Originally Posted by scottwww
The secret ballot is a great thing. I wouldn't diminish your right to keep your votes secret, nor criticize you for doing so. I also would not criticize someone for "wasting" their vote as the other poster had been saying, which elicited my reply. I am comfortable with discussing my votes, though what were specifically my votes is probably not a topic of great interest.
The point is that when you vote for the lesser of two evils, and and the lesser wins, your opinion over time may change to where you discount the value of why you voted that way. I thought the lesser was the way to go. Now I don't feel that way.
For a few elections, I voted for the lesser of two evils. In hindsight, those votes were more a waste than if I had found a third party candidate that I could support with conviction... or at least as protest. One specifically that would have been better was the very one that the other guy had mentioned: Ross Perot. I should have voted for him.
I never liked GHWB from the very beginning when he was running for the Republican Party nomination in 1980. I never liked him. He seemed the lesser of evils compared to Mondale/Ferraro, and he was in a less consequential position than Ronald Reagan held as President. When GHWB ran for president, I voted for him because he was the lesser of two evils compared to Michael Dukakis. I don't know what third party candidates there were in 1988, but I probably would value a third party vote in that election to a much higher degree than what I think of my vote for GHWB in the general election. After those compromise votes, at some point you just feel dirty.
The problem is that the primary elections are won by the candidates who pander the most to the tiny pool of extremist voters who tend to dominate primary elections.
Voters registered as independents suffer the most. The choice for indies is between two candidates they had no part in selecting, that were selected by the most extremist voters in parties they don't belong to.