@freemo Why even leave the house to vote then?
I would say the same about voting for a major party. In not a single election would your vote have changed the outcome, ever. So why do it?
Moreover, if we just look at the significance of your vote, you are a larger percentage of the vote when voting for a third party than when voting for a primary party. Something on the order of 50x **more** impactful when voting for a third party than a primary party in percentage of the vote you account for.
Moreover while not winning or winning for a primary has little effect from your vote, with a third party even loosing has a positive outcome. By swinging the % higher (which you do wtih 50x more effect) you are sending a message even when you loose by raising the % enabling third-party more likely access, exposure, and chance to win in the future.
@freemo The significance of a vote for a candidate that cannot win is zero.
So, a vote for one of the main parties is, by definition, more significant, even if it's literally one in a hundred million.
@admitsWrongIfProven @freemo No, I'm saying the system for presidential election that we've got imposes these limits that I describe.
None of what I've said here applies to downballot elections, where third parties do stand a chance and can be reasonably voted for.
And that's the only reasonable path I see for a third party... to get a groundswell of local offices long before a successful presidential run.