For the many Americans who are appalled by the prospect of having to choose between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, the debate about November revolves around potential alternatives and moral votes. While most of the talk about whether there are viable choices for president not named Trump or Clinton seems to be rooted in fantasy more than reality, the question about whether it is right to vote for a candidate you believe would be a disaster for the republic and/or for the principles you espouse is one with which all voters must wrestle. But as attention shifted to the Libertarian Party over the weekend, it seems to me that the same moral prism that applies to those pondering which of the two major party candidates is the lesser of two evils — and whether such a choice is moral — ought to also apply to those considering voting for a third party candidate.

For those searching for an alternative to the two parties, the Memorial Day weekend brought mixed results. On the one hand, William Kristol teased his Twitter followers by announcing that “There will be an independent candidate — an impressive one, with a strong team and a real chance.” Given the fact that such a candidate seems nowhere in sight and that it is already too late to get a new party on the ballot in all 50 states, it’s hard to place much faith in that assurance. In due time, we’ll see whether it turns out to be bravado or an accurate prediction.