That is the excuse that has been used for 25 years. If we use that rationale then statist DemReps will always win and there is no peaceful answer. It is not rational to ignore past results and repeat what has failed.

Perhaps they are flakes. Perhaps they are seeking the ground that sells. They may be disenfranchised republicans. However, their positions are better than HIllary's or Trump's, and like Hillary or Trumps, they will do whatever they want anyway, which I think is better than Hillary or Trump.
I choose to use my vote to support the message that the two party system has failed us, and further, the concept of Libertarianism is appealing (whether or not Johnson/Weld have espoused it). This message is not to Hillary or Trump. This message is for the two parties and the rest of the people.

Your statement sounds justifiably angry, but illogical. Who are you voting for?

Johnson is not going to influence what Hillary or Trump do. At most they will pander during the election then do what they would anyway.

Gary Johnson and Bill Weld are 'liberal' Republicans who can't coherently defend anything. They are embarrassing flakes who undermine a politics of individualism in any degree of association with it. Few care what these incoherents say now, and thankfully, after the election no one will. They are not sending any kind of coherent "message" for you to participate in "sending". If your vote doesn't matter because MA will vote for Hilary then your vote doesn't matter, period. Don't make it worse.

Voting for one of the two candidates who will win does not support the status quo. It is an attempt to influence which one will be in power over us because it still makes a difference, not a sanction of his policies or the status quo. The status quo is here and is not subject to voting.

Voting for a partial statist is rational when the other one is worse and more dangerous. Don't divorce principles from reality. One of them is going to win and there is nothing you can do to change that. The election is about which one of the two will win, not endorsing or sanctioning the one you vote for.

Having seen/heard Trump throughout the years (grew up in NY) there is absolutely no guarantee he will appoint anyone better, more Constitutional, less activist than what HC will certainly do. In fact, he can bold face lie about anything and do it sincerely. Rest assured he will do what it takes to win. What he does once he wins will be self serving. As long as his interests align with the country we'd be fine. If his interests conflict with the nation , with his people in place, we're screwed.

Hope for change is what DT is peddling and thats not reason enough to be complicit.

The reason to vote for Trump is SCOTUS. If SCOTUS is handed over to Hillary the rest of it matters little.

I don't agree with Johnson on that issue either. However, I think if some of Johnson's other programs are enacted, that issue could diminish to insignificance. That is a more likely solution to the issue than anything realistically proposed by other candidates.

Already answered. Repeating your error in logic is not any reason to reconsider.

Since my vote won't affect the outcome, I will vote for the candidate closest to my political views and make the best of whatever the other voters decide.

As much as I agree that Gary Johnson seems like the most honest of the choices, I do not agree with his, and libertarian, open border policies, especially in light of terrorist infiltration concerns. While he may have been great as gov., I've learned that that does not necessarily mean they're ready for the big leagues. But I respect anyone's choice.

I think Trump will appoint better Justices than Clinton, hands down. The way Trump utilized the Supreme Court's faulty eminent domain was shameless, deserving of condemnation. He is a very flawed candidate. But it is not like he had a hand in appointing the tyrants that perverted things with Kelo.

Let's not forget that Hillary is an eminent domain supporter as well and, in addition, is very hostile to both the First and Second Amendments.

I don't expect Trump to earn better than a D grade at protecting individual rights, but Hillary is a certain F.

I am not pro-Trump. My support for him is motivated because I am firmly Never Hillary. It is like playing, "Let's Make a Deal". I will gladly take what is behind the door rather than go home with what I know to be a diarrhea-plagued jackass.

That is the objective reality.

" If I vote for Trump or Hillary I'm implicitly sending a message that I'm happy with the two-party system and wish it to continue. "
This will be easy to do if my second-choice candidate (Clinton) is clearly going to win/lose by a landslide. If it's a dead heat and Johnson's far behind, I would have a hard time not doing every bit a can to help Clinton win.

You think that Trump will appoint a pro-liberty Supreme Court. He supported the Kelo decision upholding eminent domain "100 percent"! That is the objective reality.
http://reason.com/blog/2015/10/06/don...

No fruit is worth anything if it is not given a chance to ripen. And no “widespread understanding” will occur if we abandon the political arena to the statists and looters, and only allow ourselves to educate the public by other means. The “open forum” you speak of must include the political forum as well as academic ones. Libertarian ideas are much more widely understood, discussed and accepted now than they were 45 years ago, and that is due in no small part to unrelenting outreach efforts by the Libertarian Party during that time.

As to my original question, you did not answer it. How can you bring the two-party duopoly to an end if you consistently vote for one of its candidates and urge others to do the same? Or do you think we can achieve liberty while leaving the two-party system in place while freezing out any others that might arise?

In my view, no significant change will occur until there is a widespread understanding of why government doesn't work and how more freedom, less regulaton, laissez-faire economics, ending the drug war and other liberty-producing measures empower people to attain a better futures while generating a more prosperous harmonious society.

As Ayn Rand often pointed out, this is a philosophic battle. We have to relentlessly educate and persuade. Reason is a powerful weapon and if given an open forum will prevail.

Until libertarian ideas are widely understood and accepted, political maneuvering will likely be futile and our ideas will be seen as fringe.

No fruit is worth much until it ripens.

you are sending a message, just no one is hears it. Not voting at all also sends the message you are not happy. So what?

I too will work to make the Libertarian Party more viable next time around and/or pull the post-Trump Republican Party toward Rand Paul, but in the meantime Hillary Clinton is a disaster too big to ignore.

An anti-liberty Supreme Court is simply too high of a price for any message. That is the objective reality.

How is the LP going to become a viable entity unless it runs candidates and people vote for them? Every new party has to start somewhere - the Republicans did. If we can keep our vote totals growing, the Libertarian Party will become more viable over time.

Ok, if you deny objective reality, you make perfect sense.

I would only suggest that those who voted for Gary Johnson in 2012 did not effect anything. Until the Libertarian Party is built into a viable entity, you might as well vote for Popeye. I don't like it either.

But, it is what it is. If you can stand Hillary Clinton, go ahead and vote Johnson, if it makes you feel good.

Let's turn that question around. How can you bring the two-party duopoly to an end if you consistently vote for one of its candidates and urge others to do the same? Realistically?

Realistically my vote will not choose the next President. It will, however, send a message. If I vote for Trump or Hillary I'm implicitly sending a message that I'm happy with the two-party system and wish it to continue. If I vote for Gary Johnson I'm sending the opposite message.

Objective reality is that choosing Red or Blue has resulted in shrunken liberty, manipulated markets, a currency worth 1/3rd of its value a generation ago, an opressive fascist-socialist state, no privacy, a corrupt elitist con-gress, a constitution shredded by every president, small towns invaded by illegal aliens, men, women, and children shot and burned to death by federal agencies, public education destroyed, health care too costly to be useful, CEOs using emminent domain for personal gain, etc.
Sure, don't learn from your mistakes, just repeat them... again.

The sheep of the GOP have been voting in fear (aka attempting to choose) for a generation and the result is a fascist-socialism. Stop giving in to fear and vote your principles.

Hard to argue with your points, so I won't ;^)
+1

It really depends on whether you want to vote to send a message or to attempt to choose the next President.