Voting Philosophies

With midterm elections next week, I thought I would take an informal poll to see what your personal philosophy of voting is. Here are the four philosophies that I have come across; if you know of another one (or two), please leave a comment! I would love to add to my list.

1. Voting is irrational. My economics professor in college loved to throw this comment out as a discussion starter. If you think about it, he has a point. My one vote will not elect anyone. My one vote will not change any results. Since my one vote will not actually produce any results, what is the point of voting?
2. Vote for the winner. Some people vote for whomever they think will win an election. I guess that way they can say that they voted for the guy who won.
3. Vote your conscience. Some people vote for the person they think will do the best job in office, regardless of whether that person has any chance of winning.
4. Hybrid voting of 2 and 3. Some people vote for the person they think will do the best job in office out of the small group of people who they think will actually win.

Where do I fit in? While I do agree somewhat with my economics professor, I still vote. It is my civic duty and a privilege. (The only opportunity to vote that I have missed since I became eligible to vote was a referendum on our state flag. Since my one vote wouldn't have changed anything, and the flag I would have voted for won anyway, my not voting was moot.)

Voting for the winner? What a lousy (and loser) way to vote.

Voting your conscience? I have the highest respect for people who chose to vote this way.

Hybrid voting? Unfortunately, I tend to fall into this group. I try to vote my conscience, but sometimes I cop out and vote for the guy I most identify with out of the group of possible winners. Sometime, as my father recently told me, you have to "hold your nose while you vote." That's what we're having to do in this election for our new Georgia governor.

What about you? How do you vote?