I hate false dichotomies.

In other words, I hate false choices. I hate being told that there are only two options when there are clearly more options. Don’t tell me that I can only choose cake or death when I could just walk away from the person asking me the question; don’t confront me with inane philosophical questions where my only options are to kill one person or a small village worth. There is always another way.

So, let me be more clear.

To my fellow citizens: You have an abundance of choices.

There are two powerful candidates who will shape the future of the country. It does not matter who you support, it does not matter what you say or do by itself, but it matters how you vote.

In addition to the two main candidates, there are an abundance of others. There is a party concerned about the state of the environment. There is a party concerned about the increasingly restrictive limitations placed upon both freedom and the ability to exercise said freedom. To you? I salute your dedication to your ideas.

But you have an abundance of choices in other directions as well.

For example, you could not vote at all. You could choose to stay at home, wrap yourself under your blanket, and not look at the real world until after the election, and then complain about whoever won. You could choose to go to the polls and write in Mickey Mouse, or Rick Grimes, or whoever the pop culture icon is these days. You could choose to move to another country.

Not all options are good. But there are always more options, and to some, those alternatives are superior.

But in this last, desperate plea, work with me here.

We all know that Trump supporters find the man far preferable to Clinton. Whatever the reason, whatever the rationale, they believe this. For the vast bulk, you will not be able to dissuade them. Media has marginalized them as fanatic, but no matter what we want to call them, they are steadfast.

On the flip side, we know that supporters of Ms. Clinton are confident that she is the best bet to win. They may not be as belligerent, but they’re desperate to see the other guy defeated, so they’re going to hang on.

But in addition to the two big guys, there are some other figures that have played a major role in this election so far.

Jill Stein is a Green Party member, a progressive, an environmentalist, and someone who was seeking (is seeking?) to appeal to younger voters and their set of ideals.

Gary Johnson is a libertarian, a reactionary, and someone who is seeking to appeal to conservatives who are disenchanted with the current state of affairs.

Ultimately people will still choose to vote for these two. And if you measure the value of your vote by your ability to take a stand, you want to prove something, go ahead. If you believe strongly in these issues, then vote how you will. Frankly, choosing Clinton or Trump is something of a lazy issue. After all, everyone else can tell us about their many flaws (and every once in a while someone will say something about their successes), but voting third party requires real discipline. It requires real attention to detail, understanding of their platform decisions, and a realization that if others simply did the same amount of research that you did, then you could have your candidate win.

But a word of warning: don’t tell people that if everyone voted for one of them then they would win. Don’t whine that people simply aren’t looking or listening to them, because you knew that. You knew people didn’t understand who they were, and you supported them regardless. If this is your exercise in civil disobedience, disobey civilly.

Realize that by any metric by which you expect your vote to count toward the presidency, you cannot vote for a third party candidate and expect success. In fact, note that if you vote lefter than your friends, you’ll probably take away votes from the Democratic party, and if you vote for Gary Johnson…

You’ll also take your vote away from Clinton.

Don’t get me wrong. With regards to abortion, taxes, foreign policy, and some other pertinent issues, Clinton is far from conservative.

But look at Bill Clinton! A moderate by all accounts, he was more in tune with the conservative interests, and he actively worked to be bipartisan. Clinton, for all her flip-flopping, for all her inconsistencies, is more in line with your conservative interests as long as you control the House and the Senate, because she’ll work with them.

Unlike someone who has a track record of being unpredictable and erratic, Clinton’s behavior makes sense. She behaves perhaps less nobly than anyone wants, but you can make the argument that she’s grizzled from her experience as a politician.

But every vote you give to Johnson, make sure you know that’s what you want. Because if you don't think carefully, if you're not certain, that’s a vote that could guarantee that Trump doesn’t win the election.

To the Jill Stein supporters, the ones who don’t want Clinton in Office for the exact point I made above -- Why aren’t you working to get more progressive liberals into office? Why not change control of the House and Senate, so if Clinton tries something crazy, you can feel safe knowing that a Congress that is actually representative of your interests prevents her from doing so?

Feel free to vote Jill again. You feel strongly, you tie yourself to oil rigs, and I can logically figure out the thought process that got you there. But if it’s about sending a message, why does giving your vote to Stein send a message to Trump? Why does it send a message to the true conservative threat that you’re so worried about in Clinton? Aren’t there far greater enemies to worry about before you even begin to criticize Clinton?

Maybe I don’t understand your pain. Maybe you’ve got this whole political “game” figured out, and I’m just one of the ignorant masses. But this is what I will say:

As a citizen of the United States who is a minority, I’m worried. I’m scared. As a political scientist, I’m fascinated like some sort of mad scientist.

And as a human? I’m begging you to vote for Clinton.