I'm glad you brought that up. Yes, Reagan won in 1980. But remember third party candidate John Anderson? Early in his career as a House Republican from Illinois he made waves as an overtly conservative Christian even introducing a constitutional amendment that would recognize Jesus Christ's laws and commandments as the law of the land. In 1980 he ran as an independent for President and for a while there was serious talk about a scenario where neither Carter or Reagan would get the necessary 270 electoral college votes to win the Presidency. Newspaper articles outlining how the House of Representatives would pick the President were abundant and some predicted the House would be unable to select a winner meaning Walter Mondale would be the sitting President.
Or consider the election of 2000 when Ralph Nader ran as a third party candidate and essentially gave the election to George W. Bush. Had Nader stayed out of the race the bulk of the votes he received in Florida would have gone to Gore and we never would have learned about hanging chads.
These sorts of things DO happen when you vote for minor candidates. If Romney is the nominee, I'll vote for him. I won't like it, but the specter of Obama winning a 2nd term and with no restraints on his agenda is truly frightening.
Thank you for the civil response. Everyone has their line where they have had enough. We agree on most political issues. It is just my tolerance of liberal Republicans ran out with John McCain. You have to vote what you think is best.
Also, you come up with a good point, which others on this thread fail to recognize. Third parties save us from certain people who would have won the Presidency as well as elect people like Obama. Because of a third party, this nation was spared a President Gore. I am not so sure about Anderson. Reagan crushed Carter so badly, I am not sure it would have made any difference. Sometimes it goes badly also, or could have. George Wallace almost cost this nation having to endure a President Humphrey. I have heard two theories about the 1992 election and Perot. One is that if Perot would not have run, Bush would have won. The other is that Clinton would have won anyhow. Perot attracted voters from both sides, so not sure. Actually, if one ignores the morality issues, Clinton and Bush the First were pretty much moderates, or much more so than the two liberals running this year.
I would be interested in knowing how you think the 92 election would have come out if Perot had not run.