Does anyone here vote for who they think has a better chance at winning? (Obama, independent)

[Vic 2.0]

I was thinking about voting for Jill Stein, but then this idea crept in and is trying to discourage me:

"She won't win anyway. Why not vote for someone who will?"

Am I insane, or is this reasoning normal (meaning the country's insane)?

[afoigrokerkok]

No, I only vote for candidates who have some chance of winning (except in primary elections sometimes).

I don't want to throw away my vote. Whoever I prefer among those who actually have a chance is who I vote for.

[Stripes17]

I'd vote for someone who has a reasonable chance to win. This November, I will vote for either of the two major party candidates. There is no viable independent who can win (at this point). There's no way I'd waste my vote on Nader, Paul, Perot, Mickey Mouse, etc.

[mustangman66]

When you vote all you are really doing is voting for the person you feel is going to screw up less.

[tinman01]

Any vote not cast is a wasted vote. The only worse vote is to vote based on party rather than what is best for the nation.
Ross Perot proved that the third party can be viable. Imagine if more people would shake of the chains of the two major paty's and vote for the best man rather than who The Dems or Gop tells us to vote for.

[TempesT68]

A vote for what you believe in = Is what america is all about and what the founding fathers wanted.

A vote for "because I have no choice butto support this person" = What will destroy america.

[Vic 2.0]

It's nice to see that I'd be justified with either attitude

Seriously, I think I would feel guilty if I voted for someone just because I thought they had a better chance at winning. It's kinda like not voting at all because "My one vote won't change anything". The inevitable response is always that a person should still vote because too many people thinking like that is what makes it true. To the extent that we agree other parties should eventually be able to get their foot in the door... what better time to start than right away? How do we know just how many people are/aren't saying the same thing, "I would vote for this person, but that'd just be wasting my vote"?

[TempesT68]

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

It's nice to see that I'd be justified with either attitude

Seriously, I think I would feel guilty if I voted for someone just because I thought they had a better chance at winning. It's kinda like not voting at all because "My one vote won't change anything". The inevitable response is always that a person should still vote because too many people thinking like that is what makes it true. To the extent that we agree other parties should eventually be able to get their foot in the door... what better time to start than right away? How do we know just how many people are/aren't saying the same thing, "I would vote for this person, but that'd just be wasting my vote"?

The only vote wasted, is the one that was never cast

[parfleche]

I vote for the one who will be true to Americans being free and not shackled by unjust laws and fees disabling me from living as a free man. but there are none left so I vote for the lessor of two evils and lay low.For example when obama raised the tax on roll your own tabacoo by 2000% i simply found another source.now it costs me .50 a pack for my smokes.used to be almost a buck a pack before this stupid tax but Americans always find a way.My baccy crop this year was great so I may just blow off the gov completly there.the curing chamber is smoking.

[Vic 2.0]

Originally Posted by parfleche

I vote for the one who will be true to Americans being free and not shackled by unjust laws and fees disabling me from living as a free man. but there are none left so I vote for the lessor of two evils and lay low.

Okay, but what if the lesser of two (or three, or four, etc.) evils wasn't someone you expected could win? Better yet, what if you found a candidate that you were convinced would "be true to Americans being free", but you didn't think they'd get the votes?