Even tho ALL the evidence shows that without Ross Perot, Clinton would have certainly humiliated both George Bush Sr. AND Bob Dole worse than he did. I mean from polling right after Ross Perot dropped out(before reentry) in July '92 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...prod=permalink showing Clinton LEADING WITH A MAJORITY the fact that throughout the campaign, in September '92, Clinton was still leading before Perot's reentry with far over 50 percent http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...prod=permalink as Bush polled exactly what he got in the general. and when Perot came back in October '92, polls showed Perot taking more from CLINTON http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/19921026.pdf See Bush polled in the polls with and without Perot exactly the same percent of the vote he actually got that year. So why does the myth still persist?

This myth is related to each of the others, and is usually followed closely by one of the other myths by way of explanation. "You're wasting your vote because... (fill in blank with one of the other myths)."

But how can voting for the candidate you most closely identify with be a wasted vote? Isn't compromising your beliefs on important issues really the wasted vote? Isn't settling for second best, or the lesser of two evils really the wasted vote?

The point of having a representative democracy is for each citizen to be able to effect the future of their community. Elections are the main mechanism for "we the people" to tell our representatives how we feel.

It is vitally important that when we make that statement, it is accurate. Sending the wrong message by compromising your vote lessens your ability to influence the direction of public policy.

Again, I ask you, which is the wasted vote - A vote for a major party candidate you despise because you despise the other guy a little bit more - or - A vote for a candidate who says what you'd say if you were running for office?

Many of us who have voted for "third" party candidates have been unfairly blamed for electing the candidate we would least like to see in office.

The [il]logic goes like this: "If you vote Green, you're taking votes away from the Democrat, and helping the Republican win. If you vote Libertarian, you're taking votes away from the Republican and helping the Democrat."

If you assume that my "third" party vote is taking away from the Democrats or Republicans, you're assuming that those two parties somehow have a right to my vote. They do not.

My "third" party vote does not come from either major party, it comes from me. If it takes away from any statistic, it's the number of potential voters who've given up on elections because they never feel represented.

This is part of the whole "lesser of two evils" syndrome from which America suffers. It is closely related the myth of apathy, and is used to discourage people from voicing their true opinions.

Anything that discourages citizens from voicing their opinions, or voting their conscience, is a threat to free speech, and a threat to democracy.

More parties means that a wider variety of viewpoints is represented in an election. With more viewpoints represented we'll increase the number of potential voters who actually show up to vote. A vote for a "third" party candidate is not a vote for "the wrong" major party candidate. It is what it is: A vote for a "third" party candidate.