With all due respect, you have to ask yourself what is wrong with the 34 percent who FAVOR Obama?
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
And the 1% who vote 3rd Party and the 1% who refuse to vote because their candidate did not get the nomination.
In years past, 3rd Party was, I think, truly for the "purists" who couldn't tolerate deviation from one or two issues. This time around, however, the Republican candidate deviates -- and has an established record to demonstrate it -- to the far left on FIVE MAJOR ISSUES (state-run health care, environmentalist ecotyranny, tax-funded abortion on demand, the homosexual agenda, and activist liberal judges) against which Republicans traditionally have presented the only opposition. Romney would neutralize that crucial opposition and his "win" would very likely be a death blow to conservatism.
Turn a blind eye to that if you want, but understand that the risk is HUGE when you turn such a blind eye.
In this election, you can vote for cyanide (Obama) or arsenic (Romney) or you can vote 3rd party for the express purpose of diluting whichever poison wins. Remember Clinton's 43% plurality win in '92 and how his watered-down "victory" made him so vulnerable and made conservatives so strong that the Republican Revolution followed two years later.
This is a situation where voting 3rd party is the smartest way to vote -- it's neutral as to influencing whether Obama or Romney wins, but has the power to make that win so watered down and diluted -- a 34% plurality win would be nice, where 66% voted against him -- that the victor enters office as a weakened pariah, and that would be a good thing whether it was Obama or Romney.