My only ideology IS the practical. It's informed by science and ancient wisdom and the freedom from unconscious compulsions that doing work on oneself allows. Neither of the duopoly party candidates (or Johnson) has a program to address the ecological crisis on any practical level--that is, on any level that will avoid utter cataclysm. Their programs are programs of complacency, killing of awareness, and destruction. You're implying that voting for chaos, violence, death, suffering and destruction is practical. I disagree.
Not only have they not put forward any program to avoid catastrophe, not one of those 3 has any interest in such a program, and if elected they'll never even tolerate such a program without reacting violently to stop it. Every single vote for Stein is a vote for the only candidate and party willing to to change how and how soon civilization ends and how much and how fast suffering of people and other beings increases--as it already is. In the end, speaking geologically, poetically, and in the most real sense embodyable, every vote for either duopoly candidate or anyone else on the right is an utterly wasted act that will happen only moments before the then nearly inevitable destruction of civilization and the extinction of millions of species--maybe the end of all life on Earth. Since any vote for them is a vote for that near-term end, what possible difference could it make which of them you vote for, of if you vote at all, or do anything at all? Why not just curl up in a ball and wait? The only practical actions here are to vote for Stein and join the peaceful revolution that it will take to avoid catastrophe.
Voting for Stein is a vote against destruction. Voting for anyone else who's running is a vote for it. Every vote Stein is closer to the insane morons running is a vote that pushes her up toward the tipping point of being acceptable to the equally insane self-tying Gordian knotpeople, the "I'm not voting for her because she can't win" circular argument idiots. Whether that pushes her into office now, or places her as the logical alternative when the complete bankruptcy of the duopoly finally becomes clear to the average citizen-consumer/voter it's still by far the only practical and wise choice. When it becomes clear to the average deceived dolt that the programs the duopoly is pushing have failed miserably, and we do an iceland, we'll need someone untainted by the touch of insanity to take over. By then it's likely to be too late to save civilization, but since we don't know that for sure, the only practical action is to plan a contingency based on it.
When and how did we end up with the idea that a vote is supposed to go not to the candidate a voter wants but to the one the voter thinks is going to win? And when did that idea become unassailable-seeming to those who waste their votes that way? This is the bizarre world of the psychological system of empire, gaslighting and FUDding everyone into either going along or giving up. Like corporations that give money to both duopoly candidates so they have some strings they can pull to whoever gets into office, this idea is backwards, twisted, and insane, a complete corruption of the idea that voting is based on. In that it's like every other part of the insane system we've ended up with. A vote for Stein is a vote for sanity. Nothing's more practical.