Again, The Orange Baboon

[Thumpalumpacus]

Given our Electoral College system, your reasoning only holds in battleground states. In a state dominated by Trumpeteers, a vote for Clinton may as well go to a third-party, and vice-versa.

I will hold my nose and for Clinton if Texas somehow becomes a battleground state. Otherwise I will vote Johnson, both to raise the Libertarian profile and to add my voice to those telling the two major parties that their offerings are unacceptable and they'd best change them.

Thump, I love you man. I'm fucking drunk right now so there's that but you're reasoning is so practical and so like my own. Of course I'm reaLLY FUVCKING DRUNK BUT WE'LL NOT GO THERE.

There is a time to use your vote to take a stand and a time to recognize that you better use it more pragmatically.

I voted for Ronald Reagan twice and for the elder Bush once. I voted Republican eaRLY ON because I saw the Democrats as dangerously weak against the Soviet threat. That threat lessened after Gorbachev and shit. Then the elder Bush brushed off climate change in Rio in 1991 or so. I found this irresponsible and decided to vote for Ross Perot. Then I watched the debates and was blown away by Bill Clinton. I still voted for Perot (to send a message that I heard his cry for fiscal responsibility) but only after the polls made it clear that Clinton would win. If there was any doubt, I would have stuffed my Perot vote and voted for Bill Clinton.

The bottom line is that there is a time and place for "protest votes." The pragmatic (rational) person will carefully analyze the situation and decide whether the protest is more important than riskihg electing a dangerous nut like Trump. The rational person says' no.

Dear god, you're "I love you" drunk! Before you crash out, brotha, drink two eight-ounce glasses of water, and take two aspirins -- seriously, you love me even more tomorrow morning.

Votes, like any other expression of opinion, have different meanings based on their context.

What pisses me off is this idea that "I've got to vote for one of these two, and only them, for my vote to count." Just because your preference didn't win does not mean your vote didn't count, and just because you picked a winner doesn't mean you get a Brownie Button. And just because you voted for another party entirely doesn't mean it was insignificant. The two majors track voting patterns and will see a shift to third-parties as a threat. At that point they will either 1) do nothing, 2) take direct action against the threat (as they have for years now, by rigging the debate system so that others are rarely allowed in), or 3) change their positions to accommodate shifting voter preferences.

2) is already a fact. 1) will probably not happen, because they are jealous of their power and will not share it except with each other. But if it does happen, voter alienation will rise until an alternative is viable. It has happened before; it can happen again. 3) is highly unlikely, but it offers a slim hope for a more-responsive government.

Go grab some rest now, bud. Remember, two glasses of water and a couple aspirin!