Lesser of the two evils?

Like many other Americans, I have through most of my adult life subscribed to the notion that it is our responsibility to cast a vote for a candidate, even if we find both (or all) of the choices distasteful. In other words, we needed to decide who was the lesser of the two evils.

I have been giving this more thought, however. Doesn't a vote for the lesser of the evils still count as a vote for the system that keeps the evils coming? Shouldn't we be working for candidates who will back our principles, even if they are from a third party whose chances aren't rated as very good by the corporate ("mainstream") media?

This thought came as many Libertarians and Constitution Party supporters are thinking about the advantages of having Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin (their Presidential candidates) run on the same ticket. Unfortunately, because of doctrinaire elements in both parties, this is unlikely to happen; but we need to keep in mind that they are choices in the States (including Ohio) that will put them on the ballot.

Look at the two Senators. If you do not genuinely feel that either of them will "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution," or that either of them will pursue policies that are beneficial for the nation, you have two choices: You can leave the President box blank, or you can cast a protest vote for a third-party candidate. And if, in discussing this, anyone questions you, just ask the question PerryJ did in the Ohio Freedom Alliance forum:

"America, how is the lesser of two evils working out for you now?"