On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Harlan Rosenthal <harlan.rosenthal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Suggestion: Look at the history and the statistics. Voting for a third > party candidate always splits the votes away from Democrats. Republicans > have more-clearly stated interests and don't split; Democrats try to include > everybody and therefore wind up losing people. Therefore voting for the > third-party candidate always winds up being a vote for the Republicans. Add > Nader's votes to Gore and Bush would have clearly lost. You need to factor the Electoral College into your calculations. I live in a state that I already know will go to McCain in November - it's just not in doubt. I do not trust McCain or his party's religious intentions, but his party's stated fiscal goals are closer to what I want than the Democrats' are. OTOH, I like Obama as a person, and his party's social ideals are closer to mine, but I don't think the economy can take his social spending goals. Barr, though, represents a platform that I like a whole lot more than either of those two - the social ideals of Obama and the fiscal ideals of classic Republicans. (Not to be confused with the big-government Republicans.) Of the three, I would choose Barr, then Obama, then McCain. As it does not matter how I vote, because my state is going to McCain, why shouldn't I vote for Barr? Now, in a battleground state, you may have a point - but even then, people in my position tend to come from both major-party camps. Denied the choice to vote Libertarian, about half of us go Democrat and about half Republican. Contrariwise, Nader is much more of an "extreme Democrat" candidate, and it's absolutely no surprise that his votes tend to come from the Democratic column. All third parties are not created equal, and neither are all third party voters. -- Robert Hood - Hixson, TN SJG MIB #8595 - Looney Labs Rabbit - Atlas Games Mook Next con: HallowCon, October 24-26 - http://www.hallowcon.com