When to stop supporting the best candidate?

Dear Starchild and Derek,

I have made some comments in Blue below - - -

Robert,

I take it you'd back someone that you estimated to have a one-in-ten
chance, but not someone you estimated to have a one-in-a-thousand
chance.

Well, no I wouldn�t put it quite like that. I think I vote for what I think is the best overall result. I think one has to just try to do the best thing. If there is someone I consider really, really terrible who has a fair chance of winning against someone who is not that bad, I would vote for the �not that bad� candidate, if the Libertarian candidate had no chance at all (Like nobody even knew his name, he had no campaign funds and was also incompetent). If both candidates who have a good chance of winning are really, really equally bad and there is a Libertarian running who has no chance of winning (This is most often the case that I deal with), I vote for the Libertarian. In other words I�m trying to be most efficacious with what I have to work with. Sometimes I have to choose between two candidates that are different in only one or two issues. I do the best I can with what I have.

I think it's just a matter of degree. At what point do you stop
supporting the best candidate and start taking your cues from the media
and the opinion polls, and why?

I mostly look at the issues rather than the candidate or the party. Anybody can register as any party they want. Of course, you never know for sure that they are telling the truth about the issues either. Sometimes the opposing candidate will bring out something but that may be a lie as well. I guess one just tries their best. Do you have a solution?

One of the arguments against the morality of stealing, say, a candy
bar from Safeway, is that while such a small item is negligible to a
big company like Safeway's bottom line, if everybody did it, it would
have a significant negative effect, and therefore to do it is setting a
bad example or precedent. Do you see any harm in the precedent, or
example, of voting for a candidate other than the person you consider
best?

Well, sometimes there is no perfect candidate. Stealing is stealing so there is a yes or no answer - - - usually, although even here there are shades of gray. With a candidate the problems are less clear. What do you do with a candidate that follows all the Libertarian issues but wants complete anarchy? Or maybe says he is a Libertarian but will impose Libertarian principles using a dictatorship? How do we handle a Libertarian candidate that is incompetent or dishonest?

What would happen if everyone did this?

I completely agree with your point and I understand what you are trying to say. We think the person can�t win so we don�t vote for him and he doesn�t win - - - a catch 22 if we ever saw one. We cannot allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good or visa versa. If I find a candidate who believes in 90% to 100% Libertarian principles but is registered as a Democrat or Republican, I would most likely take a chance on him or her. They could be lying about the issues or their registration - - - I would not be sure. Would you vote for a Libertarian who believes in 90% to 100% Democrat issues? How about 60%? 40%? Where to draw this line? It is not easy. The big government advocates seem to be able to make rather good progress getting their agenda implemented by always voting for the more socialist candidate of the choices they have don�t you think? Perhaps you have a better solution? I don�t think I do.

Or we could turn it around and ask, what would happen if everyone did vote for the
candidate they considered best? Would the political landscape look any
different?

Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>

Very best wishes and thanks for a serious discussion - - -
Bob Parkhurst