The only effect you're going to have -if any- is to hand
the election to Obama on a platter- unforgivable
Randy Barnett @ Wall Street Journal (highlights mine):
As a young libertarian, I was very enthusiastic about the formation of the Libertarian Party. I proudly cast my vote for Roger MacBride for president. I attended the 1975 national convention in New York that nominated him.
But, while I am as libertarian today as I was then, I have come to believe that the Libertarian Party was a mistake. The reason is simple. Unlike a parliamentary system in which governments are formed by coalitions of large and small parties, our electoral system is a first-past-the-post, winner-take-all one in which a winning presidential candidate just needs to get more than 50% of the vote. This means each contending "major" party is itself a coalition that needs to assemble enough diverse voting groups within it to get to 51%. Hence the need to appeal to the so-called moderates and independents rather than the more "extreme" elements within.
To the extent that a third party is successful, it will drain votes from the coalition party to which it is closest and help elect the coalition party that is further removed from its interests. The Libertarian Party's effort will, if effective, attract more libertarian voters away from the candidate who is marginally less hostile to liberty, and help hand the election to the candidate who is more hostile to liberty...
Some have defended the LP by saying it is an expressive outlet for political libertarians, as distinct from more intellectual or policy types. Here too the LP has been counterproductive.
By drawing libertarian politicos from both major parties, the LP makes these parties less libertarian at the margin than they would otherwise be...
As a young libertarian, I was very enthusiastic about the formation of the Libertarian Party. I proudly cast my vote for Roger MacBride for president. I attended the 1975 national convention in New York that nominated him.
But, while I am as libertarian today as I was then, I have come to believe that the Libertarian Party was a mistake. The reason is simple. Unlike a parliamentary system in which governments are formed by coalitions of large and small parties, our electoral system is a first-past-the-post, winner-take-all one in which a winning presidential candidate just needs to get more than 50% of the vote. This means each contending "major" party is itself a coalition that needs to assemble enough diverse voting groups within it to get to 51%. Hence the need to appeal to the so-called moderates and independents rather than the more "extreme" elements within.
To the extent that a third party is successful, it will drain votes from the coalition party to which it is closest and help elect the coalition party that is further removed from its interests. The Libertarian Party's effort will, if effective, attract more libertarian voters away from the candidate who is marginally less hostile to liberty, and help hand the election to the candidate who is more hostile to liberty...
Some have defended the LP by saying it is an expressive outlet for political libertarians, as distinct from more intellectual or policy types. Here too the LP has been counterproductive.
By drawing libertarian politicos from both major parties, the LP makes these parties less libertarian at the margin than they would otherwise be...
Wombat Socho @ The Other McCain:
Some of you have excuses for staying home, but unless you’ve been crippled by some burdensome medical condition, there is no excuse for not going to the polls and pulling the lever for Romney.
Randy Barrett explains in a WSJ column why
voting Libertarian this year is counterproductive.
If you don’t know where your polling place is, what the hours are, or what the ballot looks like, this helpful link will get you what you need.