"Spoiler" logic and "wasted vote" notions dominate the arguments against votes for a minor party (or not voting). Obviously, those who go ahead and do so anyway don't share those opinions; they regard their votes as being the only fit expression of their own opinions. Why does some onus rest on them to conform to a larger group? Why doesn't the larger group have an onus to conform to them? Sheer size? Is being right or wrong a matter of how large a gang you have assembled behind you?
Now, as to practical matters:
Asked about the impact of Cox's Libertarian campaign, which drew more than 50,000 votes to his anti-tax and limited government message, Mannix said, "If he hadn't been in this race, I would have won." The threat of future Libertarian candidates drawing votes away from Republicans will have to be confronted, Mannix said.
This is precisely why minor parties are an asset to the political spectrum. It is the strongest argument in favor of vigorous participation by these can't-win candidates, whether you like them or not: the threat of losing votes to them will impel the major-party candidates to take the issues they champion seriously, and to clarify their positions on them.
I am sick and tired of hearing people castigated for voting their consciences, as if their vote was something they owed to a major party candidate for being "the lesser of two evils." If that's made me more strident than you like, my apologies. My opinions stand. Whether you like them or think them "reasonable" is of no moment.
I suggest you give more consideration to the moral issues behind the employment of the electoral franchise. Political authority, all the way down to the authority of the individual vote, is force. One who wields force without due regard for moral considerations is a negligent hazard to others at best, a villain at worst. I'm sure you vote your conscience. Allow others the same privilege.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com