The problem with voting R or D when you really just want to vote against the other side, is that they don't care why you voted for them, only that you voted for them. A vote for them, in their eyes, means that what they are doing is what people want. A lack of a vote means that what they are doing isn't so bad that people will get out and vote against them, which is just as good as voting for them. The only thing that gets their attention without giving misleading signals to the other party is a vote cast for someone other than the two major party candidates. Look at how Clinton changed course once Perot got traction. All of the deficit reduction stuff that Clinton did was a result of Perot having success. Voters spoke, and Clinton listened. I still can't believe that Bush, the candidate of the party that gives lip service to those ideas, didn't take them and run with them. The major parties are too good at politics for a third party to win a national election, but voting third party has more power to change policy than anything else regular people can do.