Hot topic: Jill Stein

Everyone has the right to vote how they wish. That's the beauty of a democracy.

Many, however, argue that Jill Stein is the only true alternative to the status quo. They suggest a vote for Stein is a vote against genocide and environmental exploitation.

Others say Stein is a Russian stooge who only appears every four years to siphon voters away from the Democratic party, aiding the Republican candidate. They also say she is a hypocrite who has personally profited from oil investments. I don't know if this is true.

Finally, Stein supporters suggest these criticisms are manufactured by the Democrats. I could see that.

Putting the merits of the individual candidate aside, it is often argued that Clinton lost the 2016 election because of votes that shifted to Stein. It is also argued this could happen again, leading to a R victory today.

My logic - as flawed as it may be - is in most years, elections are about picking the candidate who can nudge societal goals in the right direction. No candidate is ideal as they are all part of the same corrupt system of power and money. So I vote in a way to help achieve certain goals.

Many are passionately voting for Stein as she aligns with their values. I get it. But what chance does she have of pushing those values forward? She won't win. Rather, the more votes she gets, the more likely the climate change denier and Bibi lover wins. The complete antithesis to Green Party values. And in this scenario, those values would be squashed by the Brown Shirts 2.0.

Don't get me wrong, the Dems arent much better. But at least with a Harris victory, people retain enough dry powder to fight another day and influence policy. An R victory would aim to shut off all opposition.

So is a vote for Stein simply symbolic? What does it achieve?

I am not a US citizen so please educate me. Help me understand. (No mud slinging please.)