@spothedog - Ditto. Or, like another xangan put it, "I'm voting for the lesser douche." 

In a perfect world, at least four parties would be covered by media and included in the debates. There's the Libertarian Party (which would have my vote if my #1 priority wasn't keeping McLame and nutjob Palin away from the White House), and the Constitution party. I'm no expert in politics (VERY far from it), so I wonder why it is that they are not at least mentioned in the news...

Unfortunately, you're absolutely right. Third party candidates don't stand a chance. The only way they would (and the way I wish we could do things, impossible as it may be) is if all candidates were given an equal opportunity to make themselves known, and their party affiliation was not revealed. Like I said, though, that's impossible. They're democratic/republican governors, senators, etc., so their affiliation is already known, and not difficult to find out for anyone who doesn't know. And since we're so hung up on labels in this country, we would be all over that. Our feeble attempt at neutrality would almost immediately turn right back into "democrat, republican, and some other guys nobody cares about". But that's what would be necessary, for anyone other than the repub/dem to stand a chance. We would have to not know which candidate is in which party.

@FemmeMrbd08 - You are free to vote for whomever you want,  but keep in mind that McCain and especially Palin stand for virtually everything the Green party is against, such as bloated corporatism and progressive policy. If you wanted to stop that madness, you have to make a net gain for McCain's adversary, not someone McCain isn't running against. Sure they're all on the ballot, but only one of them McCain is running against.

@Bobby - I don't feel like my vote will matter that much anyway with this whole Electoral College bs. I wish we'd just get rid of it. I live in AR so...McCain will probably win my state anyway, unfourtunately.

 I'm sure I sound like a stereotype, here, but I really believe that it's due to the media that third-party candidates aren't more important than elections. Ralph Nader is unpopular-why? Because he never receives any coverage by the important news networks. Like Dennis Kucinich, and other Democratic candidates; the media never considered them as 'serious contenders'.
 I know this is a tad off the topic of your post, but I just wanted to express how I felt about it.

@Lack_Therof - yeah, well the media is a major corporation itself, and so they have a tightly vested interest and keeping corporations in power, even moreso because they are using mine and your public air waves for free, given to them by our govt. so it is vital for the news corporations to keep nader out of the media, because he spells the end for corporate power. so, word.

@Bobby - Nope nope nope. I don't like any of my "representatives."

There's a major flaw in your logic that assumes the only pragmatic victory is an electoral one. What of the progressive struggle for the Democratic platform, a battle I think it is safe to say we have been losing over the past 20 plus years? As I see it, their are two approaches within this camp of how to go about achieving their goal:

1. You can, as you put it, "hold your nose" and pull the lever for the lesser of two evils, in hopes that after his electoral victory, you can push forward progressive values on a more receptive candidate. But let's put ourselves in Obama's shoes. On one hand, he has millions and millions of dollars from corporations and lobbyists that he knows he can very well lose to a Republican candidate if he doesn't compromise on certain issues. On the other, a group of voters that have clearly demonstrated they will vote for him regardless. If you make no demands on a candidate, what exactly do you expect him to answer to?

2. You can put your foot down and say, "The lesser of two evils mentality is the evil of two lessers." Vote for a third party candidate and clearly demonstrate that your vote does not belong to a corporate-dominated party. If they want it, they have to earn it. And historically (so you don't think I'm presenting too many hypotheticals), this technique has proven effective. In the mid-1800s, you had the Abolition party which forced the Republican party (at that time an up and coming third party) to put an Anti-slavery agenda on the table. In the early-1900s, you had the Socialist party and Eugene Debs (who got 3.4% of the vote from a prison cell in 1920), which was clearly acknowledge as the impetus for Roosevelt's New Deal.

So there's my pragmatic rationale, and as you could probably guess, I'm voting for Nader. (I do live in New York, but I'd like to think I would do the same in a swing state.) The question I have for you, or anyone who votes Democrat while opposing the majority of their positions, is what is your breaking point? Your post would seem to suggest you have none. At the risk of breaking Godwin's law, do you vote for Stalin in a election against Hitler?

To quote Eugene Debs: "I'd rather vote for something I want and not get it, than something I don't and get it."

Or, to quote the Simpsons: "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos."

    The reasoning in the post doesn't make sense, because it comes all too close to implying that you really shouldn't vote since your vote won't make a difference anyways.  The reasoning assumes "your vote should make a differnce in electing the next president."  Facing facts, you simply can NOT assume this.  So, the reasoning may work as "valid", but it comes as empty.

     As already pointed out the two-party system has MAJOR problems.  The only way this problem gets rectified comes as to vote outside the box.  So VOTE OUTSIDE THE BOX.  This way you express your belief that you want voting FREEDOM, and not the tyranny of an "either-or" party system.

There are some countries that have a graduated system for voting that supports 3+ parties much better.  The way it works is you vote for a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choice.  If your first choice candidate doesn't win a majority, your vote then goes to your 2nd choice.  So someone could vote Nader as their #1 and Obama as their #2.  This would make so much more sense as a) more people would feel comfortable voting for a 3rd party, sending the message that there's support and a public outcry for something different from the 2 major parties, and b) allow those people to not "throw away: their vote. 

It sure would be nice to have something like this in place instead of our current system.

If they were smart they might, as it would still take a lot more to get one of those 3rd parties to actually get enough support to be a true competitor, and it would mean each party potentially getting more votes from people who would otherwise just be voting for a 3rd party.

Meh, it is not like my vote matters anyways, at least not for president.  I would rather vote for the candidate I want to win, than vote for someone who I have no reason to believe will actually do anything they have promised to do, and most likely has no semblance of honesty or virtue.

Can me a fool if you like, but I am going to vote for Nader.  I am not a political scientist or anything ...oh wait, I am.  I don't really feel like voting in the other corporate taskmasters, will really make a difference.  The only way I see the system changing is if we radically change our voting system itself.  I would prefer proportional representation myself.

3rd party candidates cannot win elections this day and age primarily because people have accepted that it is acceptable to vote for the lesser of two evils.  This whole idea that a vote for a third party is a wasted vote is the reason why third parties have so much trouble winning elections.  Plato was right, common wisdom is just arguments from authority repeated over and over until people believe them to be true.