[AFAIK]

Voting for the lesser evil has resulted in the less evil party moving closer and closer to the more evil party so the tactic only works if you're being short sighted.

"Let's vote for Obama instead of Romney in 2012 so that Obama can implement Romney's policies from 2000."

-The Tactical Voter

[mikema63]

There is a difference between voting third party and not voting at all.

[Quantum]

Voting alone doesn't change things, unless it is combined with other forms of political action. Not voting and sitting at home is the loser's way of doing politics and nothing would ever change. If more people stayed at home, the Tories would have increased their majority instead of losing theirs.

[The Immortal Goon]

Voting for the lesser evil has resulted in the less evil party moving closer and closer to the more evil party so the tactic only works if you're being short sighted.

"Let's vote for Obama instead of Romney in 2012 so that Obama can implement Romney's policies from 2000."

-The Tactical Voter

To be clear, I would say to tactically vote for whatever Trotskyist or Maoist party operates out of a basement in your area.

This is not so much as to claim the Democratic Party, though it would have to check its own drift if it started hemorrhaging votes to radical parties.

More importantly is that the superstructure itself would have to stop and address this issue. From there, depending on the form and situation, other actions can be taken.

Democrats still lose their shit that Nader did as well as he did in 2000. What if it was a Bolshevik?

This is potentially leverage, the kind Lenin addressed. It is certainly preferable to doing absolutely nothing.