Coincidence: Romney was the final proof that I needed to confirm my ever-growing suspicion that the Republican party was nothing but talk.
I caught heck here for refusing to jump on the Romney bandwagon, especially w/ people claiming that my vote for Gary Johnson (a former governor of my state who did an excellent job) was really just a vote for Obama because he didn't/couldn't win
… as they completely ignored the fact that Romney didn't/couldn't win.
Mathematical reality: A ballot choice is like a light switch: ON or OFF. Your vote FOR it is either on, or off. The idea of voting "against" is pure emotional rationalization. A vote for Romney was ONLY a vote for Romney, and a vote for Obama was ONLY a vote for Obama. It was and will always be mathematically FALSE to conclude that voting for someone is the equivalent of voting against his/her opponent.
Even when you vote "against" a proposition, you are mathematically voting FOR nixing it. When you vote "for" a proposition, you vote FOR implementing it. There are ZERO options on the ballot to vote FOR rejecting a candidate; there are only options on the ballot to vote FOR a candidate to replace him, or to decline voting FOR that replacement. Voting FOR a replacement candidate who will deliver the same results as the guy you want to remove, means you will get more of the same thing you wanted to remove.
I remember wishful folks here were rationalizing (very understandably, I might add, and I sympatize) that they weren't voting to "hire" Romney, they were voting to "fire" Obama. I had to sadly inform them of the plain, mathematical truth: No, they were voting to hire Romney. PERIOD. There was no option on the ballot to fire anyone -- ONLY to hire a replacement. A subtle but profound difference.