Voting for someone with no chance to win is just a way to not make an unpleasant choice while feeling good about yourself. The only way your vote can make any difference is if Obama squeaks by in a close one. Just ask FL Ralph Nader voters.
But I'm not voting for Romney....
“The only way your vote can make any difference is if Obama squeaks by in a close one”
The only way my vote can make a difference is if both: A) Romney wins Minnesota by a single vote, and B) Minnesota’s vote make the difference in the electoral college. In other words, when pigs fly.
“Just ask FL Ralph Nader voters.”
Notice the all-important “s” after “voter.” I hate how people are always trying to convince me that my vote is important and that I must vote for one of the two parties based on the fact that collections of votes matter. Well, duh, but mine doesn’t.
There’s no reason, anyway, that I need to make the “unpleasant choice” just because only a Republican or Democrat can win. So what? Why do I have to vote for someone who has the potential to win? That’s like saying I should have voted for Obama in 2008 because he was going to win. Why does my tally have to go on the winning side? What’s the point?
Voting, so far as I can tell, is an empty ritual for the individual, who except in the remotest of cases cannot possibly make a difference. It matters only for large chunks of people, who you may have noticed are not individuals. I go through it for the heck of it. Don’t try to tell me I have to vote any which way in pursuit of any which outcome. That’s stupid.