It is not about a “reason to vote”.
It is about ELIGIBILITY.
Neither Obama NOR Romney is ELIGIBLE.
That eliminates it as an issue.
... just as Romney eliminates RomneyCARE/ObamaCARE.
It would only be about eligibility if two citizen parents were actually required in order to produce a natural born citizen.
As I noted in this thread, every single article that makes that claim (every one that I’ve read at least, and I’ve read a bunch), sooner or later (usually sooner) is based on either fallacy or simply false or distorted information.
Whether you like it or not, the common law that was behind the founding of our country ultimately considered all children born on the soil of the country (which was originally England, and we were originally English colonies) to be “natural born,” whether or not their parents were citizens or aliens. The only exceptions, as noted above, were the children of foreign diplomats or members of invading armies.
That being the case, Mitt Romney (whether you like him or not) is eligible. Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal are eligible. And yes, Barack Obama was legally elected President of the United States. You don’t like him. I don’t either. So let’s vote the clown out.
That’s a far better alternative than trying to twist the Constitution and American law and the weight of 225 years of judicial consideration to try and make it say something that it really does not say.
That being the case, it’s NOT a matter of eligibility. It’s a matter of reason to vote. And if you think the fact that one of Mitt Romney’s parents was born to US citizens in Mexico is a good reason for you not to vote for him, then I won’t really argue. Lots of people vote for Presidential candidates simply because they do or do not like their hair.
In my personal opinion, though, that’s not even a good reason. As far as I’m concerned, it’s WAY down on MY list of reasons to hate Romney.