[JamesP81]

If you mean, that casting a protest vote or sitting out “works,” that is not true. It accomplishes exactly zero. It’s not even an effective protest, nor does it insulate the voter from or absolve the voter of personal responsibility for directly facilitating the election of the candidate of the party the voter would never vote for directly.

That's a total BS argument that is the product of a party based political system that the forefathers never wanted in the first place. It would be hypocritically and morally repugnant for me to vote for someone who is opposed to my own beliefs whether that person is an R, a D, or otherwise. You will not assign personal responsibility for the election of a D to those of us who didn't vote for a D.

[wouldntbprudent]

Suit yourself.

But even a 12-year-old voting on American Idol knows that if he doesn’t want a particular singer to win, he *must vote for the other guy.*

As for your view that my point was a “total BS argument that is the product of a party based political system” blah blah blah, uh, NO. I think for myself, thank you. And would you care to explain how you are not responsible for electing a Rat if you refuse to vote for the Republican nominee?

Tell me where I’m wrong here:

When a vote is cast for “X” in the general election, its first effect is to cancel a vote for the other viable (major party) candidate, “Y”.

If there are no more votes for the other candidate (”Y”) to cancel, then the vote causes the election of “X.”

Therefore, the first possible effect of one’s vote for “X” is a vote against “Y.”

If one does not vote for “X,” one is not voting against “Y.”

The candidate with the fewest votes AGAINST him wins.

If you don’t vote for “X,” you don’t cancel a vote for “Y.” Therefore, if “Y” wins, you helped.