I've had it with President Obama but there is no way that I would l ever vote for Romney. Zero chance.

With that in mind, do you think it is important that I still vote?

I know, that must seem like a silly question, but I live in a state that Obama will surely win. And while the act of voting is symbolic and important, it would also feel symbolic (in a negative way) to vote for someone who I don't have much faith in, simply so "the other side" doesn't win.

I've struggled with this one myself. In every prior election I've been a vigorous defender of voting and shamed my friends who haven't showed up to the polls. But having been a California voter for 12 years, it's becoming harder and harder to make the case. At the local, state and federal level you've got a one-party system. And the referendum system makes it both more difficult to be a responsible voter as well as more difficult to believe that the system is producing a good result (because too many issues are turned over to the electorate, it is too easy to vote for more programs, it is too hard for people to make an informed choice.)

It is a troubling question. Your individual vote never matters to the outcome (ie, no election is ever decided by one vote). The only reason to vote is as a matter of faith that, by voting, in some intangible way, you encourage others to vote. And without voter participation, there is no democracy. But it is hard to find any rational basis why that should be true.

In terms of the actual choice, it's Romney or Obama. There is no other option. So it's the best of what you are offered. Being unhappy with the best of the two choices is no reason not to vote. Not voting for Obama, if you otherwise would have done so, in effect, is a vote for Romney.

Actually I was active in an election a mayoral election where my candidate won by 1 vote! Josh's question, though, is a serious one. Voting is a dichotomous blunt instrument--in this system we get two choices. For many people in the country, either choice is distant from their preferred positions. So why vote? First, symbolically, we still pay attention to the national numbers (the bigger a Romney win, the more public "affirmation" it suggests of his stated agenda). Second, the presidency isn't the only office--or issue--on the ballot. Third, voting is a ticket to being heard. Those who don't vote are ignored, those who do are the targets of conversation and mobilization, creating an opportunity for two-way communication.

There is a disconnect between fairness in the abstract and in reality. Long ago, before polling and demographic data existed, majority vote seemed eminently fair. Not knowing the odds, everyone had a motivation to vote and a seemingly equal chance to affect the outcome. It's like betting on number 22 on the roulette wheel--very engaging, unless you know the ball is fixed and only lands on odd numbers.

If, before rules were set up, people knew that their state was 60% Democrats, would they agree to a majority vote? Republicans would demand a super-majority or other safeguards. A parliamentary system, with multiple parties along the political spectrum, probably affords a more representative result. Our system may be too simple.

Parliamentary systems with multiple parties often make it easier for one to vote for a party and/or candidates who are closer to one's own views. But two caveats: First, those kinds of parliaments require post-election coalition building to form a majority (as opposed to having big umbrella parties as in the US that are pre-election coalitions) and one might not be any happier about the final coalition government that is formed. Second, if your party is not a participant in the government coalition, in a parliamentary system your party has no--zero--influence on legislating and program implementation, and can only be a vocal "loyal opposition." If, though, your party is the one at margin that forms a majority coalition--that's power

Will we ever have a third party in America? Or are Democrats and Republicans too much alike?

Many of my friends frequently lament the fact that there isn't a socially-liberal, fiscally-conservative party. But when I asked Geoff Garrett about it he was adamant that the math would never check out.

Geoff is correct about the math limitations (the Constitution would also have to change). On the GOP and Dems, I understand from one perspective the parties seem "too much alike," but for people who study Congress intently, the picture couldn't be more different. Using the best time-series measures we have of ideology, the GOP is more conservative today than anytime since before 1879, the Dems are not as "extreme" but well to the left of center, and almost no one populates the ideological center in the House and only a couple in the Senate. Hugely different from the 1970s. Among the public, the base of each party is also more ideological coherent and vastly distant from one another. The problem: campaign finance and needing big bucks.

Apart from the math problem, there are two parties because there are only two basic human instincts towards society. One is individualistic: "the government should leave me alone and require nothing of me, and others should sink or swim on their own and conform their behavior to my comfort level." This is the conservative position. No taxes, no entitlements (unless it helps me), no social conduct I do not like (gay marriage, etc. The liberal position is communal: "the government should require us to help others, and we should tolerate differences. Progressive taxes, entitlements, equal rights are good. There is no middle position, emotionally. But some people may not be sure where they really stand right now (swing voters).

Isn't the middle position, "the government should stay out of it all! Let people marry who what they want and leave their wallets alone!"

At Princeton, I bumped into many people who couldn't associate with Democrats because their "entitlement" programs, and couldn't associate with the crazy religious positions of the Republicans either.

Who does that person usually vote for?

Josh, what you describe isn't a middle position, it's a cross-cutting one. It's the pure "Libertarian" perspective, one that has a long tradition but has generally captured the imaginations of only a small segment of the society, although it has grown in recent years. To a progressive or liberal Democrat, it is not middle or moderate, it sounds profoundly radical. Everyone sink or swim on their own, no support for anyone despite the effects of chance, historical racism, and all the factors that affect opportunity. No public parks, etc. And where did your "wallet" come from? To more traditional conservatives, it sounds like there is no moral basis for society, that it will lead to a cesspool of pornography, obscenity, corruption, etc.

Well, that doesn't sound any good!

Then, anecdotally, I really do think there is an opportunity for a Republican that doesn't have the religious streaks, or a Democrat that is more business-friendly. A Mike Bloomberg-type? Or isn't that was Bill Clinton was?

That sentiment has certainly been expressed by many. Of course, the meaning and policy implications of "business friendly" are in the eye of the beholder. Moreover, in this political environment it takes real work to know and understand what different policy makers and politicians actually believe and have actually done. The mainstream media have done a rather pathetic job of getting past the spin and framing.

I see libertarians as extreme conservatives. They believe in almost no government. It's not anarchism, but you can see it from there. Their apparently socially liberal views stem from a puritanical stand against any form of government control rather than empathy for minorities. My sense is that most libertarians are personally socially conservative, e.g., Ron Paul followers.

The discourse on economics in modern politics is nothing but code words. The question is not high or low taxes or more or less regulation but *which* taxes or regulation, and why. There is nothing inherently good about "business friendly" - e.g., if business is exploiting workers, polluting, etc. The fundamental question is how you want wealth distributed.

Regarding Seth's description of libertarians, as Jon Stewart would say on The Daily Show, "Nailed it!" Property is a central feature of libertarianism--under no circumstances may others "take it away." That includes taxes. Government should provide only national defense and a legal system that ensures the protection and enforcement of contracts. Pollution is not a problem--it's just a matter of enforcing contracts and legal action against those who harm your property. As for racism, segreation, etc., it's too bad, really shouldn't have happened, but the government has no role in remedies. How liberations like Ron Paul are anti-choice on abortion I don't quite get, except that they define the fetus is a full person.