You can vote anyway you want, but if you don't vote for one of the major candidates, you just voted for the other one.
Our country has never been this partisan before, and DumBama has a lot to do with that. On the right, the Tea Party people are pulling the party that way. On the left, we have a President that was supported by the US Communist party both elections. You can't get more left than that. In fact, the admitted Socialist, Bernie Sanders is the top contender in some places, and nationally, the second contender for the left.
As our party divide widens, it makes it less and less likely we'll ever see a successful third party candidate.
I disagree, a vote for tweedledum isn't a vote against tweedledee when they are in the end the same. Voting for someone else says you want neither, voting for one isn't voting against their clone, at least not in a meaningful way
How meaningful it is is irrelevant. It's the outcome that matters.
The last election between Romney and DumBama is a good example. Some Republicans didn't care for Romney, so they stayed home. That's how Obama won his reelection. By not voting, they did usher in another four years of Obama.
People who see the choice of republicans or not voting, wow, such intelligence......
I don't even understand what in hell that's supposed to mean. What I said is that Republican voters stayed home because they didn't like Romney. They didn't want to get their coats on, drive through the snow, get to the voting booth and punch a hole for somebody they didn't even like.
The point I was making was that people have loads of choices. There were something like 30 people on the ballot. These people, saw only two choices. Vote for the Republicans, or not vote at all. Do you think this is a good level of intelligence for voters to have?
That doesn't change his point. He is referring to Republicans who couldn't get a woody for Romney. The confusion was you thought you made a point, but it didn't counter his point. The way to do that is acknowledge his point then say something like they should look third party then. Not make a point in response to his that makes it sound like you're addressing his point when you are not.
I'm the one advocating third party in the discussion, but I didn't say that for that reason, it wasn't addressing this point