Third party thoughts

There are a few people in my social circle who are vigorous fans of voting third party, I don't really have a problem with this as our current system is pretty messed up. But those who advocate it, and especially those who are advocating it as an option this year, are failing to provide any actual reasoning why it is a good idea to do.
There are bad arguments made on both sides though and I feel like addressing those.

First, lets be realistic, the most enthusiastic and well supported get out the vote operation will not get either of the major third party candidates elected this year, even if every single person who claims to support them goes out and votes(they won't) the true believers for the major parties will still outperform them.

Now the fact that you won't win doesn't always mean you shouldn't try, that is rhetoric that opponents of third parties frequently put out there, that it is"throwing your vote away", to an extent that is true, but if their supporters are being realistic and not truly expecting a win, then their next best option is to show that there are enough of them to be worth pandering to, and to encourage others to try to join up, and the only way to do that is to get to the polls in enough numbers to make a dent in the statistics.

If the above two paragraphs are true, then voting for a third party, while a personal choice and without needing to be justified, is still something that needs a strong argument if you are going to attract other voters. As the election is shaping up today, Hillary Clinton is approaching a landslide victory the likes of which has not been seen since the Reagan years, this overjoys me to no end. However a mass defection of liberals to the Green party might swing enough back to Trump to call it for him. This is another example of how voting third party is not just throwing your vote away.

That is accelerationism, and it is an ideology that requires the old system to burn so everyone sees how horrible it is before a new system comes in. It is this argument, more than anything, which leads to Clinton supporters comparing Stein supporters to Nazis, while hyperbole there is likely some element of truth that bigotry in one form or another backs this claim. Those who espouse accelerationism rarely belong to a social class that will suffer under the policies Trump seems to be supporting, choosing this election year in particular to stick to your guns for a show doesn't seem to be the best way to affect change, nor does it seem to be a plan that endears you to the groups that are slated to suffer under his policies.

Accelerationism is irresponsible and dangerous, but not all third party voters are motivated by it many people say there is no difference between Clinton and Trump, this is patently false and those people are fools, there is something to be said about Clintons failings as a politician and her credentials as a liberal(she has almost none). There is still only one candidate who is actively suggesting Russia have the DNC, or that Clinton should get shot if she tries to put her Supreme Court nominees into position.

The fact is they are different, and just because she isn't Bernie Sanders, I find it amusing how so many Sanders supporters who would support him unflinchingly before he endorsed Clinton find themselves ignoring him now when he suggests it is time to throw support behind the nominee,

So if the nominees are not the same, and your vote makes a difference only inasmuch as it sends a message to the party, and we know that if Trump wins the world will be an immeasurably more shitty place than it was before, you have to ask yourself, is sending a message to Trump worth the suffering it will cause? And why is that different than Trump saying our security is worth torturing and killing families?