http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/reawakening-liberty/2012/apr/12/gary-johnson-not-libertarian/

beyond that, all of the same problems apply to all those seeking office. the state is designed, from top to bottom as a machine to transfer wealth from the legitimate class to the political class. too many people make too much money and gain too much power from that system to ever allow it to fall into the hands of one who is opposed to it. just look at the egregious railroading of ron paul's campaign at the convention in tampa.

outside of that, the only thing that can be accomplished by voting for johnson is to add to the vote tallies at the end of the election. those votes, no matter who they were cast for, will be conglomerated into the the mass of votes that the winner will use to whitewash his inevitably evil agenda as "the will of the people". "look, i won the election, and 90% of people voted. therefore, i am 'the people's' choice." voting only serves to legitimize the current regime. that's why the taliban threaten and kill people on the way to the polls in afghanistan; to discourage voting and, therefore, delegitimize the elected regime.

furthermore, why risk it on a moral level? politicians are liars, by and large. what if your candidate gets elected and then does all of the terrible things that he promised he wouldn't do in his campaign? of course, that's likely to happen. so, if johnson is elected and he doesn't end the war on drugs an he continues foreign intervention and lots of innocent people continue to die, then you have that on your shoulders. is it worth it to help to endanger the lives of others?

google "drone attack victims" and see then if you think voting is worth it, even if it's johnson.

good question. thanks for asking. it's one that always needs to be answered.