If you’re anything like me you find yourself in an interesting predicament this election cycle. Neither the celebrity demagogue, nor the scandal-riddled former Secretary of State appeal to you as possibilities for the next President of the United States. Not only do you regard them as repulsive human beings, but you also agree little with their actual platforms. If these candidates are the best the Republicans and Democrats can offer, then certainly you identify as neither. But then what are you exactly?

You’re a politically-inclined millennial, discouraged by the current jobs outlook, frustrated by the amount of money taken out of your paycheck that goes to God-knows-where— likely funding the pet project of some corrupt Congressman or other— and dismayed by the massive debt left behind by preceding generations. You dislike that the government is so heavily involved in the economy— picking winners and losers, creating barriers of entry with excessive regulations, and favoring big business with an over-complicated tax code that only an entire army of accountants could hope to comprehend. If you’re a student of economics or political economy, you might go so far as to say you’re a classical liberal— or, as we are known today, a modern fiscal conservative.

But a conservative, I say? As in the anti-gay rights, proselytizing Bible-thumpers you see on the news? Or the Warhawks calling for increases in a military budget that already dwarfs the military expenditures of the next ten highest-spending countries, combined? No, you’re most certainly not one of those conservatives.

You’ve often found yourself favoring liberals on social issues, supporting gay rights and calling for an end to the War On Drugs. But you’ve also gotten sick of the PC brigade that will fine you $250,000 for using the wrong pronoun— I'm looking at you, New York City— and overbearing nanny staters who are attempting to regulate what size soda you drink. Besides, as history shows us, micromanagement of the economy doesn’t tend to work very well. So perhaps you’re not a liberal either.

Congratulations, it’s very likely you’re a libertarian.

Before I go further, I want to note that it’s very hard to define “libertarian” in simple terms. The “fiscally conservative and socially liberal” explanation I gave above is the common blanket definition, but is not wholly correct— after all, most libertarians are fierce advocates of the Second Amendment, and that hardly qualifies as socially liberal. However, it is accurate enough and serves as a good description for those unfamiliar with the philosophy.

Libertarians include anarchists and minarchists; strict Constitutionalists and those who think the grand old document is nothing more than kindling for a fire; clean-cut businessmen and pot-smoking hippies. Many offer this as evidence of the movement’s lack of identity, but the Libertarian Party contains no more subsects than the modern Republican and Democratic Parties. If anything, the party is far more cohesive, as libertarians of all stripes are united through their universal support of personal freedom— resisting government encroachment whether it be in their bedrooms or pocketbooks. And it is because of this principled stance that it’s crucial millennials come out to vote for the Libertarian nominee, Gary Johnson.

I’m not going to launch into some long-winded explanation of Mr. Johnson’s various positions— plenty of Odyssey writers have done that already, or one could just take a quick trip to his Wikipedia page— but instead explain why a vote for Gary Johnson counts far more than voting for whichever major candidate one deems the lesser evil.

Both major parties have left millennials behind; the Democrats proved this with their coronation of Hillary, whereas Republicans have long suffered from their “youth problem.” It’s quite clear that both parties are beholden to political insiders and are more concerned with internal political struggles than external democratic pressures. Johnson’s candidacy should interest millennials for his emphasis on job growth— through free market reforms— and liberal-leaning social positions, but his major appeal lies in his ability to sabotage the two-party system.

Let me be clear: Johnson will not win the 2016 election. But as he heavily advertised during his 2012 presidential run, a vote for him is a “protest vote that counts.”

Typically, what hamstrings the ability of a third party to inflict serious damage is its lack of resources, both in time and money. This often prevents third party presidential nominees from meeting the necessary requirements to be on the ballot in all fifty states. Even if their names are able to appear on the majority of ballots, they rarely have enough money left over to advertise and gain the necessary support to appear on the debate stage.

Yet, if Johnson were to capture 5% of the electorate in the upcoming election, the Libertarian Party would reach the necessary benchmark to receive public funds from the Federal Election Commission. If a third party candidate had cracked 5% of the vote in the 2008 election, his party would have been eligible to receive $10 million in federal funding. As of today, Johnson’s campaign has only raised $1.4 million— and yet, he’s still polling north of 10%. With the added grant money, the Libertarians could run a campaign on a considerably larger scale during the next election cycle. And it’s not unrealistic to expect that the Libertarians could threaten the other major parties, as more and more voters become disenchanted with the familiar institutions.

But even if you are politically aligned with the Libertarians, and even if you dislike the two party system, it’s likely that the possibility of a Trump presidency scares you far more than the prospect of a new Clinton administration, or vice-versa. Why should you not vote for whomever you consider to be the lesser of two evils?

Because your vote likely won’t matter that much.

It’s unlikely that your vote will change the electoral map, and, in states such as New Jersey, where a Clinton victory is all but assured, your vote most certainly won’t matter if you vote for one of the two major candidates. A vote for Johnson, however, holds much greater significance in his quest for 5% of the popular vote and would provide a third party with the necessary resources to challenge the two-party system. And it just so happens that this third party’s platform finds much common ground between disillusioned liberals and conservatives.

A vote for Johnson won’t prevent a Trump or Clinton presidency. But it could possibly ensure that viable third party alternatives exist in the future, and prevent us from ever having to make such an unsavory choice again.