[Finny]

"Pure" -- what are you talking? As if refusing to vote for a guy with a record of ADVANCING the FIVE major liberal agendas of global warming, nationalized health care, abortion, activist judges, and the gay agenda is mere quibbling with the concept of "purity."

ABO is focused so exclusively on the "Great and Powerful Oz" it purports to vote against, that it fails to seriously ponder the devil it's on the verge of voting FOR.

THAT kind of desperate mistake is jumping from the frying pan into the fire. The ALTERNATIVE is to use your presidential vote to, in essence, turn down the fire instead of leaping from pan to flame. Voting third party to weaken the winner's mandate is thinking about what you're voting for AND what you're voting against. ABO is considering only half the equation, and therefore only half the consequences.

[driftdiver]

Sounds like utopia, too bad our system doesnt work that way. Its pretty much a binary system, 1’s and 0’s. Anything else is filtered out as noise. However the error rate can impact the final count of 1’s and 0’s.

[Principled]

The ALTERNATIVE is to use your presidential vote to, in essence, turn down the fire instead of leaping from pan to flame.

No. Voting for this person is not turning down the fire. Do you really intend to say that reelecting obama is turning down the fire?! Put the bong down man.

You erroneously assert that there is no downside to reelecting obama. Unless you also assert that this nobody can win [which you have not] then you're simply voting for the nonromney. Sorry, in this context, that's just stupid.

The president will be either Obama or Romney. What you're saying is that it's better to reelect obama than vote for romney.

If that's you, you're part of the problem.