Retorting Third Parties, the Seth Version

(This is from the initial email reply I sent. It does not include any revisions based on Brendan's comments, though I certainly agree with his assessment of third party potential given our governmental structure.)

I'm not going to get into a discussion over whether or not the bailout was a good idea. Frankly, I'm certain to a level near absolute that nobody on the receiving end of this email, myself duly included, understands the complexities of the issue at hand to be able to have a reasoned and productive discussion. That having been said, is there anyone here who thinks that any of the third-party candidates do know better than Obama? We haven't seen them have to make decisions, vote on the issues, or make widely publicized statements regarding these issues, but it doesn't follow that, should we, we'd agreed with them more than we do with either Obama or McCain. On the contrary, I'm sure we'd be able to pick out a lot more with which we'd take issue. That's why they're not major parties; nobody agrees with most of what they've got to say.

The two-party culture in which we've found ourselves (it's not a system, it's a culture; the American people prefer having dichotomies rather than authentic custom choices) is not ideal; it does not, by any stretch of the imagination, promote the common interest efficiently or effectively. That having been said, it's what we have. I strongly support Obama because I've liked the vast majority of what I've seen come from him and I trust him to be able to make far better decisions than I could, not to mention his undeniable ability to make far far far better decisions than could or has McCain. A vote for a third party candidate is, contrary to one of the many rather unfortunate ideas of Ron Paul, a wasted vote at this point in our history. It hasn't always been this way and I assure you it won't always be this way. However, even the most successful third-party candidate in modern history, Ross Perot in 1992, was successful only in paving the way for Clinton by diverting votes away from the conservative voting majority that almost certainly would've otherwise gone to Bush. To be clear, I don't blame Nader for doing the same thing in 2000, I blame Bush for being a wanker.

Anyway, please, everyone, don't let yourself get distracted from the goal at hand; a moderate-to-progressive majority in Congress and a progressive inhabitant of the White House.