It’s crunch time. Voters who’ve been posturing about voting for a third-party candidate are now faced with a tough decision.

Should they vote for a person whose ideology matches their own, thereby making a clear statement that the two major political parties are not adequately representing the views of all Americans? That’s a comfortable option during elections in which one candidate is leading by a wide margin, but that’s not the case this year. No matter which polls you read and choose to believe, this election could still go either way.

Voting for a third-party candidate is still a possibility for those who don’t believe it matters much whether Bush or Gore is elected. Some people believe the country is headed to hell in a handbasket either way; others argue that Congress holds the real power and we should be paying much more attention to those races.

Last but not least, a substantial number of voters view their ballots as an investment in long-term change, because they know that third parties will never gain viability if the Democratic and Republican parties can frighten citizens out of "wasting their votes." Money is power, and access to federal matching funds — a threshold Nader could possible reach — would allow fledgling parties to be much more viable participants in national politics.

But there are those third-party voters who, if forced to choose between only Gore and Bush, would have a definite preference. They have to be somewhat uncomfortable knowing that a vote for their favorite third-party candidate is likely to count against the man they’d choose as the lesser of the two realistic evils. Votes are never wasted, but the truth is that, in a close race, they can easily be misspent.

Supporters of Ralph Nader recognize the part they might play in giving the presidency into George Bush’s column. Some, tell themselves, that the point they’ll be making with their votes is worth four years of a Bush presidency, after which Americans will surely see the light. Others acknowledge the possibility with a rather strange vote-swapping maneuver afoot, in which Nader supporters in closely contested states are urged to trade votes with someone in a state where the ballot-backs statement can be made without political cost.

Such swaps will become ever more popular and, one could argue, ever more necessary as the traditional method of electing a president via the electoral college becomes less and less defensible in this era of instant communication. Political pundits are talking about the possibility that the candidate who wins the popular vote could very well be defeated in the electoral college, which means that a vote in a swing state is effectively worth more than a vote in a state that’s "safe" for either candidate. Yes, Nader could pledge his votes to Gore in the eventuality that they proved to be key, but that temporary machination doesn’t make the system any more workable.

That’s what makes politics such a chess game. It’s no longer simply a matter of casting votes for the best candidate. In order to be politically effective, a voter must be able to anticipate moves far into the future.