flipping machines, stripping voters, and gerrymandered districts all add up to a scam. Palast ( http://www.gregpalast.com/ ) claims there is a red state coalition removing duplicate names like Juan Rodrigo, etc even if they appear in states as far away as the Carolinas and Texas. I think there will be massive election fraud this Nov. Who will be the better cheaters? Now that's going to be close.

          Life has taught me that my opinion, my vote, my actions do not count in this universe. I am not a defeatist, I am not whining, I am not a fatalist, I am a realist. I will continue as though my actions count, so functionally I agree with your comments, but understanding the reality of my existence keeps me from a psychotic break.

Vote for whoever you like. If voting your conscience it. Old not be for the duopoly.

According to the Oregon voters bill of rights(pdf)

"You have the right to vote for the person you want. You can write in someone else’s
name if you don’t like the choices on your ballot."

called the Write In Party: Russel Brand for President, Sarah Palin for VP, and Ed Snowden for SoS. No platform whatsoever.

Fortunately, I'm far too lazy to attempt any such thing.

I would love for all of us to vote for Jill Stein, but I understand that every person's vote belongs to him or her. However, people contemplating a write in should be aware that write votes don't get reported, whereas a vote for Stein would be reported.

Also, check the law of your state before election day. In some states, writing in at the top of the ticket can invalidate your entire ballot. If you can't figure out state law by researching it online, call the office of the secretary of state of your state and ask about the impact of writing in.

Travis N. Rieder put together a thought provoking article. Bioethicist, philosopher, writer is his tagline.

I agree with this line of thinking:

Voters are being told that they ought to vote so as to minimize harm, which sounds like a moral commandment. But these voters also have a conflicting moral belief — that they ought not to endorse a candidate that they take to be corrupt. They are being put into the position of choosing an external moral principle over an internal one.

and this line of thinking:

One way to think about the third-party vote is that it is a form of conscientious objection. Such a vote, like abstaining from voting, allows the voter to avoid acting in a way that she thinks is wrong or distasteful. We can understand this person’s vote for a third party as a commitment not to let the badness of the world force her into violating her principles.

but not his final conclusion:

Those who are wrestling with whether to vote for Clinton out of fear of Trump are tapping into something real, then. They are distressed that a threat of bad consequences can undermine their freedom to choose as they please. But it is self indulgent, I would argue, to claim their integrity is on the line. If you believe Trump is a moral disaster, then you may well be obligated to vote for Clinton — even if that means getting your hands a little dirty.

Here's the whole article, to get the well written ideas between the above quotes:

http://www.salon.com/2016/08/14/integrity-in-politics-is-the-lesser-of-t...