“What you have isn’t realism...it’s pragmatism (which is really just absence of clear principle).”
It sounds as if you think being ‘pragmatic’ is a bad thing. Well, pragmatism does reject the dogmatic adherence to rigid principle and it does reject the unpractical ideal. But, let me ask you this: why would you want to follow ‘prinicples’ if those principles lead you to misfortune? Should you not seek other ‘principles’ that provide more beneficial results? Now, also, let me ask this: exactly what benefit do you get from voting third party? Do you have a say in who becomes president? Or, do you only get a nice fuzzy feeling that you are somehow a special person who values principle more than results?
“My ballot is my voice. What you’re saying is that my voice only actually registers if I cry out the name of the frontrunner I hate the least for fear of the one I hate the most.”
You seem to have placed a very high value on your ‘voice’. Do you really think that either party really cares about fringe third party believers? Elections are won or lost by those who can seize and control the center. That’s where the votes are.
“I take it then that you do not believe that third party candidates should even be allowed on the ballot since they’re an “unrealistic choice?” After all, it would be better if all Americans chose only between the ones with a “realistic chance of winning” so that their ballots will actually have “value.””
You really shouldn’t try to put words in other peoples mouths. I have no issue with third parties being on ballots. My issue is with those who actually think that voting third party accomplishes any thing useful. Look at it this way “Voting third party is like peeing in your pants while wearing a dark suit. It gives you a nice warm feeling but nobody notices.”
“So very, very sad that you’ve bought into the lie these politicians have sold you.”
Oh, my FreeperFriend, I’ve bought into nothing sold by any politician. I think the best of them are only slightly better than used car salesmen or shyster lawyers. Since I think none of them are particularly ‘principled’ or ‘trustworthy’ I totally reject the idea that voting for any of them is anything else but choosing between the ‘lesser of two evils’. All politicians are ‘evil’. You have absolutely no other choice but to choose between lesser shades of evil.
Which brings us to my original point. Which of the two policians that will be running will cause the least amount of difficulties should they be elected? Voting for who ever you think will cause that least amount of trouble is really the only way your ‘voice’ will be heard.
A 'principle' is not something chosen based on beneficial outcomes. It's based on belief in truth. To reduce principles to matters of expediency and convenience as you are is to be no better than the unprincipled and untrustworthy politicians between which you are choosing.
Now, also, let me ask this: exactly what benefit do you get from voting third party? Do you have a say in who becomes president? Or, do you only get a nice fuzzy feeling that you are somehow a special person who values principle more than results?
Your question belies your entrapment in a self-fulfilling pessimism. My principle is not to vote third party no matter what...my principle is to vote for whomever I think best for the job. This time around it happens to be a third party candidate. It seems inconceivable to you that a candidate from a party other than the Democrat or Republican parties could possibly win, and therefore you consider it a waste of a vote. In fact, such a position guarantees they will never win because votes are the essential factor.
Every person who casts a vote has a say in who becomes president. You seem however to believe that only those who voted for a winner really had a say. Whether the losing candidate I vote for lost by 45% of the vote or the candidate you vote for lost by 5%, the fact remains that either we both "had a say" or neither of us did because neither of us brought about the election of the winner.
You really shouldn’t try to put words in other peoples mouths. I have no issue with third parties being on ballots. My issue is with those who actually think that voting third party accomplishes any thing useful.
Interesting. Do you not think that the candidacy of H. Ross Perot in 1992 had any effect whatsoever in the outcome of that election? Do you not think that the candidacy of Ralph Nader in 2000 had any effect on one of the closest elections in history?
Third party candidates do make a difference, and they are indeed noticed. That's not mere opinion...it's historically demonstrable fact, friend.