ECM is right. A vote for Johnson is a vote for Obama.

...

Johnson 2012!

False. A vote for Johnson is a vote for Johnson. Obama does not get a vote for Johnson, Johnson does. You are falsely assuming that people who vote for Johnson would otherwise vote for Romney. (Link, Link)

Some libertarians came from liberalism, some from conservatism. In some cases, Johnson may be spoiling the race for Romney, while in others he could be a spoiler for Obama. You can't just assume that every vote for Johnson would have otherwise been a vote for Romney. Many libertarians would have voted for Obama or not at all (or for Ron Paul...) if Johnson wasn't in the race. 

Also, if the Republican party wanted the libertarian vote, they should not have treated Ron Paul so poorly at the convention. If they lose because of the libertarian vote, they have no one to blame but themselves. 

If they lose because of the Libertarian vote... doesn't that mean Paul would have won?

A vote for Romney is a vote for Obama.

Well, possibly. Maybe some ultra conservatives wouldn't have voted for Paul and they still would have lost the election. We won't ever know for sure.

This is the weird part to an outsider. Both of those look like giving government more power and less personal liberty. State government isn't somehow better, it's just more excuse for the left-leaning states to impose economic controls and the right-leaning ones to impose social controls.

There is no option that will involve actual cuts to government programs other than welfare.

... and what "ultra conservatives" worth their salt, would vote for Romney? A Massachusetts moderate who probably won't touch abortion or marriage, and is known to be anti-gun (said he would sign an assault-weapon ban).

I'm sure the conservatives who are sucking their gut to vote the party line, would do so no matter who the nominee is.

I was about to say something similar when I noticed you beat me to it. All the candidates have a plan that they think will work. None of them have a plan that is 100% guarenteed to work.

This attitude is the absolutely only reason why it's a race between two men. Obviously, this election isn't going to see a third runner winning. But it's going to see record non-DEM/GOP voter turnout, and that's a statement that must be made. The greater the number of people that realize it's a statement that needs to be made, the greater its potential in the future. This time, the third party candidate might see 15%. Next time, 25%. And after that, who knows? Make significant ground and more people see the potential and are swayed. And the DEM/GOP parties need to be stopped. They've been irrelevant to America for decades now, and it's time we move on. Only way that possibly can happen is if we, the voters, resolve to make it happen.

The problem is that so many people are too short-sighted to realize that sometimes one election must be sacrificed to see the long-term benefit. All you have to do is be able to accept that, and I am positive it will make a change.