I never vote democrat. I want smaller government not a bigger one that wastes even more of my money. The problem is that the Republican party wastes my money too. I wish the Tea Party was real party with a viable candidate, because all they care about is not wasting my money.

That's been my thoughts as well.

Plenty to attack Romney on... yet he's going with the shit he shouldn't attack Romney on because they're actually his strong points.

I mean, Romney didn't pay that many taxes largely because he donated something like 16+% of his earnings to charity.

Adding that up to his tax rate...  he actually probably paid more taxes then he had to.

I'm arguing for one vote, not many. You could always argue that if x group voted for y, then y would have won. And you're assuming that everyone who voted for Barr would have voted for McCain, which is not necessarily the case.

I'm not saying that voting 3rd party means your candidate is going to win. I'm not saying that I expect everyone to hear all about libertarianism from this. I do know that many of you do see it as a waste. But I don't, because I'm voting for the person that I think will do the best job.

I do understand why the two party system is dominant. But I would much rather have more choices than less.

Bolded; Fair enough.

Yes, Johnson polled very low as a Republican candidate. Part of that was because he was excluded from many of the debates and polls (though there were far too many debates). The other part could very well be that people just didn't like him. It could also be that because there were so many candidates in the debates, no one really bothered to consider many of the less known names. But coverage was certainly a part of why.

I'm arguing that you can't just have your name on the ballot, you also need to be on the ballot in enough states that you could actually win the election. 20% would actually be worse than it is now; right now, you have to average 15% in 5 national polls (though we don't know which ones; correct me if I'm wrong). Since most of these polls only include Romney and Obama, how can any 3rd party expect to do well? Of course, there is a problem of the debates being too crowded, but what makes an arbitrary number a good way to decide who can and can't be in the debates?

I disagree. If we end up with the worse candidate, things will get worse. That will open up discussion about possible solutions, instead of everyone just wanting to stay on the course we're currently on. Sure, people could be desperate. But there will at least be talk of what might actually help. And you could always end up with someone worse next time, regardless of how good or bad the current president has been.

Not on the national level, or in the media. But at least some people have noticed that he is doing well for a 3rd party candidate. Some of those people have probably looked into his positions. I don't expect some grand revolution. But there will be at least some people who will take notice and at least get some exposure to another point of view.

Not quite. Depending on the location, Johnson has been shown to draw from Romney and Obama fairly evenly. Sometimes he helps Romney more, sometimes he helps Obama more. For example, a recent poll in Colorado has Obama up over Romney by 6% in a two way race. That lead drops to 4% with Johnson in the mix.

The  class warfare is being perpetuated by the Republicans though lol

Has been for the last 50 years with there "trickle down effect" economics which NEVER trickle anywhere but in their pockets. 

Yeah, its not like the average house size has doubled since the 1950s, everyone can own a computer and other fancy electronic devices, and even poor people can afford to have multiple cars per household.

That being said, is there a reason why preferential voting is NOT being used? Is it because the major parties in power wont vote it in because it essentially gives minor parties more leverage?

It would reflect who voters want a lot more, because there would be no fear of voting for a minority and wasting your vote in the sense that your second preference (one of the major parties, perhaps) could need that vote.

It would certainly benefit America to set up a "majority rule" for federal elections, where runoffs are held if any candidate cannot get at least 50% of the vote, and make the Electoral College into proportional representation (which would again open the entire country up to campaigning, and not just Ohio, Florida, Missouri, Colorado, and Oregon), though straight PR would not work

so the democrats!?

i dont even think they deny it anymore.

Please. The Dems don't even have the balls to go for Social Democrat.

please, claiming most democrats arent outright communist is laughable.

they would want nothing more than a communist state if it werent political suicide. 

there really isnt any issue that they differ from communists on.

obama was a registered member of the New Party for crying out loud. thats a communists party out of chicago.