[toyg]

The problem is, everyone has his personal list of priorities topped by "something without which everything else does not make sense".

* campaign reform: "how can you discuss anything when your counterpart is crooked?"

* climate change: "how can you discuss anything if your house is underwater?"

* fracking: "how can you discuss anything when people are causing earthquakes?"

* poverty: "how can you discuss anything when people are dying of hunger?"

* etc etc

One should be humble enough to support the candidate that is the closest to one's personal pet argument, but who also has a chance to actually get elected. Lessig has no chance whatsoever, simple as. He wants hard to be a Nader but clearly lacks even the moderate mainstream popularity Nader had.

[qrendel]

The Democratic nomination has basically always been guaranteed for Clinton. Sanders, though I certainly prefer him over her, is basically a sideshow to make it look like the Democrats actually support liberal issues and aren't just a moderate deviation from the one-party system. If they didn't run anyone besides Clinton many people would consider supporting a third party or independent candidate, but having Sanders around keeps them identifying with the DNC until he finally gives up the campaign and endorses Clinton.

Support for people who aren't likely to win the general election at least shows what issues are important to voters, forcing them to give some concessions to those issues in order not to lose their base to third parties and independents. That's the real power of supporting people like Lessig and Sanders, even though they clearly won't win. Supporting someone you disagree with more just because they're likely to win is truly "throwing your vote away" - it's working against your own policy preferences to give more votes to someone who doesn't even need them.

[toyg]

> The Democratic nomination has basically always been guaranteed for Clinton.

That may or may not be, but second candidate with good numbers would have strong chances of getting a VP berth (for himself or a protégé). I don't see it as a conspiracy.

> Support for people who aren't likely to win the general election at least shows what issues are important to voters

Undoubtedly, but I think what Lessig is proving is that voters don't give a rat's ass about his issues. By continuing on this road I fear he's doing more harm than good to his cause. Even Nader's bid, which was much more realistic than Lessig's, did more harm than good to his movement in the long run.

> Supporting someone you disagree with more just because they're likely to win is truly "throwing your vote away"

The hard truth of First-Past-The-Post systems is that purism doesn't pay. A slightly-shaky alliance taking you to 40% trumps a purist core of 10% every day. That is an objective fact. It sucks, but you can't wish it away.

[qrendel]

> The hard truth of First-Past-The-Post systems is that purism doesn't pay. A slightly-shaky alliance taking you to 40% trumps a purist core of 10% every day.

Disagree. What matters in the end are the policies, not the person. In Lessig's case, he wants campaign finance reform. If whoever gets elected takes that up as part of their platform, and does their best to implement it as president, then he's won. If he gets them to take up a diluted version of it, he's still partially won.

Sending the message that you'll only support candidates if they align with your biggest policy issues is effective. Electing candidates who don't support your big policy issues is not.

(Edit: The part about voters not caring about his issues may be valid. From TFA he seems to think otherwise, but I wouldn't be surprised if in fact mainstream voters are completely apathetic towards campaign finance reform.)