@Tar Said
How is it bulls***? The fact that you do not vote for, say Gary Johnson for arguments sake, even though he is the one you support is what hardens people's opinion that the two party system is the only viable one and all other ways fail. Also, it reinforces the notion that if the power-elite conquer both the left and right of the aisle, they have conquered the nation because you can only choose left and right, never mind about other positions such as the center, the top, the bottom, etc.
You may end up getting a worse person in office in the short term, but in the long term, you will raise the grassroot effort of getting a real third party candidate into position. And finally, you cannot tell the future thus you cannot state for certain that you voting for the person you believe is the best will enable someone worse to get into office. That's a guess, not a truth.
Anyways, don't get all worked up. This is mostly hypothetical
I think we know pretty well who's getting elected in most elections. There are not too many Dewey defeats Truman headlines that occur.
And when it comes to electing the POTUS- it is not short term when you are looking at the SCOTUS.
Thus when I vote for what I feel is the best candidate at the risk of putting the wrong person in office I am acting selfishly in my beliefs and not voting what is best for the country.
When I vote for the best candidate and I know the next best candidate (which is the candidate closer to my best choice) that is assuredly going to win anyway, I am trying to make the change & difference you state as all important and voting for what's best for the country.
What you missed was my statement that by all means fight for your choice- but that means it should be done mostly before the next election and by trying to get changes that will give that person a better more equal standing. That makes much more sense than throwing away a vote or worse throwing an election to the wrong person.