Well, that makes sense if there is no better choice. For my money, Gary Johnson is a much better choice because he actually wants to make government smaller -- much smaller.

If you actually like Romney, then fine, you should vote for him. But if you don't like Romney -- if in fact you think he is an awful choice whose proposals will make our problems worse -- then let's play out this "I'll take my chances" theory.

Sure, you can vote for Romney on the theory that he's unlikely to be as bad as Obama. And as bad as Obama has been, you might be right. But an awful lot of people thought the same thing about Obama at the end of the Bush presidency. We didn't know much about the guy, but he gave speeches that suggested he had accurately identified what Bush was doing wrong. How bad could he be? Well, pretty bad, actually.

Furthermore, taking a chance on someone based on "how bad can he be?" thinking has a cost. When you hold your nose and pull the lever for the lesser of two evils, you're giving up your ability to shake up the political culture that stuck you with Obama and Romney as the major-party nominees in the first place. To illustrate that point concretely, we've all recently seen how the Republican establishment disposed of the Ron Paul supporters at the convention, alienating many of them. If Gary Johnson polls at 15 percent this year, do you think the Republican Party will give us another bellicose crony capitalist in 2016? If Gary Johnson wins a state or two, do you think the Democrats will nominate another candidate who doesn't know that indefinite military detention of citizens without trial is completely unconstitutional?

The moochers and looters will always seek political power, and their favored means will be the two parties that wield power right now. You will not change government so as to make it unattractive to such people. But you can withhold your vote from them. If you give them your vote anyway, then don't complain about the tragedy that follows.