I am not doing anything constructive because I'm not voting the way you think I should.
No, that's not it at all. It's not what I think about it that makes it pointless, it's the fact that it's pointless that makes it pointless.
It's pointless in the same way that pulling back on the steering wheel to try to get a car to fly is pointless because it doesn't work--not because of what anyone thinks about it.
If everybody who said, "I would vote for the Libertarian candidate but I don't want to waste my vote" would actually do it, he would have a real chance.
Not a real chance. No chance at all. Even at the local level where party affiliations are less critical, libertarian support is generally insignificant. The idea that there's a huge reservoir of libertarian voters who are constantly voting republican because they're afraid of putting Democrat politicians in office by splitting the vote just is pure fantasy. Look at the election between Romney and Obama. Johnson got less than 1% of the vote and no electoral votes. And Romney certainly wasn't a pillar of conservative values. I expect more third party support in this election given the unlikeability of the two main candidates. Maybe enough to affect the outcome of the election, but not anywhere near enough to actually elect a third party candidate.
Don't take my word for it. Here's what an informed libertarian has to say on the topic.
https://alibertarianfuture.com/2016-election/percent-libertarians-vote-libertarian-party/
"Unfortunately, even if the entire big tent of all 31 million libertarians voted for the Libertarian Party, that still wouldn’t be enough to win the election."
"Sadly, it appears the libertarian voting bloc is nowhere near large enough to win an election...
...
Given this, it’s time to consider other options as to how we can best achieve liberty."
I will vote for the candidate I choose to vote for, and you, and anyone else who doesn't like it can pound sand.
First of all, I'm not telling you who to vote for. Second, even if I were, I have no control over you and therefore what I told you to do wouldn't make any difference at all.
What I am trying to do is to help you understand that your stated goal (best possible real-world outcome for this election) and your stated strategy (vote for someone who can't win instead of picking the best of the two viable candidates) are contradictory. You're certainly free to do as you please, as is every voter.
Not everyone is a candidate...
That's MY point. You're the one who wants to pretend that anyone you feel represents you best IS a viable candidate even if they can't win.
You see, voting absolutely IS a tool used to steer the government. It isn't some religious thing or a sporting event...it is a way of communicating the direction you want the republic to go.
That's not what I said. It's not about making a statement--about "communicating" what you want to happen. It's about actually DOING something--it's about steering the government--MOVING it in the direction it needs to go.
That's the fundamental disconnect. Trying to make a vote into a statement, artificially introduces an ethical component into what is purely a practical matter.
It becomes like saying: "I won't turn my steering wheel that direction because I disagree with the reason that street got its name and I won't turn my steering wheel that way because then I would be driving in a direction that's bad. So I'm going to pull back on the wheel to fly over the problem."
But steering isn't about making statements. I don't drive on a street because I endorse the person who built it, the bond program that funded it or the person it's named after, I go that direction to get where I need to be. It's about actually moving something in a direction. And just like it's pointless to try to make a car fly by pulling on the steering wheel, it's pointless to vote for a candidate that can't win.
That's why it is so important that you vote for candidates that accurately represent you. By doing so, you steer the government towards your actual goals instead of towards your lies.
Surely you can see that this only makes sense if there is a candidate that 100% represents your views in every respect. It is clear, or at least it should be clear, that it is tremendously unlikely that could happen and that it's totally impossible that there could be a candidate that 100% represents the majority of the population.
Which means that virtually EVERY vote MUST be for a candidate that is a compromise. And therefore a lie, a shirking of duty, an unethical action by your creative standards.
That simple observation gets us back from the fantasy world where there are perfect candidates into reality where virtually every vote (barring the very rare situations where a candidate really does fully represent a particular voter's views to perfection) is a compromise.
Voting isn't about winning, it is about communicating.
If you want to communicate, make campaign donations, write books, make speeches, start a blog, take out advertising, etc.
Voting is ONLY about winning and losing and it's virtually ALWAYS about compromise. Those who understand that truth may not win, but those who don't understand it will always lose.