Drumpf?

[Aroura]

2% away from getting into the debates, 97% away from being elected.  

Look, the whole point of the lesser of 2 evils is to make sure the LESSER evil happens.  

[...]

You want to change the 2 party system.  I agree.  Allowing Trump to become prez by not voting for Hillary isn't going to help you accomplish that.

Nonsense. The value of a third-party vote right now depends on the leaning of one's state of residence. In a state where the race is close, the lesser-of-two-evils voting is understandable, and an approach I myself will use if it comes to that point here in Texas, if for no other reason that of SCOTUS nominations.

But if your home state is already settled to one candidate or another, and if you're unhappy with the system as it currently is, restricting your vote to the parties which have brought you to your unhappy state of affairs is silly, the internet definition of insanity -- doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.

We need more options. Furthermore, we need to grow them -- they ain't gonna pop up like mushrooms after an overnight rain.

You aren't going to win a jackpot for picking the winner. You're not going to change a thing if you "choose" between two parties. You won't win a prize, you won't get a better job, you won't get anything but more screwing. A vote for someone who cannot win will still register -- it will help a third-party gain breathing space and funding, and it will register on the pollsters who feed the machine data, and perhaps at the least convince the two majors to tack more with the wind rather than into the breeze.

Well, if you read the article, it is about states where the race is close.  Guess I should have specified that.

I'm independant and often vote that way, here in Oregon.

You know the huge problem with that?  I don't even get to vote in the primaries.  So I didn't even get to vote for Bernie!