So I threw my vote to aviod the best of two evils . . .

He may well be the most honest person either one of us have ever met, at least in his personal life. When it comes to public statements on his policy and political beliefs there is a pattern of possibly unprecedented inconsistency. There is absolutely no reason for me to believe that this pattern of inconsistency would not continue after he became president.

 

I voted for Jill Stein and did NOT throw my vote. I voted with sheer confidence in my decision, and in support for what she and the party stands for.

If more people who believed in third parties, or even looked into what they stood for without automatically writing them off, and voted for them... these parties WOULD have a chance.

Voting for either big candidate or party without knowing who else is in the race, because you hate the other big candidate, or because you are voting for the "lesser of two evils", is throwing a vote right into the trash. What a waste of a unique American right.

 

You mean that by voting for someone who actually has a chance of winning the election (e.g., Obama, Romney) you're wasting your vote?

 

I didn't say that.

 

I just had the most frustrating conversation with my mother. She is in NJ, staying at a hotel because she has no power due to the storm. We argued for 20 minutes about Obama. She is voting for him because - (1) He got Bin Laden and (2) Romney wants to take away social security. It was painful to hear that she is basing her vote on stupidity!

 

"Romney will end social security as we know it" Thats what the liberal media keeps saying and its simply not true. People believe it though. Most of the people who vote are uninformed and it comes down to a popularity contest.

 

Gary Johnson had a reasonable shot at competing for /winning the GOP nomination during the initial Republican primaries process. Too, Johnson had the opportunity to showcase his record and ideas during the GOP primaries, but [his] performance failed to neither excite conservatives nor gain any meaningful candidate traction during early Republican primaries /debates. Once eliminated as a contender, Gary switched (Dec. 2011) his party affiliation (e.g., settling for the minor league /third-party Libertarian endorsement). Consider this as a LP supporter /voter: Feeling you’ve done the right thing for the right cause brings a feeling of satisfaction; third-party promoters thrive on such emotional effect. Outcome: Emotion is what you’ll typically end-up with along with the customary third-party protest-only ballot ... but absolutely not an [electable] third-party presidential candidate.

:unitedstates:

 

You most certainly did.

 

How concrete of you to think so. It seems like we differ in more than just our opinions regarding my statement, which was as follows...

It seems as though you think that statement means something to the effect of "if you vote for Romney or Obama (people who can 'actually win'), that no matter what, you are wasting a vote." You can correct me if I misunderstood what you said.

What I actually meant was exactly what I originally wrote. In simpler terms, voting for ANY candidate that you don't believe in, for any reason, is a waste. It is a waste because there is probably a third party candidate who fits your value set, needs your support, and could also be a more genuine voice for the person that you are.

If you are voting for Obama or Romney because you truly believe that they will be the best president of the USA... it's your right as an US Citizen to support them in our effort to be a better country.

If you are voting for anyone (no matter who) just to spite another party, candidate, family member, or because you don't want to be on the losing side... you are not being your authentic self and are doing OUR nation (the one that we share, together) a disservice.

 

Okay … let me respond to your irrelevant D.C. question Steve. As regards D.C. and its whopping 3-electorial votes; historically, ANY vote for other than the Democrat candidate (in this instance Obama) is irrelevant, wasted or … whatever terminology you wish to address it as.

Now to relevance … a vote for your campaigned, yet unelectable candidate Johnson, is not only [wasted] in D.C., but as to legitimate significance (e.g., contrasting the Republican candidate Romney) … is a wasted vote (as regards electability) in all 50-states (assuming Johnson is even on 50 ballots). Moreover, it would be speculation on my part as to which candidate (Romney or Obama) might have more /less prospective votes (so very few either way) siphoned-off by the third-party candidate. Either way … Gary Johnson’s 2012 election-cycle importance will be of no consequence to either Romney or Obama (e.g., a non-factor … period). IMO, Johnson remains no more than a minuscule protest vote option.

 

And what are the pay-off /return knowingly putting money on and/or voting for an assured loser;some horse race?

 

(Accidentally posted; please delete.)

 

Took the words right out of my mouth. :iagree:

 

I also worry about consistency. Barack Obama has said many things that he has later contradicted. Who knows what he really believes in. Of course, he is a politician so that makes him about as low on my scale as a lawyer. I have more respect for used car salesmen than politicians and lawyers. The only politicians I have respect for are the ones who want to limit their own control over my life.

 

And which ones are those?

 

Many. Most are on the Republican side but not all. The best stump speech I could hear is one in which they cut half the federal budget and repeal half of the laws enacted over the last 50 years.