1. You may say, 'i will make no difference', well, as one in 300m that is true no matter who you vote for. May as well vote with your conscience.
Either way, as of today, voting third party means you won't be 'voting them in' (NB: it does not follow that your vote will not have any impact).
An interesting article on WSJ via Volokh about the Libertarian party covers this issue http://www.volokh.com/2012/11/05/my-wsj-op-ed-the-mistake-th...
Simply put, let's say you're a Libertarian, but don't want to vote for Gary Johnson to prevent 'throwing your vote away'. But voting for him now possibly adds to his campaign funds in the 2016 election, which increases third party viability fairly substantially.
You didn't vote. So, the better candidate (for whom you could have voted) wasn't voted into the office. So, the worse candidate was voted into the office. You are responsible for the election of a bad candidate.
q.e.d.
Note 1: I know, analyzing quotes is useless, but I couldn't resist. Note 2: If there are only bad candidates the situation is more complex, but this is an edge case which only happens in thought experiments.
I think you and I have differing opinions about the candidates. What do you consider "good"? Has there even been a "good" candidate in the past 20, 30 years?
"Underwhelming" is a good descriptor. I've yet to experience someone describable as "good".
So what is the "key difference" between the parties? Rhetoric. When Republicans advocate a small contraction of the welfare state, Democrats claim that Republicans totally oppose the welfare state. And many Republicans oblige them by standing up for "liberty" and "responsibility." Similarly, when Democrats advocate a small expansion in the welfare state, Republican claim that Democrats oppose free markets. And many Democrats oblige them by saying things like "markets only benefit the rich."
This rhetorical illusion is so powerful that when a Democrat like Clinton adopts many pro-market reforms, Republicans still hate him as a 60s radical. And when Bush II sharply expands the welfare state, Democrats still hate him as a billionaire's lackey.
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/09/how_dems_and_re....
What now? One of them may agree with me on a single, small issue, the other doesn't. But how can I vote for that guy if I know that he's going to continue eroding everything I stand for on every other issue?
The other?
There are more than two candidates.
Even if a 3rd (or 4th or fifth) party candidate doesn't have a chance of wining, a better showing in the election makes it, at least somewhat, easier for such parties to get press coverage and admission to national debates in the future.
I disagree with that stance. It appears you do as well.
If you are governed by fools or charlatans everyone has the right to speak out, to bitch, whine, complain - voter or not. That's the right we have, and we're fortunate to have it. (Yes, we need better - but apathy changes nothing).
> If you are governed by fools or charlatans everyone has the right to speak out, to bitch, whine, complain - voter or not.
You have the right to complain about the fool, but you don't have the right to complain about being governed - since that's what you consented to when you tick the box.
Before being asked "Which fool should govern?" should you not be asked "Do you want to be governed by a fool?"
You are doing less to change the system by not voting than you are by voting. It would be lovely to be asked "Do you want to be governed by a fool?", but you don't get that, ignoring the question you are asked is not bringing that closer.
You could at least spoil you ballot if you wish to protest. Doing nothing will be interpreted as laziness, apathy and comfort. Not voting because you disagree with the system is fundamentally misguided, at least if you want to be pragmatic.
Consent or not, we are all governed. There's no opting out of that.