[unique1]

A third party vote does do that, but it also tends to get Obama elected in this case. Geez....

[muawiyah]

Romney isn't going to get elected anyway ~ he's running under the GOP-e brand and they haven't done well for nearly 3/4 of a century.

The idea here is to deprive Obama of 50%,.

[Finny]

A third party vote does do that, but it also tends to get Obama elected ...

Wrongo. If you're in a solidly blue state, it's moot. If you're in a solidly red state, it's moot. It's totally up in the air as to which guy, Obama or Romney, will get the electoral votes to win, and that is based more on your state than on your vote. However, the popular vote has real meaning when the majority in the popular vote opposed the guy in the White House.

A third party vote is no more likely to help Obama than it is to help Romney, because both Obama and Romney have low support within their own parties. In fact, it is this very thing, the RARE phenomenon of a sitting first-term president who is loathed by so many who voted for him, that presents just about as ideal a scenario as it gets to risk third party for the intention of splitting the popular vote into a referendum plurality.

A third party vote is a vote to deny the next socialist president a mandate. It is neutral in that it doesn't favor either Obama or Romney.