I understand the basics of the 'lesser of two evils' argument, but I want to bring up the notion that if you live in a blue state, a vote for Mitt Romeny is a wasted vote.
I'll give you an example: I live in MN. Obama will win, period. If I were to vote for the lesser of two evils, it won't change the fact that Obama will win, so I'm voting for Gary Johnson. I know Gary Johnson won't win either, but at least I will know I'm voting for the person I want to win, rather than the person whom I might prefer but will ultimately show little difference from Obama's policies. Sure, I could write in our buddy Ron, but those don't get counted or reported as anything but 'other'.
Frankly, if you live in a red state, a vote for Mitt Romney is a wasted vote as well. Mitt will win in Texas, period, so there's really no need to waste your vote on him. The only reason a vote for the 'lesser of two evils' makes a difference are in the swing states.
If you live in a swing state, all I can say is vote your conscience.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and a