I don't vote for who I want, I look at who has a chance of winning and vote for the lesser evil, because any other vote is practically meaningless.
(Our voting system is stupid)
Voting for the "lesser evil" is only a good idea when the "greater evil" is so great that they will destroy the country. That has never been the case.
Voting for the "lesser evil" is actually worse than not voting at all because it tells the parties that being evil still gets them votes.
The only way political parties in the US change is through threat of losing enough votes. If you want change that the duopoly does not offer then you must vote your conscience even if it means that this "greater evil" person will win. Because in the long run the party that lost will have to incorporate the policies of the 3rd parties that are "stealing" their votes the next time around.
>The only way political parties in the US change is through threat of losing enough votes. If you want change that the duopoly does not offer then you must vote your conscience even if it means that this "greater evil" person will win. Because in the long run the party that lost will have to incorporate the policies of the 3rd parties that are "stealing" their votes the next time around.
A person gets a chance to vote in ~14-15 elections, realistically fewer than that. A person also has to coordinate their non-standard voting plan with others. I just don't think there are enough iterations for that to happen. Communication via the internet might change that, but I am skeptical.
We might not be able to elect a libertarian, green, constitution, or whig president in 2016, but just as the erosion of our freedoms has taken decades, we'll have to rebuild everything just as slowly. Vote for your preferred candidate this primary. You may not be on "the winning team" today, but you're sending a message that the status quo is not what we want.