US Presidential election : help required!

Just wondering if Scot Goes Pop readers would be interested in helping me with a small dilemma. As some of you know, I'm a dual UK/US national, and I'm in the middle of trying to work out who to vote for in the US election. The problem is as follows -

Opposition to the death penalty is pretty much my most fundamental political belief. I've therefore always followed the principle of voting for an anti-death penalty candidate, unless there wasn't one on the ballot paper. I do this even if it's a fringe candidate.

There is no real cost to doing this, because I vote in a strongly Democratic state in which Republicans (or at least Republican presidential candidates) have no chance whatsoever.

However, the only left-of-centre, anti-death penalty presidential candidate in "my" state this time round is Peta Lindsay, who represents an out-and-out revolutionary Marxist-Leninist party, and who regards Cuba as the template for the rest of the world to follow. Now, I'm all for acknowledging the good side of the Cuban system as well as the bad, but such views are a bit strong for even my taste.

Nevertheless, it remains the case that Barack Obama favours the death penalty in principle. Although he would perhaps be keen to significantly reduce its application, he has spoken approvingly about the idea of putting terrorists to death. I find it very hard to vote for someone with that position when there is a clear, cost-free alternative. Lindsay also has an exemplary stance in opposition to Israel's oppression of the Palestinians, something which can hardly be said of Obama.

So what do you think I should do - vote for Obama in spite of my beliefs, or vote for the Bolshevik? I've put a poll at the top of the sidebar, but you don't have long to vote, because I want to make a decision today!

* * *

UPDATE : Here are the final results of the poll -

Barack Obama 30%
Peta Lindsay 70%

Many thanks for all the votes and comments. I think using my 'ask the audience' lifeline has proved sufficient on this occasion, and I won't need to resort to going 50/50 or phoning a friend. But, alas, I still don't think I'm about to win any "life-changing money".

Would-be hostage-takers demand "input" on whether they should have the legal right to hold you hostage (after all, they are "stakeholders" in the outcome)

My calendar seems to have gone seriously awry this year. I could have sworn it was September 26th, not April 1st...

"People with an Ulster Scots background should be allowed to vote in Scotland's independence referendum, a senior Orange Order member has said.

Dr David Hume said Ulster Scots had played a key role in Scottish history.

"We are stakeholders as well. Surely a decision such as this should not ignore our input?" he said."

Fair enough, David. And in line with this principle of genetic inclusivity, I'm sure you'd agree with me that everyone of Scottish descent in the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand should also be allowed a vote in the referendum. I dare say we can all guess how that would pan out. Oh, and naturally anyone of Irish descent in Scotland (ie. me and hundreds of thousands of Celtic supporters) should be given a say on Northern Ireland's constitutional future.

No objections, I take it?