Indeed. Romney isn’t getting any vote from me. I’d rather take my chances with majorities in the House and Senate to counter an Obama second term which, if countered correctly at every turn, could very well turn out to be less destructive than a Romney presidency with an approving majority in the Legislative branch.
We’re in a post constitutional era for the foreseeable future anyway until the Tea Party can field a candidate worthy of restoring the Constitution.
No Romney No Way
The most dangerous aspect is that ABOers are risking a landslide for Romney. Man o manischevitz, if that happened, you'd hear ABOers screaming bloody murder as Obama became forgotten one year into Romney's term and his landslide being acted upon as if it was an enthusiastic popular mandate for Romney's progressivism: "This is clearly what the voters overwhelmingly voted FOR!" And it would be TRUE.
And as Romney, joined by moderate Republicans and Democrats, steamrolled conservatives' objections and advanced heavy-handed cap-and-trade, etc. etc., crestfallen ABOers would be saying, "B-b-b-b-but ... we meant to vote against Obama!"
There is no voting "against." There is only voting FOR, whether one likes it or not. I will be voting FOR splitting the vote into such a plurality that whichever authoritarian statist wins, enters office with his political enemies in both his own and the opposing party knowing that he was REJECTED by most Americans. I will vote third party to vote FOR putting the next statist president on defense. Romney is a demonstrated authoritarian statist on FIVE major fronts, from global warming to government-run health care.
I will be voting FOR making whichever statist wins, as weak and embattled as possible.
People who vote FOR Romney will be voting FOR the advance of liberalsim, no matter how they rationalize it as being a vote "against" it.