Its not a false analogy, its called risk. Those people who are risk averse will always take the small short term upside, versus the large *potential* long term upside.
Well, I thought I was out of it but this is too funny to let go. Risk is the possibility that something negative may occur. In financial terms, a risk is valid if the positive outcome is superior to the possiblity of the negative event occurring multiplied by the
What positives do you foresee by third party voting? A swing of the Republican party to the right combined with a restoration of rights.
What are the negatives? Election of Kerry, extreme damage to the 2nd A and the other freedoms you cherish.
What is the likelihood of that happening? High. Incredibly high. Bush has, according to some polls, a narrow lead which could easily be lost by heavy 3rd party voting. Kerry has a declared intent to decimate the 2nd A., and most of his platform can be achieved only through heavy exercise of the power to tax, nationalization of large portions of the economy, and abdicating considerable sovereignty to foreign bodies.
As for the goal of causing a swing in the Republican party and thus achieving some "good" even if Kerry wins, the chances are non-existent. How do we know this? Because the evidence establishes it beyond a doubt. The Democratic party did not become more mainstream or pro-gun after 1994. The liberals (the majority of the most culpable members were incumbents who still hold their offices) learned a lesson and largely stayed quiet, working behind the scenes to achieve their goals. The fact that the Democrats haven't "learned their lesson" is established by the fact that the Democratic Presidential candiate is an ardent anti-gun politician voted most liberal in the Congress. Does that tell you anything about how effective "messages" are?
So, let's do the risk/reward calculation.
Potential reward is high. Possibility of achieving complete success is non-existent. Possibility of achieving partial success is effectively non-existent based on existing evidence.
Potential negatives are high. Possibility of complete failure is extremely high. Possibility of high degree of failure is a near certainty. Expenditure of assets and resources to preclude complete failure will be incredibly high, forestalling any efforts to achieve primary goal through other means.
So, given there is little possibilty of achieving a worthwhile goal but a high probability of failure, one would have to thrive on unacceptable risks to consider this an effective strategy. It is the political equivalent of trying to regain our rights by playing a solo game of Russian roulette.