No it wouldn't. There are those who say this every election and it doesn't. A few months back someone was posting some archive.org links form here form 99 and there was a whole contingent saying the same thing about voting for Pat Buchanan. Then in 2004 you had some saying the same thing about Michael Badnarik. In 2008 you had some saying the same thing about Chuck Baldwin. The game doesn't work that way. The party is a business and doesn't respond to single digit fringe calls for 'punishing' the party. They go where the largest impact of voters and money are. Playing the 'punish the GOP by voting third party' is the proverbial definition of insanity.
You want to change the party, you have to get in the party corp. Become precinct chairs and join local delegations, take over your local and state GOP, etc. Get in force during the primary behind a single candidate, don't just split up among a half-dozen sniping at each other. Get in the actual business of the party, not just the same-old single digit percent third party voters that are always around.
It wouldn't be single digit if so many conservatives didn't drink the Kool-Aid cycle after cycle after cycle.
You want to change the party, you have to get in the party corp. Become precinct chairs and join local delegations, take over your local and state GOP, etc.
Great idea - but in no way excludes voting third party if the GOP takeover fails.
Become precinct chairs and join local delegations, take over your local and state GOP, etc. Get in force during the primary behind a single candidate, don't just split up among a half-dozen sniping at each other. Get in the actual business of the party, not just the same-old single digit percent third party voters that are always around.Amen!