That any voter would prioritize legal marijuana as their number-one issue, particularly in the year of Donald Trump, seems absurd. But if we dismiss this analysis as cynical, we are still left wondering if the liberal millennials who support Johnson are even aware of the Libertarian Party platform positions. And if they are aware, and see their vote as a way of protesting against the status quo, then one has to wonder if they understand the consequences of voting for someone whom they don’t agree with on the issues just to send a “message.”

There’s only one obvious candidate for younger voters: Hillary Clinton. Her positions, among the general election candidates, most closely align with millennials’. Spurred on by Sanders, she has moved decisively to the left—on trade and college tuition, notably—since the beginning of the primaries. It’s fair to say that she’s to the left of Obama.

That conclusion is even more perplexing because a healthy majority of millennials—62 percent in a recent survey—approve of Obama’s performance, the highest approval rating among age groups. And yet many of these same people find themselves lukewarm to Obama’s obvious heir, the only person who would continue his policies. Clinton’s entire campaign has put as little space between her and Obama as possible, and the president and first lady both have repeatedly hit the campaign trail in recent weeks to hammer home just how much their legacy is on the line.

It’s easy to argue that millennials approve of Obama because they feel connected to him. He inspired their loyalty, and much like the passion that Sanders inspired in so many of them, these kinds of feelings are simply non-transferable. Clinton is, by her own admission, not a great orator. She doesn’t exude charisma. She’s more of a workhorse. But is this lack of “connection” worth putting at risk the causes they most believe in? Isn’t that the very definition of voting against your own best interest?

Perhaps millennials—many of whom will be voting for the first time—have different ideas about the purpose of voting. Certainly a lot of people see voting simply as an act of personal choice, a way for us to express our allegiance to candidates we feel connected to. But is that really all there is to voting, or should we have more of a sense of civic responsibility? Should we, when we go to the ballot box, strive to think about the broader consequences of our actions, and whether or not we are promoting a greater societal good? Certainly Sanders has made it clear that, because of the unique threat Trump poses, this is not the year for third-party candidates. Some millennials are too young to know who Ralph Nader is and how close Al Gore came to winning the 2000 election, but they aren’t too young to know about the Iraq war, or the 2008 recession and its aftereffects.