voting 'strategy'
I read an interesting idea the other day for people who hate the idea of voting for the lesser of two evils (for President, anyway) and think some of the third-party candidates are better suited. If I find where I read it, I'll add a link later.

In States with a near-certain outcome (non-swing States), vote for the best third-party candidates, to draw attention to them. If the outcome is effectively pre-determined, your particular vote does not matter much, so you might as well represent your interests, since a certain major-party candidate will very likely win in your State anyway. This way, the major parties might start to take notice of your State, and the role of your State could become more pivotal down the road. If you're in a swing State, vote for the lesser of two evils (whichever of the two major party candidates is probably best for the health of the country in the long run, regardless of his/her personality and style of rhetoric). Since electoral college votes for a third party could result in an arguably harmful split of interest (e.g., in 2000, GWB would probably not have gotten to the White House if most of the votes for Nader had instead gone to Gore), and it does not seem feasible for anyone running outside of the two major parties to win an election for President at this time, you should always pick the lesser of two evils in a swing State, even if you feel it does not represent your true interests.

Of course, this only applies for electoral positions (e.g., the President) that have a negligible chance of having a third-party candidate win. For positions in national and State Congresses and other State Office positions, vote for who you think is best, as history (within the last century, anyhow) indicates that third-party candidates are not outright doomed from the start to lose.

Feel free to critique this idea; I love feedback. Oh, and:
STOP BITCHING* AND VOTE, JERKWADS**
(for politically correct / printable substitutions, use whining* and chumps**)