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.
“A ‘principle’ is not something chosen based on beneficial outcomes. It’s based on belief in truth.”
Really? You expect a ‘pragmatist’ to agree with that? Something that does not produce beneficial results will be quickly abandoned.
“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.”
Those ‘unprincipled and untrustworthy politicians’ are human. You act as if they should behave as angels. The only way to avoid disappointment is to base your actions on this one principle - a politician will always act in his own best interest.
“my principle is to vote for whomever I think best for the job.”
Even if that person has no chance of winning? I balance the chance of winning with my perception of which politician will do the least harm. It’s a trade-off obviously.
“You seem however to believe that only those who voted for a winner really had a say.”
Not really. I believe that there is no reason to cast a ballot for someone who does not stand a reasonable chance of winning.
“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?”
You seem to be confusing having an effect with accomplishing something useful. Perot’s candidacy accomplished nothing useful. (Unless one is a democrat.)
Now, Nader did accomplish something useful. He helped put Bush into office but I doubt that was the intention of those who voted for him. But, that is a perfect example of the futility of voting third party. The only result is often detrimental to those who vote third party. But, then, you don’t care about benefits, do you?