THE ECONOMIST does not have a vote in America's presidential  election, but since 1980 we have cast a ballot in spirit.

Despite our London home, much of our readership lives in the United States,  so we believe it useful to say how we would think about our vote—if we had one.  Looking back, we tend to dislike incumbents, but favour no party—we have  endorsed nearly equal numbers from both parties.

We are not unlike America's swing voters in that we value competence and  moderation. More often than not we are disappointed with our options.

This year we have many complaints about Barack Obama, but choose him  nonetheless because Mitt Romney's failings are graver. So as Americans ponder  how to vote, we share the thinking that led us to our current and past  endorsements.

2012: Barack Obama

“A man who once personified hope and centrism set a new low by unleashing  attacks on Mitt Romney even before the first Republican primary. Yet elections  are about choosing somebody to run a country. And this choice turns on two  questions: how good a president has Barack Obama been, especially on the main  issues of the economy and foreign policy? And can America really trust the  ever-changing Mitt Romney to do a better job? On that basis, the Democrat  narrowly deserves to be re-elected....

Mr Obama’s shortcomings have left ample room for a pragmatic Republican,  especially one who could balance the books and overhaul government. Such a  candidate briefly flickered across television screens in the first presidential  debate. This newspaper would vote for that Mitt Romney, just as it would for the  Romney who ran Democratic Massachusetts in a bipartisan way (even pioneering the  blueprint for Obamacare). The problem is that there are a lot of Romneys and  they have committed themselves to a lot of dangerous things.”

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/economist-endorsing-obama-2012-11#ixzz2B0Hc152G