I disagree. My little brother voted for Barr in Nevada. Even w/Palin, he couldnt get behind McCain (and didnt think he had a chance) so my brother voted on informed principle after finding out what Barr stood for.
If it werent for Palin, I wouldve voted for Barr. I cant stand McCain. (We didnt have a choice in Indiana - he was already nominated by the time our primaries got here... so I voted against him out of protest.)
For the record, I did vote for several libertarian candidates on local elections - including Governor. Andy Horning had much better thoughts/ideas than even Mitch. (As in get the government out of stuff its not supposed to be involved in.)
Libertarian Party gives us some kind of choice.
Thanks a lot to you and your brother for helping elect Obama.
Using one’s vote as a protest is about as dumb as it gets.
Also even if your state’s EC vote was going for Obama, wasting your vote helped increase Obama’s margin in the national popular vote.
Only the choice to try to play spoiler. Nevada could have been a very close state. In the previous two elections, Bush won Nevada by very close margins, and all indications were that this year it would also be close. There was absolutely no excuse for voting Losertarian in Nevada.
Assuming your brother was truly "informed" about what Barr stood for, that means the "principles" he cast his vote for were: surrender in Iraq and immediate withdrawl (a position to the left of Obama's), repealing anti-terrorism measures, amnesty for illegal aliens, repealing traditional marriage, legalizing dope, implimenting Al Gore's proposals on "climate change", and upholding the status quo on abortion on demand nationally.
If these "conservatives" voting for Barr in earnest really understood what his platform was and agreed with it, it says more about how "conservative" they are than it says about Barr.
Barr was to the left of not only Palin but even McCain on many key issues.