For me it’s easy – best outcome, by far. My vote has no ‘pride’ or ‘dignity’, so to speak – it’s purely about helping, in the minuscule way that individuals votes help, ensure the best outcome possible and plausible, based on my views and opinions. I have no qualms whatsoever about voting for a crook, liar, cheat, etc., if I think that the plausible alternative would result in a worse outcome for the country. This means that I’d never vote 3rd party (I’m a US voter) unless the 3rd party candidate actually has a chance to win the election, or in the nigh-impossible scenario in which both major party candidates are identical on the issues. This also rules out voting 3rd party to send a message, or to try and improve their prospects for future elections, unless both major party candidates are identical.
I like to think I vote “best outcome” but it’s amazing how often that aligns with my own personal prejudices. 
In most elections, best outcome.
Not this year.
Why not?
There is no good outcome. So 3rd parties here we come.
When you are on death row and it becomes clear that your fate is sealed, you don’t focus on escaping or trying to get a pardon from the governor anymore. You begin to think about the last meal request form that the prison warden has told you to fill out and return to him within 24 hours. Cheeseburger? Fries? How about some baked salmon fettucini? Maybe some apple pie and ice cream would hit the spot.
(Exaggerated analogy but you know what I mean)
Give an example of the distinction between “best outcome” and “my views”.
I can’t see that.
I don’t know what you mean, actually – I could see thinking that both options are bad, but they’re very different, and I don’t see how they could both be equally bad. Do you really not think that one is worse than the other?
Well this election the ‘best’ outcome is to keep Trump as far away from the presidency as possible. So best outcome. I suppose it’s usually that way.
A 3rd party candidate whose views exactly match mine, but doesn’t break 3% in polls, and has no fundraising. I would still vote for the major party candidate that I think would result in a better outcome for the country.
Since my views are pretty self-evidently correct 
it’s going to be the best outcome if the candidate who agrees with me wins.
I don’t know if this year is any different. Neither of the major party candidates for President share my views very much. So I am voting for “best outcome”. If the Libertarian Party in my state gets at least 5% of the vote, they get major party status. So, I am voting for them.
My state is pretty safe for Hillary, though. If that looks like it will change, I will vote for Hillary. She doesn’t share very many of my views, apart from the view that certain people are fuckwits and shouldn’t allowed access to the nuclear launch codes.
Regards,
Shodan
Candidate.
One is outwardly, immediately bad, the other is subtly, longterm bad. It’s like choosing car-accident injuries vs. leukemia. Hard to say which is worse.
I vote for someone that has some of same values as I do but this year I voted only to try and keep Trump from winning ! I know someone that did this too ,voted only to try and stop Trump! There isn’t going to any best outcome this year !
For some people, the “best outcome” (consequentialist, in ethical philosophy terms) calculation does lead to a 3rd-party vote. For example, my friend: normally a fairly reliable Republican voter, but he thinks Trump is dangerous and unqualified. He’s casting his presidential vote for Johnson in California not because he’s particularly libertarian in his views, but to send a signal of disapproval for Clinton, secure that she’ll win the state. Also he sends the GOP a signal that they need to dump Trump and his ilk.
He believes this will have the effect of diminishing her mandate and redirecting the GOP away from Trumpianism, which he regards as a positive outcome. (I disagree with the Clinton mandate part being desirable, but he’s definitely thinking consequentially!)
My overall take:
- the question as framed in the OP is hella complicated - in some cases people may regard 3rd party voting as the lesser evil
- we really need a voting system in this country that allows people to more clearly express their political preferences without so frequently risking their vote having bad consequences.
There is no difference for me at the moment, living in a preferential voting system, but actually I’m of the opposite point of view even when living in First Past the Post countries - vote for who you actually like, regardless of who you think ‘has a chance’ or doesn’t.
My reasoning is:
There will be other elections after this one. So my vote does two things - potentially gets someone elected and also sends a message to politicians about what issues I find important. If I vote Green, the Green may not get in - but I’m influencing the major parties to consider adding more Greenishness to their platform in the future.
Furthermore, once elected, politicians may or may not do what they actually say they will. Often they’ll do stuff that is popular. So my vote for someone who didn’t get in may still have an impact on what whoever gets in actually does.
Also, if you vote to stop the bad alternative getting in, and they win anyway, your vote really is completely wasted - it did nothing. But a “message” vote always fulfils at least the ‘message’ part of the process.
(Note that none of this would stop me from voting for Clinton if I were American, since in this case the ‘message’ part of the vote is ‘I like competent experienced people to be running the joint’)
I vote my ideals in the primary. (I have that luxury living in NY.) This year that meant Sanders, who’s closer to my beliefs than Clinton.
For this election: Clinton is a zillion miles closer to my beliefs than Trump, and not coincidentally, I believe that she’s also the much better outcome for the country than Trump.
There’s no official 3rd-party candidate who either has a shot in hell or has my confidence. (I think Stein is a nutjob.) Write-in isn’t an option, even in NY, because I refuse to let something awful happen just because all blue voters think other people will do the dirty work for them.
So, my beliefs and my preferred outcome aligns here.
Well, Wall St seems to prefer Clinton, so if you care about your 401K balance…
For President I vote for the best person. Do they know the things they need to know? Do they have experience that can help them in the job? Do they have good character?
IMO, the place for ideology is Congress. It’s rare that I vote for anyone but the GOP candidate in Congress, unless that candidate is obviously corrupt or not holding to the ideals that the party is supposed to stand for. But for President, it’s about a leader the people can have confidence in and who will fairly, justly, and competently execute the laws of the nation and conduct our nation’s foreign policy.
This doesn’t directly answer my question, but I think it leans closer to outcome rather than a match to your views, correct?
Best outcome. That often points to a candidate that shares my views, but not always, and pretty much not this year. There’s a local, low-level state representative race where we GOTV for a nice but not terribly qualified woman in an attempt to unseat a worthless Tea Party turd whose proudest achievement is voting against every spending bill for the last four years. Every one.