The 2016 election is nothing short of a nightmare, to say the very least. The Democratic nominee is Hillary Clinton and the Republican nominee is Donald Trump. Who would've thought that the first election that a majority of millennials can participate in would be between Thing One and Thing Two? All hope is not lost, however, for there are two other candidates: a third party candidate by the name of Gary Johnson and a Green Party candidate by the name of Jill Stein. One of the biggest debates when election times rolls around is whether or not a third party vote is a wasted vote. Let me sum it up for you here: It is.

Call me crazy, but it makes no sense for a voter to cast his or her ballot for a third party candidate. I know what has been said: "No vote is wasted," but ultimately, a vote for a third-party candidate, in this case Johnson or Stein, is a wasted vote. Logically, numerically and financially, it makes the most sense for voters to pick one of the two front-runner parties: Republican or Democrat. Think about it: the point of voting for a candidate is to maximize their chance of winning, and the chance of a third-party candidate winning the election is slim to none.

Financially speaking, third-party candidates do not receive the large amount of funding that the larger parties do. Due to the fact that they have less income when it comes to funding for election campaigning, they therefore are unable to campaign as much as the Republicans or Democrats resulting in less people gaining an overall knowledge of the party's opinions, goals or the party itself.

A voter casting his or her ballot for a third party candidate simply will not make that candidate's campaign stronger; in fact, it will only make whomever they choose not to vote for ultimately weaker. A majority support of a third-party candidate is needed before the general election. As stated previously, since third-party candidates do not receive adequate funding, they cannot participate in the debates with the "big guys," aka the Republicans and the Democrats. Therefore, the third party has simply not garnered the strength to be viable, causing a vote for them to be, ultimately, wasted.

It's been seen in the past, and it's frankly sad that history has to keep repeating itself. An article by the Washington Times points out:

"Change from within is effective, but voting for a third-party candidate never pays off. Hard-left voters learned this in 2000 when they decided uncompromising Green Party candidate Ralph Nader better suited their values than establishment Democrat Al Gore. We can thank Florida’s 97,488 third party liberals for ensuring George W. Bush would win by fewer than 600 votes."

This shows that a significant party had a slim chance at winning due to the amount for third party votes that were cast. Mind you, the votes were not enough to come close to making an impact and give Ralph Nader even a slim chance at becoming president: it simply only affected a candidate that had the proper backing an a significant amount of support in comparison to Nader. While some may be saying, "that's 100,000 votes!" please remember that the United States in 2000 was 282.2 million people, and 50-51 million people voted for each candidate, Gore and Bush.

Ultimately, I'm not going to tell you who to vote for or how you should use your constitutional right to vote. I'm simply saying to look at the facts and realize that while many will say, "No vote is wasted," it's not logical to vote for someone who simply doesn't stand a chance. So why not take your vote and put it towards one of the candidates who actually has a possibility to win?