So by not voting for Obama, Romney gets 1/2 of a vote and by not voting for Romney, Obama gets 1/2 of a vote. In other words, neither of them gets an advantage. Funny how that works. I guess common sense just trumped all this advanced mathematics of how a non-vote for Romney is somehow a vote for Obama.
LOL... I like your way of putting it.
This is covered in like the first class of Statistics 101. I guess the three of you missed that class, so let me simplify it for you. Imagine a electorate of nine people: The four of us and five random voters. I hold my nose and vote for Obama. You three principled fellows exercise your right to abstain. By doing so, you have lowered the number of votes Obama needs to win from five to two. Had each of you voted Romney, Obama would have needed five for five of the random votes. The same math applies to voting for a noncompetitive third party candidate. Either way you help Obama by lowering the total number of votes he needs to win. So you can look at it any way you like, but you're still helping Obama.
And, yes, I am positive that Romney is going to suck as president. I am equally positive that Obama will be worse.
This exact scenario was what compelled Churchill to say that politics is the worst form of government devised by man, except for all the others.