This election season, two candidates represent the minor parties of the country alongside  Republican nominee Donald Trump and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. The Libertarian Party selected New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson as candidate, while physician Jill Stein will run as part of the Green Party. This election, these alternatives are getting extra attention due to the record disapproval ratings for both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

The problem with this year’s third party candidates is that both would make terrible presidents. Even by putting their names on the ballot, they are drawing votes away from the main candidates, eliminating an effective lead for anyone. This means that in most states, a vote for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein is a vote for Donald Trump.

Since the creation of the modern two-party political system, a third party candidate has never won the election. The closest a third party has come to the presidency is Ross Perot in 1992, who at one point held 30 percent national support in polls, but did not receive any votes in the Electoral College. Voting for Johnson or Stein is just as effective as writing in your cat for president. When voting this November, choose either Trump or Clinton; choosing anyone else is effectively throwing your constitutional right to vote out the window.

However, the reason that these two candidates are so bad is not that simple. On the surface, Johnson and Stein seem like perfect candidates: Johnson, the perfect mix between conservative economics and liberal social policies, Stein, the bastion of the far left. The truth is a little more convoluted.  Let’s start with former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson.

Gary Johnson was first elected to Governor of New Mexico in 1995, and served at that post until 2003, as a Republican. He was also the Libertarian nominee in the 2012 election. Johnson is a firm believer in small government and limited international intervention. This isolationist foreign policy has caused many problems for Johnson. In an MSNBC interview with Mike Barnicle, Johnson, after being asked about the Syrian Civil War and refugee crisis, responded with, “What is Aleppo?” Aleppo is Syria’s largest city (according to pre-civil war statistics), and is the epicenter of violence and the main home to Syrian refugees. This represents Johnson’s ineptitude on foreign policy. Weeks after this memory lapse, Johnson made another gaffe at a town hall debate. When asked which foreign leaders he looked up to, Johnson could not name a single one. He then mentioned “the former president of Mexico,” who he also could not name.

After these two mistakes within only a few weeks, Johnson addressed the issue at a University of Chicago rally: “Because you can dot i’s and cross the t’s on names of foreign leaders and geographic locations, then that qualifies you to put the military in a situation where the military is dying? We’ve got military personnel that are dying.” Johnson’s ineptitude in foreign relations, one of the most important responsibilities of presidency, proves that he is not ready for the office and, if elected, he would be a very unsuccessful president.

Green Party nominee Jill Stein as president, would be immensely worse. She has no grasp on reality and her policies would only work in a perfectionist, idealist society. Over time, the Green Party has gained a reputation as a group of “leftist hippies,” and in some ways the moniker seems justified. Fittingly, Stein’s most extensive policy is on the environment and global warming. If elected, she promises to turn the country in the direction of renewable energy, and believes that the United States can go 100 percent renewable by 2030. She also wants to stop all nuclear energy production, which is currently the largest non-fossil fuel source of energy in the country, accounting for ten percent of national energy production. The problem with this policy, beyond the fact that it is just not feasible with the current economy,  is that nuclear energy is the best clean energy source currently available.

The current economic situation, with entire regions of the country completely reliant on the coal industry, would make 100% renewable energy very bad for certain parts of the country. Another problem is the transition; moving to renewable energy would require massive subsidies from the government because the math is plain and simple: coal is cheaper. These subsidies, which already exist and are one of the largest expenditures in energy spending, would just put the country into more debt. Her idealistic theories extend far beyond energy methods. Stein also supports “alternative therapies” and other pseudo-sciences such as  homeopathy and naturopathy, both of which have no scientific basis and are viewed as the conspiracy theories of medicine. She even believes that wi-fi is a “danger to our children.” Stein, as a Harvard-educated physician, should know better than to support these ‘sciences’. It’s simple: Jill Stein is a cranky old lady who does not understand technology, economics or politics. She should not be allowed within 100 meters of the Oval Office.

Both of these candidates would be terrible presidents, and I hope that I have encouraged you to believe that as well. So, the question now is; who should you vote for if not Johnson or Stein? Hillary Clinton. You may not like her, but she is the most experienced presidential candidate in American history and her policies would make America a better country. Most of Johnson’s and Stein’s voters consider themselves more liberal than conservative, so the choice is clear. A vote for Johnson or Stein is a vote taken away from Hillary Clinton, and therefore a vote for Donald Trump, the very man that most want to keep away from the White House in the first place.