coolbeans said:
Considering how "option" is clearly defined and is not contingent on one's chances of winning? Yes, you can. This principle you're suggesting can only lead to worse outcomes. Plus, I just find it ironic to see anyone (here or elsewhere) display actual glee behind this decision when they're incredibly likely to use "anti-democratic" as a cudgel when gauging the morality of other political decisions. That's disregarded the moment it's inconvenient to you. It's like your candidate has a birthright to another's protest vote just because this is--once again--the most important presidential election of our lifetimes and I don't want to hear about 3rd parties. |
Every presidential election is the most important one.
Other countries have solutions for the problem though. May it be ranked choice voting (like in Australia) or a runoff voting (like in France). But the abscense of such solutions is no reason to block third-parties to run.