We’re stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Let’s make one fact clear: neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton is the nominee of his or her party. The broadcast networks’ narrative of “potty-mouth” Trump squaring off against the “history-making first female Presidential nominee from a major party” is a lie. Trump has not yet been nominated at the convention. And Hillary doesn’t have enough delegates; the race between her and Bernie Sanders will continue until the convention in July.

Doesn’t that just mess up the epic narrative: “Outsider” Trump, flawed by egotism and regular eruptions of outrageous rhetoric, occupying the Republican heights opposite Clinton, whose scandals, lies, and corrupt campaign record mar her occupation of the Democratic heights. Shrunk to near oblivion in the narrow crevasse between these two, the mass of voters is supposed to navigate a successful passage to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

But there is the complication of Bernie, whose 22-state sweep, record fundraising, and huge crowds have defied elite politics at every turn. What happens to his policy ideas if Clinton survives her FBI scrutiny and looming indictment, not to mention lawsuits countering the massive election fraud with which her campaign has been charged? What happens to the millions of people who have passionately supported Bernie Sanders because, quite simply, his orientation toward the well being of the people starkly contrasts with her message of well, that’s what is so hard to discern, other than its frequent deployment of the pronoun “I.”

Bernie is trying to find a way through that passage between the Republican “me” and the Democratic “I.” He may still do that, given the precarious position of the two scandal-ridden candidates.

But if the choice at the end of July remains what it appears to be today, voters can cast a vote for the candidate with soaring unpopularity numbers – take your pick. Driven by resigned distaste or fear of the other, they can choose to hold their nose, as the saying goes, to deny victory to the opponent.

Good news – there are other options. New York state allows write-in votes, but they won’t count unless the candidate has filed a certificate of candidacy with the state’s Board of Elections. This year, thanks largely to the enormous popularity of Bernie Sanders and his campaign that has laid bare so much of the sickness in a government geared toward the interests of the moneyed elite, millions of voters are galvanized to support a similar candidate. The “Bernie-or-Bust” movement now admits Jill Stein and the Green Party as a solid choice for progressive policies.

On the right, Gary Johnson and the Libertarians are drawing more publicity than usual, and that is likely to turn into unprecedented voter support, especially with the heightened stature offered by former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld in the VP slot.

Skeptics who say 2016 is like any other election year make the usual claims: third parties are “spoilers”; the two mainstream parties are the only real chance for the changes desired by two unique sides; anyone who votes outside the two “real” choices is responsible for the destruction that will happen if the other side wins. But this is not like most years. There is a palpable energy and an awareness of the harmful policies of the two main parties that is reflected in soaring unpopularity figures and declining Democratic and Republican party enrollments. A large-scale rejection of the fear vote is likely given polling and party membership data and this year’s awakening of an electorate tired of war and a Gross Domestic Product that never trickles down to the vast majority.

Change is hard. But the infusion of fresh voices into a system of destructive bipartisanship would be good for this country. At the very least, a strong third-party showing would guarantee access to the political process in the future, and it might lead to a more diverse Congress. Perhaps the difficult choice is not two flawed candidates after all. Perhaps what we are really called to navigate this time is a narrow, but potentially widening, valley between the force of optimistic change and the destructive complacency of fear.

Carpe Diem.

Renee Gravelle is a Dunkirk resident. Send comments to editorial@observertoday.com