My goal in voting third party is to deny a popular mandate to whichever statist wins; a lack of popular mandate would help conservatives in Congress regardless of which guy won. Despite your protestations to the contrary, a third-party vote favors neither Obama nor Romney. It's MATH.
If it was Obama who happened to win instead of Romney -- and Obama has lost so much support that it's a good bet he couldn't pull even 50% of the popular vote and could only eke a plurality -- it would help to crush the GOP Establishment because their guy LOST and squish moderate Republicans wouldn't want to be next, so they'd be more inclined to become more conservative.
But just as the price of voting "against" Obama is to vote FOR statist Romney, the price of voting FOR a plurality is to forfeit any say in whether Obama or Romney wins.
Keep grinning if it makes you feel better.
Romney’s in a pickle now by hiding his records.
Sometimes honesty just does not pay. That was Newt’s problem. Newt plays political adviser on TV on Fox and other networks. Even while he was still in the primaries he would talk honestly about what each candidate needed to do to win the primary. And from what I’ve been hearing out of Wolfeboro the Romney campaign used Newt’s political advice which he generously offered on the networks.
I understand the plurality argument, but I doubt it will matter if Obama wins. It might impact a Romney win given the MSM bias.
I’m not sure a non-plural win for Obama would convince the GOP-E of anything. A non-plural for Romney would be taken as a “great achievement” regardless of how idiotic the interpretation. Ultimately, non-plurality will be spun to insignificance. The focus will be on signing authority which cares naught for plurality.