It sounds nice but it is mistaken. The hard cold truth is you're HIRING a new one. No matter how much you wish it was simply firing the old guy, no matter how much you wish you could vote against Obama, you and every American who votes lacks that option -- you can only vote FOR a different candidate to prevent Obama from winning. The price of Romney, especially risking a Romney landslide which would quickly morph from "firing Obama" into a "popular mandate for Romney's progressive style of governing" -- is so steep and so risky as to be a losing proposition.
Yet every one of us here has a duty to vote. There is a better, smarter, alternative: forfeit any influence in deciding Coke over Pepsi, and vote for a plurality to weaken the victory of whichever menace wins, as either way a menace is going to be in the White House. That is what I will be doing by voting third party at the top of the ticket in order to help all the conservatives I'll be voting for down-ticket.
Indeed, Finny, that is still another excellent reason for voting third party.
Whenever we do what we know to be right, God thanks and assures us by showing us the many different paths which lead to the proper result.
I trust God.
“vote for a plurality to weaken the victory of whichever menace wins, as either way a menace is going to be in the White House. That is what I will be doing by voting third party at the top of the ticket in order to help all the conservatives I’ll be voting for down-ticket.”
Oh how I wised all 50 states were required, in both primaries and general elections, to have “none of the above” as a tabulated choice. To me, that would send the clearest message! Unfortunately, this is not so. Therefore, what you propose sounds like a good COA to me.