Well, no. It's one thing to speak of pragmatism as a concept, but clearly as a 'pragmatist' you HAVE no principles (except, of course, that of pragmatism itself). Underlying your view of course is the notion that the only result that could be considered "beneficial" is that of being on the winning side of the election at hand. I disagree completely.
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.
That's amuzing, coming from a pragmatist. :) What happens when adherence to that 'principle' is shown to produce undesired results?
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.
Well, I'm glad you can sleep at night. Not everybody can sear their conscience like that.
Not really. I believe that there is no reason to cast a ballot for someone who does not stand a reasonable chance of winning.
There are plenty of reasons to do so, not the least of which is a clear conscience. Again, your position is self-reinforcing and essentially guarantees that neither of the two parties will do anything other than what's required to maintain power by playing on the politics of fear. They don't need to convince you of the good they may do...only of the bad the other guy will do that they supposedly won't.
You seem to be confusing having an effect with accomplishing something useful. Perot’s candidacy accomplished nothing useful. (Unless one is a democrat.)
So, you have a problem with people who think that voting third party will accomplish what YOU want. It's clear and irrefutable that third party candidacies have a direct effect on presidential elections...but you're opposed to the notion of voting for them because it never works out in your favor.
Boo hoo.
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.
On the contrary, most of the people I know who voted for Nader did so because they could not in good conscience vote for Al Gore (who was running much closer to the center than they wanted) and felt the long term benefit of the results, should Bush win, were worth it. Guess what...they got EXACTLY what they wanted. They now have two of the most liberal Democrats in the Congress running on a liberal platform.
But, that is a perfect example of the futility of voting third party.
WRONG. It is the perfect example of the long term BENEFIT that voting third party can bring.
The only result is often detrimental to those who vote third party.
And as I said before, such comments belie a clearly myopic view devoid of any overall guiding principle (other than the aforementioned pragmatism).
But, then, you don’t care about benefits, do you?
Of course I do. I'm simply not locked into a myopic, fear-induced paralysis like you appear to be. If the choices were only between McCain and Obama, I would prefer McCain as the "lesser evil." But those aren't the only two choices, and I'm willing to accept the short term risk of an Obama presidency for the sake of clear conscience and potential long term benefit.
You are indeed the best friend of these mainstream politicians. People like you keep them in power despite their constant deriliction of duty.
“It’s clear and irrefutable that third party candidacies have a direct effect on presidential elections...”
So, exactly what effect on this presidential election are you trying to achieve?