(October 25, 2016 at 5:38 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote: I plan to vote for Hillary. While she's not my first choice for president (Bernie was), I'll gladly darken the oval for her rather than allow some blowhard buffoon who doesn't know what the hell he's doing get the job. Not like my vote's going to matter much anyway, because my state will go to Trump regardless.
And don't tell me that a vote for a third party candidate is not a wasted vote. While I wish we had more powerful minor parties, the simple truth is that we really only have a choice between Dems and Repubs (or just Dems if you ask me). Third parties are caught in a catch-22: Nobody wants to vote for third party candidates until they become a viable option, and third party candidates will never be a viable option until more people start voting for them. Yes, you can cast your vote for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, but in the end it's not going to matter. If Jill Stein couldn't even get on the ballot in all 50 states, why does anyone think she's going to win the presidency? The only thing voting for a third party candidate does is say "I reject the two major parties."
Given the importance of that message, I think it means that third-party votes are not in fact meaningless.
The Catch-22 you describe can be broken. But it requires voters to abandon this notion that picking a candidate is like picking a pony at the track. The only reward we seem to get from either major party is a good, stiff screwing.
