Wallace was the last third party candidate to actually win a state, carrying five of them in 1968. A vote for Trump or Clinton, especially in non-competitive states, is a truly wasted vote. A margin of victory of 1% (or 537 votes in the case of Florida, 2000) is no different than a 30-point landslide. Every vote for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, on the other hand, matters. Not only do aggregate vote totals lend legitimacy and build momentum for successive elections, federal funding is predicated on performance. Perot, for instance, qualified for campaign funds after his impressive showing in ’92.

In addition to the virtue of voting one’s conscience- and eschewing the stale, if odious, options shoved down our throats- third parties have proved salubrious to the progressive ideals of our nation. They’ve pushed new ideas into the mainstream, like women’s suffrage, unemployment compensation, and the direct election of senators. Roosevelt’s New Deal, for example, incorporated some of the core issues championed by the Socialist Party in the 1930’s. No matter where your politics lie, there’s general consensus on one thing: the current system is dysfunctional. We’re long past due for a new brand of politics, even if it is, egads,  a European-style one. A vote for Johnson or Stein is a small step toward that change, but (hopefully) a giant leap for our political future. Rest assured, you will not have wasted your vote.

p.s. yes, the title of this piece is a reference to Johnson’s affinity for cannabis