For a statement to be true is has to be true in all cases. If it is false in any case it cannot be true. If one does not vote then there is no effect on the totals....if one would not have ever voted for either candidate, then there is no effect on the totals... You are trying to say that if one does not vote for McCain then one has 'in effect' voted for Obama....and since there is no change in Obama's totals there is no effect! Folks like you accept this 'in effect' BS idea without challenge...you need to think about things a bit more before you parrot them.
And you need to stop putting out hot air!
If the 3rd Party did not exist and the person would have voted Republican as a SECOND choice, that 3rd Party candidate has effectively help get the Democrat elected.
We saw this in Fl. when the Green Party took alot of Gore's voters, thus EFFECTIVELY electing Bush instead.
The only question would be which ones would not have voted at all and which ones the Green Party actually took from Gore.
Facts are stubborn things.
Aha! You are one of those who believes that a candidate OWNS votes! Yes, in your own words you said it!
That, my FRiend, is the fallacy of 'effective' non voting.
The FACT is that Bush and Gore got a lot of vote out of the 'anyone but the other guy' attitude. When offered a choice these voters make an affirmative statement and vote for someone that actually refelcts their philosphy.
The current two party system wrangles the weak minded into thinking that they have no choice or that they will 'effectively' elect the wrong guy by voting third part.
Those that promulgate that notion help undermine the USA by effectively coercing voters out of their true choice. Ever thought of yourself as an enemy of the democratic process for trying to strangle other voters' choices?
Think about it.