When the realistic choice is between red and blue, you ask how can it be a mistake to choose green? After all, we all agree the virtues of green are much better. What about objective reality and reason?

You have a point, but I think that Johnson is very conflicted intellectually. For example, he speaks highly of Hillary, wants to decriminalize weed, but thinks its ok to tax it.

He would be better than any of the other candidates, but given the crooked system, would never get elected in this cycle.

First thing to do is make the system fair. At this point its so corrupt that I really dont know where to start. Things like the electoral college are real obstacles to candidates not in the two party system. Maybe internet voting, and anyone can run and be selected on the ballot. Maybe the top vote getter is president, and the second top voter is VP. I am not really sure, but the current system sucks

Not a mistake when one chooses to vote for another choice (Gary Johnson) that shows reason, ethics, supports the constitution and free markets, promises to reduce government size and power, and promises to end the (income) tax on productivity. The Demrep mob choices are lacking those qualities and promise bigger, more powerful, intrusive government.

No, my past comments make clear that I support Gary Johnson based on his libertarian policies, past action as NM Governor, honesty, and ethics. Neither of the DemRep candidates have any of those admirable qualities. Virtually everyone who advocates voting for those two candidates gives only one reason: fear of the prospective actions of the other DemRep candidate.

Living as I do in Illinois where Mike Madigan (Speaker of the IL House) already has the total votes counted, I can see the logic of your idea. I personally do not like Johnson, but since my vote is only symbolic anyway, why not vote for the party!

It's a inconsistent for an outsider to want to be allowed IN , but when u are IN you want to exclude the outsiders

Trump will do nothing to un-rig the two-party system if it gets him elected. Notice he changed his earlier position about allowing third-party candidates into the debates.
https://theintercept.com/2016/09/04/d...

Usually happens as it gets closer to the election date.

The Libertarian Party of Massachusetts is alive and well!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberta...
http://www.lp.org/state/massachusetts
http://www.lpmass.org/

His poll numbers, 8if they are to be believed, have been dropping tho

It's just the hotbed of socialism, an incongruous place for a libertarian, that's all

Trump hijacked the Republican Party for the anti establishment crowd. He is talking constantly about the system being rigged and I think he will encourage less rigging. Gives more steam to third parties in the future. Trump isn't really a republican

Makes sense. Thx

I don't think a vote for any party will produce any different results. Trump has shown that he is about purchasing influence, he bought the Clintons when Bill was in office. He has used the 'law' to get the property of others (eminent domain) by convincing local 'authorities' that they would collect more taxes from his business than that of private property owners. He has never failed to use the system to his benefit and never once fought against collectivism, except when it did not benefit him. Voting for either (any) is voting for the same, the only difference is what lie they will tell you to get elected. I agree with Mark Twain; "If voting actually accomplished something do you think they would let you do it?" (May be somewhat paraphrased)
The only vote that counts is when you can vote not to participate by refusing the governments demand for your property. Listen to what the 'conservative Republicans' say about Obamacare; "We must repeal and replace it." A promise to give you back the same pig with lipstick and tell you everything is now different.
As far as thinking you exert some kind of influence on those who see all others as slaves to the state, no matter how loudly you complain do you think the slave masters will realize a mistake has been made and decide to change their position? The only mistake they will realize is to realize they haven't sold the majority on being slaves. Keep asking the slave masters for permission to be free, I don't think you will ever be granted your wish.

It would make great sense as long as Trump wins. But if Hillary wins, the Supreme Court is screwed, the future of Libertarian Party matters less and the old "I told you so" Bill Kristol mushy moderates retake the party.

Yes, build up the LIbertarian Party or try to remake a new Republican Party into a voice for liberty. Just vote for Trump in 2016. Don't subvert your self-interest and your children's future just because he strikes you as an arrogant ass.

Thomas Sowell said that electing Donald Trump is to play Russian Roulette with America's future. He is right. But he also said, electing Hillary Clinton is putting a gun to your head and then pulling the trigger.

At least with Russian Roulette, you have a chance. Sowell is right. I don't like it either, but it is what it is.

" A lot of Johnson's votes would go to Hillary, possibly reluctantly"
I surly would have. I was a strong supporter of Clinton during the primary. I did not think Johnson had a chance at that time. I did not want Sanders to get the Democratic nomination mainly b/c he's socialistic.

I can still remember seeing the poll that showed Johnson at 8%. "OMG, he has a chance." He's a moderate libertarian, a nerd, admires Secretary Clinton, gray hair, involved in startup businesses, optimistic, dresses business casual with pink shirts... he's the candidate most similar to me I've ever seen at that level and probably the most similar to me in policy ideas and even physical appearance (well, if I laid off the Taco Bell, I would look like him).

"I think the Libertarian Party made a smart choice."
Even radical libertarians should want the LP to nominate a moderate who has a chance of winning, assuming they want to win. I suspect Johnson hopes if elected he could get Congress to freeze nominal spending roughly at present levels, which is like 2%/yr real decrease. That's not very sexy compared to dreams of reducing gov't to 19th century levels, but it's absolutely HUGE. It's a permanent "fiscal cliff", the kind of thing that the D/R duopoly would consider beyond the pale. If he is elected, next year it will actually be a question for mainstream debate: Do we want more/less gov't spending and power?

If you want a chance at remaking the Republican Party, voting for Gary Johnson makes the most sense. If the Republican Party is truly "up for grabs", a strong libertarian presence outside the party will influence Republican policymakers as they attempt to make their party more appealing to the voters at large.

And you don't have to like or even respect Gary Johnson to deem him a better choice than Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.

Regarding point 5: Eric Haas of the Socialist Labor Party received 1 vote in every 1500 in 1960. Gary Johnson received 1 vote in every 100 in 2012, and is on track to receive 1 vote in every 20 in 2016. Big difference.

And if all the people who dont like Trump as a choice DO vote and do it for Hillary, it will change the outcome. Not going to happen, because too many people dislike both Hillary and Trump. Gary Johnson is a reasonable alternative for such voters, and according to the polls his presence in the race benefits Trump, not Hillary.

Reason number three was experience. There are numerous mainstream voters supporting Johnson who would never consider voting for an articulate, ideologically pure candidate to the highest office in the land if he or she had little or no significant experience in government at the state level or higher. Johnson and Weld were both popular, two-term governors, giving them credibility in the eyes of the general public. I think the Libertarian Party made a smart choice.

I would like that too, but neither your vote nor mine will affect the outcome. So you might as well vote for the person you would like the majority to vote for. The more votes Johnson receives, the more the politicians will listen.

What does being from Massachusetts have to do with Bill Weld's qualifications? As governor of that state he cut the welfare rolls by more than half and cut taxes 21 times.

And then what? Assuming Trump wins, we'll still be stuck with a two-party duopoly during his term and after he leaves office. After 45 years of effort, the Libertarian Party is poised to achieve the biggest vote totals in its history, and that matters to the fate of the nation going forward. Now is not the time to be scared into a vote for political expediency, especially if you live in a non-swing state.

It's not that Hillary supporters are switching to Johnson. It's that Johnson is receiving votes from people who would vote for Hillary if their only choice was her or Trump. For instance, many Sanders supporters who like his foreign policy but not his economics have switched to Johnson. Many other Democrats who dislike Hillary but would never vote for a Republican are also in Johnson's camp. A lot of Johnson's votes would go to Hillary, possibly reluctantly, if he weren't in the race. You're welcome.