system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Voting for the lesser evil is a better option than voting for a third option

There's always two parties or two party coalitions in elections and lately it seems everyone I know keeps voting not for the option they support, but against the option they don't want to win.

The emphasis in public discourse seem to be about absolutely not letting the other side win.

This of course is a reasonable thing to do as it can prevent an abhorent option from winning the elections and then ruling the country into a worse future.

But I've seen people say we should instead ignore that and just vote to support the option we want to win, even if it has no chance ... which will certainly take votes away from the lesser evil option that could win - effectively handing the victory over to the greater evil!
gpt
suppose you have a small group of issues you vote upon, like environmentalism or gay rights or feminism or racial equality. 

It makes sense to threaten voting for a third party because then the core parties need to cater to your whims or they'll lose your votes. You also need to vote for them if your core parties refuse to cater to you, or your key issues won't be met. 

Of course if they compromise to you then you should change your vote but with no competition for your vote then the two parties can just ignore you. If you think your issue is very important you may be willing to take a loss to send a message.