> People say a vote for Gary Johnson is
> a wasted vote.

A profound logical error, and a tragic personal one.

Saying that is an error, I mean. The whole point of voting is to tell people what you want, not what you'll settle for. People are so beaten down, and so scared of standing alone, that they miss the point of living in affirmative posture, as well as voting in one.

"All three"? There are four candidates! I'd like to see both Johnson AND Stein get more attention.

It's great that you're talking about Johnson. I wish more people would talk about third-party candidates. They deserve more attention, and the public deserves more options.

What complete nonsense.

The budget is the sole Constitutional property of Congress. The President can only ask them to do things.

A 43% cut? If it happened, I have news for you: domestic spending is far larger than military, and you'll see things shuttered you never imagined as turf wars ignite.

And I suggest that some projects you think can be cut - typically with that dramatic phrase, "to the bone" - can only be deferred.

I guess "keep US military in 130 plus countries" must count embassy security guards. This sort of juvenile nonsense is why the libertarians don't get any respect. They are "technically correct" but vastly overstate the actual situation.

Iran - Peace and Diplomacy? How about world peace forever, as long as we are wishing for nirvana. Hard liners from the Religion of Peace run the place and are building nukes. What could go wrong?

Nice, but not happening in my lifetime.

No difference? Other than the fact that Obama is a dedicated marxist, dishonest, incompetent and totally unfit to serve in his present post. I wouldn't hire Obama to run a paper route. If the libertarians would start nominating candidates who weren't such losers , then it might be worth a wasted vote to send a message.

Ross Perot is the only 3rd party candidate I've seen on our ballots and there is no write-in option, the ballots are read by machine.

Radwaste, there's probably a middle ground between 43% and raising spending.

I'm in agreement with a lot of Johnson's domestic agenda, but, like MarkD, I don't get what it is with Libertarian Party candidates and their fixation on pacifist foreign policy. "Iran: peace and diplomacy?" Really? Really? Do they not remember what Reagan learned with the Marines in Lebannon?

Look, I admit to being a bit of a neocon, but under the present circumstances I could get behind a quasi-isolationist foreign policy: pull a lot of troops that are stationed in foreign countries (mainly western Europe and Korea) back; cut off our activites in Libya, and maintain a limited presence in Afghanistan. (Actually, the place where we should have maintained a base was Iraq, but Obama blew that deal.) Take the guys that we call back and put them to work protecting our own borders. That's a job that is genuinely a military job, and only the military has the capability to do it under the present circumstances.

(Actually, the military is already providing a lot of what capability we have to protect the border with Mexico. Under the circumstances, it can be argued that a vote to slash the military is a vote for open borders.)

This doesn't mean that America won't project power to protect the interests of ourselves and our allies. However, it does mean that we won't be spending as much money to fight precision wars in hostile countries. Our strategy will shift a lot more to bomb-it-flat-and-bounce-the-rubble. If a small area in the Middle East (or potentially elswhere; I'm lookin' at you, Hugo Chavez) gives us trouble, we simply wipe it out. A crude philosophy to be sure. But we tried being nice guys, and we got sand kicked in our faces for our trouble. That's what everyone is tired of. I get that. But pretending that there simply aren't any bad guys, and wiping out our military and simply hoping for the best, isn't a sane or rational alternative.

The whole chart strikes me as a little silly, based as it is on assumptions that don't match the real world. In particular, making nice with Iran seems to be based on the assumption that Iran wants to be made nice with, or that Iran views "making nice" in the same way we do.

If a Libertarian like Gary Johnson is elected President, it will only be because Libertarians have made serious inroads in the federal and state legislatures. The trouble is, if Libertarians start getting elected to offices that matter at a national level, they're going to have to play the same kind of politics everybody else does, and make compromises the way everybody else does. They'll certainly lose their ideological purity if they do that.

Where are the Libertarians now, office-wise? Well, I mentioned a few days ago that they're running over 500 people for a variety of federal, state, and local offices. Right now, according to the Libertarian Party Website, they hold exactly 152 offices in 31 states, all at the municipal or local level. Of these, 71 are directly involved in city or local governments (mayors, councils, and the like). The rest are scattered among school boards, soil and water districts, and a few other offices. But don't worry, with two folks in office, the Libertarians have Michigan's Ypsilanti Township Parks Commission sewn up!

I voted lib for everything it was an option for except President.

I was a pretty active Libertarian in my "idealistic" early 20s. But after multiple elections where the Libertarian candidate got .0001% of the vote, I realized that it was a political dead end for more than a few reasons.

The Libertarian's naive foreign policy ideas make serious people laugh ("peace and diplomacy" with the Iranians MUST be a joke, right?). Their proposed giant cuts to the defense budget (43%!) make them look like hippies and alienate potential conservative allies. I get the distinct inpression that most people who call themselves Libertarians are really in it so they can smoke weed without legal problems or social opprobrium. There are many, many other problems with the "movement."

Anyway, I think the better solution is to work within the major parties and try to nudge them toward expanding liberty and spending more responsibly. The Tea Party has been quite effective within the GOP, for example. The Republican Liberty Caucus might be another avenue. There may be similar opportunites with the Democrats, but I have never investigated them since I wouldn't vote for a Democrat for dog catcher.

I already mailed in my ballot. I voted for Romney/Ryan, even though I disagree with them on a number of social issues. But we need to get this incompetent empty suit out of the White House, and can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

"People say a vote for Gary Johnson is a wasted vote. (I live in California, which will go strongly for Obama, so my state is one of the exceptions.) But, is a Gary Johnson vote elsewhere really wasted? "

Strictly speaking all election voting is almost always a waste for the individual, since the probability of affecting the outcome of said election is approximately zero even in relatively close races. That said, if I were inclined to vote expressively (and if I were an American, of course), I would vote libertarian.

Umm, a lot of you say that it's unreasonable to expect peace and diplomacy with (for example) Iran as is stated above. But really what people want is a President who will listen to the people on the ground with heavy experience in those situations. The President has the very best military commanders at his/her (hah! that's a good one) disposal. Whether or not the President will listen to those individuals... well we know Obama isn't. Don't know if cutting military spending by that significant amount can or should be accomplished, but if federal spending on other crap could be cut (buh-bye Solyndra!) then maybe the budget could be re-worked. I dont' think it's fair to say that Libertarians DON'T want Americans to be safe... hello?? It might be a big surprise to a Libertarian in office once they are privy to all of the military's top commander's information, it would be hard to say right now what exactly would happen there. We do know that the other two yahoos have BIG plans for our military, and it doesn't seem to be working out real well for us currently.

Commanders', oops.

Ah yes, the libertarian delusion (on which they are in total agreement with socialist wing of the democratic party) that if the US will just "butt-out-ski" the world will become a peaceful and safe place.
Nevermind that 10,000 years of human history says they are wrong.
The more likely scenario? The Arab world sees our withdrawl as a sign of weakness, and a lack of support for Israel, at which point, the united Jihadists attack in mass, as they did in 73.

Israel is forced to respond with nuclear weapons, turning the entire middle east, and most of the oil fields, into a nuclear slag heap.

Don't quite think anyone is saying that if the U.S. would "butt-out" the world would be all love and harmony. But it is irresponsible and seriously detrimental to continue shedding our young people's blood all over the earth under the guise of "peace-keeping." Gee, wasn't Ambassador Stevens in Libya, "trying to keep the peace?" And we ain't keeping the peace very well in Afghanistan or Pakistan are we? Shouldn't we TRY to stop offering up our best and brightest for slaughter?

I'm not blind to the fact that our military functions to protect not only our people, but our interests as well... but should we be the world police? And this is coming from someone deeply entrenched in military family life. I support the military but I don't support all of it's missions.

If all the people who said they would vote for Gary but say that they won't because it was a wasted vote did what they know is right; he would at least break the 2 party cycle.

Much as it pains me to say, you would have less military adventurism abroad if the military were conscripts instead of professionals. Bring back the draft.

@Jess "Should we be the World's police?"

Yes, we should if that is what it takes to prevent World War III. Do you see any other good candiates for the job?

We tried the "reduce the military approach", and shifted over to appeasement diplomacy after World War I.

What that bought us was World War II.

Too bad, we can't do one of those " ghost of Christmas future" things to show what the world would have been like without the US as world's policeman for the last 70 years.
Instead what we get is empty feel good platitudes like "shedding young people's blood"
as something that can be totally prevented if our diplomats were just smarter, and said the correct warm and fuzzy things to countries like North Korea.

I don't believe in some of the military's missions either, but I am pragmatic enough after seven years on active duty, to know that arm chair quarterbacking on my part is about as useful as having last week's lottery numbers.

People love to nitpick these kinds of charts (because it's intellectually easy but makes them feel smart), but the reality is that the broad gist of charts like this, and the salient points, are tend to be generally fairly accurate.

@Jay J. Hector

Funny you should mention that Jay, as I recall reading the exact opposite argument when I was in high school during the last days of the Vietnam draft.

I was in the post Vietnam army in the early 1980's. Much of my job was like serving as a probation officer for felons. A large part of the combat arms were people who were told to join the military or go to jail.

It was nominally volunteer by that time, but the pay was still terrible. The barracks were filled with drugs, and crime, and most of the units were at half strength or less. Many of the soldiers you did have were the ones not smart enough to get a real job. The Russian army was like this too, only worse.

You think you would like to go back to a system where the weathy (still)never serve at all, and a lot of our soliders are in more danger from their fellow servicemembers than from the enemy?

I wish the LP wasn't full of isolationist doves who think seas are a defense, and that what boils down to "not attacking countries means they won't ever be hostile".*

I voted for Johnson anyway, but the LP's "advertising" reminds me how much I dislike the LP's actual platform in the Defense area.

(* I think I also detect a whiff of the common category error some libertarians make where they conflate Countries with Persons.

The latter have rights under Libertarian philosophy, including a right to be left the hell alone as long as they leave the hell alone.

The former don't, other than the sum of the rights of the persons making them up - and even that gets awfully complex when the nation is not one of representative government by consent.)

Lobster, let me stop any suspicion that I am "nitpicking" and come out and say that the whole darn chart is a waste of pixels.

This is a comparison of apples to moon rocks.

They took what one president "did" when his party had full control of congress, and attempted to compare it to what they "guess" Romney or Johnson would "do" if they were elected.
This comparion ignores two very important facts, and many minor ones. The first problem is what Obama said he would "do" and what he actually "did" are light years apart.
The second big problem is that as Radwaste correctly pointed out, many of these items are things that Congress controls, not the president.

"Of course, it would help greatly if the Libertarians would run somebody who doesn't have all the charisma of grout (sorry, Gary!) or doesn't seem like your crazy old uncle on a good day..."
--------------------------------------------------
Harry Browne? I used put up some of his campaign signs.

This "wasted vote" idea might have a grain of truth in swing states--although even there, if we required a runoff if no candidate got over 60%, the problem would go away. But in safe states, it's the vote for Obama or Romney which is the wasted one.

Suppose that Johnson got 5% of the vote in every safe state. In 2016, the next LP candidate would be taken far more seriously, get much more coverage, and probably get even more votes. (Not completely impossible that (s)he could win Alaska.) This could grow the total still more the next election, and the one after that, until someday my grandchildren might have the chance to vote for a Libertarian who can win.

Now suppose that this 5% all goes to Obama, or to Romney. (Highly unlikely, since there's nothing like complete agreement among libertarians as to which of those two is worse, but just suppose.) The outcome of the race is not affected in the slightest.

In which of these scenarios was that 5% wasted?

If you don't vote Libertarian because you disagree with us, fine. But otherwise, I beg you to consider how much of an impact a vote for Johnson could have beyond this election, and how little a vote for Obomney will have.

Side note: the answer to the question of who would be worse, Obama or Romney, depends on which party controls Congress. The LBJ and Dubya administrations showed us what a disaster it can be if both branches are controlled by the same party, no matter which one it is.

"It might be better to have a big stuffed bear in The Oval Office."

Chris Christie in 2016!

Ross Perot's political legacy is what? Nothing. and he got more votes than Johnson will, probably by an order of magnitude.
How about that famous political reformer, John Anderson? Legacy? Nada.

Third party candidates are distractions up until their ideas infect one of the two main parties.

The only bad thing about the Libertarians is they tend to run local candidates who look like they would wear a beard made of bees at the swearing-in ceremony.

Johnson, however, has the GOP elites in cold-sweat mode:

http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/01/who-is-gary-johnson-and-why-is-the-gop-so-mad-at-him/?hpt=hp_t2

It is interesting that Ron Paul got more support than any other candidate among the military.

Anyway, I'm sure some people want to legalize pot just so they can buy it. I don't really care why they want to legalize it, because I don't think the pro-legalization people are the ones who should have to defend their position.

Everything should be legal unless there is a very good reason to criminalize it. So THAT side is the one that should be providing reasons, and the only reason they seem to have is that the drug war creates jobs in the prison industry. If we look back at the reasons it was made illegal in the first place, do any of those reasons make sense or hold water?

" I don't really care why they want to legalize it, because I don't think the pro-legalization people are the ones who should have to defend their position."

Again: be critical, as in asking, "Where is the return on investment?"

Yes, there is police misconduct, aided by over-arming police against drug distributors. However, you now have to change the law in every jurisdiction and provide consumer protection to commercial vendors.

Now, don't be a putz. You sell drugs for profit, you'd better have quality standards, and you are going to be taxed on your income.

If there is a benefit, the burden of proof is on the affiant. That has been done for many people - though not everyone - in the case of THC, but it is unlikely for stronger drugs.

Americans demanded alcohol, and they think that is worth a bit over 17 thousand deaths per year directly caused by consumption and a litany of other horrible events. Step right up and show how that won't happen for the drug of your choice and you'll have a point. Yes, when you buy a beer, you made it possible for little Billy to think he could drive while "buzzed" and kill his children on the highway. It was legal and easy to get beer. It's a messy world.

Pointing at one or two productive people - while claiming elsewhere that anecdotes aren't evidence - doesn't do the job.

Americans demanded alcohol, and they think that is worth a bit over 17 thousand deaths per year directly caused by consumption

If you're saying the cost of legal alcohol is those 17k deaths, I call bullshit. Alcohol prohibition wouldn't cut that number to anywhere near zero, any more than drug prohibition eliminates deaths from drug use. Plus, alcohol prohibition itself cost lives when it was in effect, as does drug prohibition today.

And so Rex uses the fallacy, "appeal to consequences".

It's a sad world.