I don't agree. The only thing voting 3rd party does is give the Democrats an easy victory.
Wait. What?
You're making a huge and fundamentally incorrect assumption about the nature of any other political party that might exist.
Right now we are divided between social progressives and social conservatives, and the actual behavior of both parties seems to veer away from what might be called responsibility in spending; the difference is just who that spending benefits.
At some later point, we might re-divide along lines of personal liberties vs. security (that seemed to be the main issue in 2004, at least) or personal liberties vs. environmental responsibility.
The core of the Democrats power are the people who will never vote for another party because they are dependent on the current Democrats for their free handouts.
You realize that this is also the case when republicans are in control, right? The only difference is who gets the handouts. I'd rather see money go to education funding or subsidized housing or health care than to see a bunch of rugged individualists get no bid defense contracts.
I must have missed it. Where was fiscal conservatism on the ballot?
It wasn't. McCain is was playing up a sort of moderate neoconservative stance, and those guys go through money like it's water with the ideological goal of getting the government so big and debt-laden that it can no longer fund New Deal social programs (this is something that has been articulated by Grover Norquist et al). I'm not sure true fiscal conservatives were represented even in the primaries this election cycle: Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney were both real friends of big business, but if Fred was "in the mold of Reagan", he wasn't going to cut the purse strings, and from what I heard of Mitt, he had some fiscal misadventures of his own when he was governor. Face it "Let's not spend any money." isn't particularly thrilling as a campaign platform in an election year.