Absolutly. But Hillary is so much worse than Trump that anyone that considers himself conservative on many issues is foolish to withhold his vote for Trump merely because he wants to make some statement that no one will ever hear.
A write-in vote is a statement that no one will ever hear.
That is not remotely the case with a vote for the Libertarian Party.
In the entire history of the United States, never would the change of one vote alter the outcome of the election. So with hundreds of millions of votes cast, never once has it happened. Part of this is because of the nature of the electoral college system. For your individual vote to determine the outcome of the election, not only would the outcome of the election have to depend on the Electoral College votes of your particular state, but the vote in your state would have to have been so close that changing your vote would change which candidate had the most votes in your state.
What DOES happen when you vote for a candidate is NOT that you determine the outcome of an election, but your vote gets added to a candidates vote total to help provide what the candidate and supporters will declare is a "mandate" if they win, or which will do little to nothing if they lose. But a "mandate" for what if you vote for Hillary? A mandate for more undeclared war in the Middle East with unreviewable kill-list drone strikes killing thousands of innocents who just happened to be nearby? A "mandate" for or against trade agreements? A "mandate" for or against increasing immigration from Syria and other war torn nations? A "mandate" to be female? Voting for Trump would produce even less of a "mandate" since the guy has taken multiple sides on virtually every issue.
Voting for a third party candidate, however, generally amounts to increasing the vote total for a very clear set of principles, which those holding office know they have to attend to if they hope to get those voters in the future and which those seeking office in the future know they have to promise to attend to in order to attract that large block of voters with clearly defined desires.
In fact if you vote for either Hillary or Trump the reasons for that vote will be so blurred by personality, character issues, and absolutely ambiguous, contradictory or clearly misrepresented positions each have taken, that no one, not even the winner, will be able to sort out what positions those voting for either of the two major candidates want pursued.
That is not the case with a vote cast for a Libertarian candidate. It is quite clear what positions those in office, or in the future SEEKING office, will have to advance and pursue in order to win support of those voters.
If you truly want your vote to count and to make a difference, you actually need to vote for the third party candidate most closely reflecting your views. Votes cast for either winner or the loser in the presidential race end up being lost in the noise and do nothing whatsoever.
Before you write this off as a foolish approach which would never make a difference in American politics, particularly when the 3rd party candidates never attract more than a couple of percentage points of the electorate, look again to our nation's history.
In the 1920's the Socialists began drawing 2-3% of the vote, largely behind Eugene Debs. The never reached 5%, only got to 4% once, and yet withing 15 years, 9 of the ten positions in their platform had been enacted into law as members of Congress and presidents sought to win over that identifiable block of voters which might well have been enough to turn the outcome of an election.
The problem with Nadar was not that he drew votes from Gore (and if Gore had been elected, 9/11 still would have happened, we still would have invaded Aghanistan and still would have invaded Iraq -- in other words, there would have been little difference), it is that he did not CONTINUE running and drawing 2-3% of the vote in support of clearly identifiable positions which one or both of the major parties would have had to embrace in order to attract those voters.
I'm a libertarian. I believe in reducing the size, scope and power of government, particularly the central government; I believe government tries to regulate our lives far too much and does it very poorly; I believe government should stop picking winners and losers in the marketplace and allow consumers to decide outcomes; I believe conduct which does not directly hurt another person should be legal; and I believe that voting for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate, is the best way to register that set of concerns in such a manner as to assure that politicians pay attention to them. It in fact is the ONLY way they will pay attention to them.