Yes, I know how it works. The statistics was never an issue of debate here. And I do not at all feel like I'd be "throwing my vote away." Voting for who I feel represents my views best is what this country was founded on. It's not "foolhardy."
Do you really? I don't think you do.
Let's say an independent candidate would garner 10% of the vote if those who supported him actually voted for him. If they didn't, more of the votes of the independents would go to Romney than Obama. On election day, the other 90% of the vote is split almost evenly between Obama and Romney, with Obama edging out Romney.
Scenario 1: Those who would rather vote for the independent realize he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning. If any portion of them vote for the main two candidates,
Romney wins. Thanks for the help! They voted for what's best for our nation. Kudos to them! They win because Obama didn't get elected. Romney supporters win because Romney won. Obama supporters win (although they don't know it) because they get a better candidate who won't continue to run our nation into the ground.
Everyone wins.
Scenario 2: Those who would rather vote for the independent prefer to "stick to their guns."
Obama wins. Thanks for
nothing. They held blindingly to their ignorant and incorrect believe that always voting for their top choice of candidate produces the best results overall. Bad choice. The independent supporters lose because Obama wins. Those who support Romney lose because Obama wins. Those who supported Obama lose (although they don't know it) because under Obama the country continues to nose-dive.
Everyone loses.
Folks, when you have only 1 vote and x number of candidates, the ONLY time voting for your top choice always produces the best outcome for the country is when x=2. When x=3 or more, voting for your top choice often results in the third best candidate running away with the vote. This isn't rocket science, but it is Game Theory 101, which is a branch within statistical science. It's a well-known shortcoming of the one-vote system. It's a non-issue with two candidates, but a third candidate changes the mix.
Voting systems which work for three or more candidates have been around for centuries, and including +1/-1 voting, and rank ordering. Provided people don't try to game either system, they work fine, but all too often people try to game the system, and the advantages of these voting systems will backfire, resulting in a President that's least likely to do the country well.
It doesn't matter what you "feel," HighFlyingA380, nor how strongly you feel it.
What matters is that by voting for an independent who:
1. Has no chance of winning even if everyone who would like to see them in office actually votes for them...
2. Pulls more votes away from Romney than Obama...
...then a vote for the independent is a failure to vote Obama out of office, and that's something our country can NOT afford.