I'm trying to keep in mind that we likely agree on like 95% of each other's worldview. That said, my goal isn't to try and convince you that my opinion is "right", but just that your opinions as stated are just that: opinions. And so it would follow that anyone and everyone that has an opinion that differs from you is not automatically an uninformed imbecile, as I feel that your initial post suggested. We both want what's best for society in the long run, I think. For you, it sounds like you're leaning very heavily on the "spoiler" story; a story that feels very convenient in serving the powerful and corrupt (keeps all focus on candidates that the elite have picked out for us) IMO. And I agree that the logic within the Spoiler story is pretty smart and tight. But I think that my opinion takes the Spoiler concern into consideration, while also considering what I've learned over the past 36 years of political disappointment. I watched the fallout from the Perot concerns and the Nader concerns, but I think I had a different takeaway than you did. What I saw was the political elite absolutely swamp the media with the story of the Spoiler, scare everyone out of voting their conscious, make everyone feel really smart by using a supposed strategy against the spoiler, and in the end get stuck with dangerously pro-business and pro-corruption Democratic candidates. Here's where my opinion comes in: I feel like in the long run, it is better for America to vote their conscious, potentially either electing or enabling the election of a horrible right-wing candidate, while sending a message that our left-wing counterpart should be progressive and not a corrupt neo-liberal. I believe that in the long run that this would make the progressive movement stronger, despite the initial setback. I don't expect agreement on that opinion, as I think it is informed by a different set of background assumptions than you would have. But I ask you to not jump to the conclusion that I'm an uninformed child.