I was joking, really. But looking at some of the numbers, even in swing states, Nader and other third-party candidates were a non-factor. Even if you accept the (possibly groundless) idea that all Nader votes would automatically go to the Dems if Nader hadn't run.

I meant exactly what I said.

You might as well say "If you do not vote as I think you should vote, you have thrown away your vote." That way, it's clear that you're merely bullying people, not expressing an opinion worth considering.

Update: Reworded two minutes after posting to avoid an ad hominem argument. I apologize if you saw it before the edit.

++. There are those who vote for the candidates they prefer and not for the parties who front them and often have little to no realistic connection with their stated goals and ideals. I voted for candidates in three parties. Pulling a party lever is an abdication of thought and responsibility.

It's not the two major parties or the media that ruin it, though they surely don't help, it's the mentality that you have to vote for one or the other of the talking heads CNN and Fox puts up.

Benchmarking is often key to making points here; as it should be. What's the minimum vote to get the big chair? Pick a number. Now consider that Clinton won the Presidency with 23% of registered voters voting age adults casting their ballots for him¹. Not even 1/4 of America wanted him. He got it anyway.

Don't get caught up in side taking that glosses over what your real opinions and interests are.

¹Yes, it's misleading but it's true. The turnout was 55% (much better than the next one when only 49% of Americans could be bothered to keep him in his seat) multiplied by his popular 43% (you may remember a 3rd party candidate took 19% of the popular vote) is 23%.

update: simonm is quite right below. I wasn't thinking straight when I typed that. Fixed.