I've been retired as a voter for some time now. But the Libertarian party has actually put together a plausible ticket: Gary Johnson for President and William Weld for VP are two reasonably okay moderately competent scandal-free ex-governors who are more-or-less libertarian but not too extreme.
I realize that's not the most ringing endorsement ever, but I can see voting for them. When one of the alternative parties does something right, I'd like to support that and I might come out of voting retirement to do so.
It's not like I can write ringing endorsements for Clinton or Trump either. For example, P.J. O'Rourke has decided to vote for Clinton over Trump using the following logic: "She's wrong about absolutely everything. But she's wrong within normal parameters!" And you thought my endorsement of the Libertarians was unenthusiastic!
Another conservative, Charles Murray builds on O'Rourke's logic by stating: "Similarly, I am saying that Clinton may be unfit to be president, but she’s unfit within normal parameters. Donald Trump is unfit outside normal parameters." Also, "Donald Trump is unfit to be president in ways that apply to no other candidate of the two major political parties throughout American history."
In comparison, I think Johnson/Weld are only a tiny bit unfit and that's mostly because of lack of foreign policy experience which could be remedied by a good cabinet and some good advisors.
O'Rourke and Murray are both Establishmentarians (Murray's self-description) so they'll only consider voting for candidates from established parties.
Fortunately, I don't have any such constraint. I may still not bother to vote, but if I do, at the moment I'm leaning heavily towards Johnson/Weld.