Or choose to weaken whichever poison wins. You can do that, too, though in doing, you forfeit any say in whether Obama or Romney gets the White House. For me, it's like forfeting any say in whether I get Coke or Pepsi in a restaurant.
The one thing you cannot do is vote "against" either one of them -- voting "against" is imaginary, a sophistry. You can only vote FOR in elections. I'll be voting FOR giving the next liberal president a plurality. Those who vote for Romney will, like those who vote for Obama, be voting FOR making liberalism stronger. On the other hand, my third-party vote will be FOR denying a mandate to whichever liberal wins. My vote will be FOR making liberalism weaker.
“The one thing you cannot do is vote “against” either one of them — voting “against” is imaginary, a sophistry. You can only vote FOR in elections. I’ll be voting FOR giving the next liberal president a plurality. Those who vote for Romney will, like those who vote for Obama, be voting FOR making liberalism stronger. On the other hand, my third-party vote will be FOR denying a mandate to whichever liberal wins. My vote will be FOR making liberalism weaker.”
A-men. I’ll be voting for Goode as well. He’s the only one on the ballot opposed to gay marriage.
Your third party vote will be purely symbolic. All third party votes in 2000, 2004, or 2008 in the end meant nothing.