The flaw in that logic is that it equates voting with horse racing in that the goal is to "pick the winner". I'm not voting to pick the winner. I guess I'm just naieve, but I always thought the point of voting was to choose the candidate which most closely holds your views. Win or lose. I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils.
I'll vote for who I want to win, regardless of what the press tells me. If more people did that, we wouldn't be in nearly the mess we're in. Sadly, "I won't vote for them because they have no chance" is a self-fulfilling prophecy - they have no chance because you assume they don't, and because you believe what the press tells you about the front runners.
Remember early in the primary race last year, everybody was saying Giuliani was a republican frontrunner? He got lots of free press, lots of interviews, lots of airtime. He was given more time at the debates, the whole bit. Meanwhile, Ron Paul got none of that because people (esp the mainstream media) assumed he had no chance. Despite this, Paul got more votes, got MUCH more donations, and more grassroots support, even in states where Giuliani campaigned like crazy, like Florida. It makes one wonder how much better Paul would or could have done if he had been given those opportunities to develop name recognition.
Sorry, I refuse to be a sheep. There ARE more than two parties in this country, and as long as we continue to pretend the big two are all there is, they will continue to ignore what you want.
As for who I will support, My criteria for a good president is simple - it's the one that most closely votes to my viewpoints and opinions. No more or less. I don't really care who he's screwing in the Oval Office, I don't really care if he has a thing for sheep in his spare time. As long as he signs what I want him to sign and vetoes what I want him to veto, he'll get my vote.
As for what that is specifically, that too is simple. I want the government outlined in our Constitution. We haven't had such a government for quite some time. I want a foreign policy based on Thomas Jefferson's mantra - "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none." I want drastically reduced federal spending and taxation. I want presidents who understand that government is best that governs least, instead of hearing them all talk about they've got a plan to "fix" everything. The best way to fix it is to get out of it!
It is in these places where the two main parties consistently fall short. The Republicans always TALK a good game with fiscal responsibility, but you've seen what Bush has done with the budget. "Tax and Spend Liberal" Bill Clinton had us on course for surpluses. Even non-defense spending has gone through the roof under Bush, growing twice as fast as it did under Clinton. Apparently, Bush's "Compassionate Conservatism" is just like "Tax and Spend Liberalism", except instead of taxes, we get record debt, which is just taxes with interest. Thanks!
The candidate who comes closest to embodying those ideals at present is Ron Paul. My state screws write-ins, though, so I'm going to vote for Barr.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 35
There is a Chuck Baldwin group on Gather and a Ron Paul supporters for Chuck Baldwin group as well. You may want to check him out.
As to your post. It is the most intelligent post on for whom to vote I have ever read. I have been telling people to vote for who they think will be the best person for the job and the for the most qualified. I hear "I woln't vote for him because he don't have a chance" from a lot of people. That attitude alone can defeat a good candidate.
I for one am sick and tired of the Corporate Media telling me there are only two choices. There are several. The two the Media thinks will be elected are the scrapings off the sidewalk when it comes to qualifications. Ron Paul's resume is a lot better and shows that he is the most qualified so why not hire him?
I said I would be over here to discuss this with you if you wrote the article, so here I am.
I think you start your article off with a mistake, that the goal of voting is to pick a winner.
Some people love to win, heck, we all would rather win than lose, I love to win at Backgammon myself, it is my favorite game. But games and winning are about demonstrating skill or expertise in a competition and also having fun.
Even though there may be a winning aspect to voting, I'd have to say I don't think it is what voting is about. Voting is about getting representation for yourself.
You are free to decide that you will get no representation from either candidate and that you are better off showing the voting populace that you belong to a small minority of 2-3% by casting a protest vote.
But recent American elections have been very close, and your vote can make a real difference particularly depending on where you live in the outcome.
It is a foregone conclusion that either John McCain or Barack Obama is going to win the Presidency. The last 8 years are typical of the what the Republican's agenda is, and what is happening in the country that is controllable happens by their design for the most part.
If it is protest you want, writing a letter or sending an email to a real politician has more effect that a protest vote, and you can do it more than once on more than one subject.
If it is power that you want to exercise in a democracy, voting for the party that most represents your views or voting against the party that least represents your views are the only two choice there are that can have a real or lasting effect.
Fair enough. What do you do if neither of the two major candidates come anywhere near representing anything about you?
"You are free to decide that you will get no representation from either candidate and that you are better off showing the voting populace that you belong to a small minority of 2-3% by casting a protest vote."
Correct, a 2-3% protest vote in unlikely to make much difference. But at the same time, I'd wager that a 5-6% protest vote would make a HUGE difference. Why? Well for a few reasons, notably that it would show that there is a lot of people who feel disenfranchised, and those people now become the swing vote in the next election. A minor candidate need not WIN the race to have an impact.
If you're a campaign advisor in 2012, and your party lost a key swing state by 3%, and 5% of the state voted for Nader or whoever, it stands to reason that a way to get that state back on your side is to look at the minor party's platform and see if there are any planks you can "borrow" to try to bring them over without alienating the base.
Speaking of which, the base of the Republican Party has shrunk substantially over the last 4 years, and the Democratic Party has grown. It's been true of American politics for a long time that the parties go in cycles... a series of defeats will cause a party to refocus, get back in tune with the people, and improve their standing. They then win and get complacent while the opponent gets refocused, and so on. Remember the "Republican Revolution" in Congress? And everybody thought the Democratic Party was in deep trouble? Now it's the Republican's turn.
After this year when they get their butts handed to them again, they'll do some real soul searching.
Anyway, my point is, the Republican Party is going to come looking for people like me in a few years - people who want smaller government but don't believe they stand for it anymore. They won't know they need to do that if we keep voting for them.
"But recent American elections have been very close, and your vote can make a real difference particularly depending on where you live in the outcome."
My home state of Indiana is very rarely close. It hasn't been since I've been alive. Early returns look like it MIGHT be this year. To be honest I hope it is, my protest vote will loom even larger. I still wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror the next day if I cast my vote for either of these two, nor is not voting an option for me.
"It is a foregone conclusion that either John McCain or Barack Obama is going to win the Presidency. The last 8 years are typical of the what the Republican's agenda is, and what is happening in the country that is controllable happens by their design for the most part."
I agree that one of those two will win. I agree that the Republicans have lost their way. The last bit I don't agree with. Government is way too complicated for that to be true. Governors, state legislations, local governments, and so on work on different party lines. The Congress has been Democrat controlled for a few years, and before then, they filibustered a lot in the senate, and blocked the will of the majority party as much as they were able (which is their rightful place in the system, no complaints there)
"If it is protest you want, writing a letter or sending an email to a real politician has more effect that a protest vote, and you can do it more than once on more than one subject."
I occasionally do that, but I don't have infinite time. And if they don't listen to me, what's my recourse. To vote for someone else, of course! But there IS more than one choice on who that "someone else" is!
"If it is power that you want to exercise in a democracy, voting for the party that most represents your views or voting against the party that least represents your views are the only two choice there are that can have a real or lasting effect. "
I disagree. Ask a Whig, if you can find one. The two major parties have changed over time, and we are not locked in to the two we have now forever. Who's to say that 30 years from now the two major parties won't be Democrat and Libertarian?
I am anxiously awaiting the Rally for the Republic, I hope it is an event so large the GOP establishment (and press) can't ignore what's going on across the river. And if he does make some announcement to endorse someone, I will certainly take it into consideration.
I'll let Ben Franklin field this one for me: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".
I refuse to be a sheep, and if that gets me eaten, so be it. :)
I think the point I was trying to make there was that the Republicans claim to stand for smaller government, but their actions don't match up to the rhetoric.
That doesn't make me a Democrat, it just means I'm not a Republican either. It's great what Clinton was able to do with the budget, but he also tried to socialize 20% of the economy with his wife's health care initiative, which was thankfully shot down.
Again, what I DO stand for is laid out pretty clearly above. Neither of the two big parties come anywhere close to that. And I'm not going to bend myself to them just to "blend in". They have to bend to me, or I'll vote for someone who does.
> candidates come anywhere near representing anything about you?
Look closer.
Who doesn't know that. America, the former slave state, the melting
pot with poor and huddled masses has thrived on disenfranchisement.
When the disenfranchised start to look closer and ignore questions of
style and identity they find the things in common that bind them.
Far be it for me to tell you who you are, but this:
> After this year when they get their butts handed to them again,
> they'll do some real soul searching.
is your key comment. I think you are missing the import of your
own words.
And I never said the two major candidates were the same, just that neither represent me. Both want more government, more spending. Both seem to be falling all over each other to beat each other to the punch, in coming up with new and innovative ways to give people my tax money. That's all I need to know to know I don't want them in charge.
Not true at all. They have to go where the rest of the sheep go, blindly following, never making any of their own decisions. That's the antithesis of liberty.
"Sorry, but I have to make like a sheepherder and get the flock out of here now ... adios for a while "
That's my kind of humor, and sadly I have a lot to do as well. :)
Vote your conscience, and if not possible, vote your pocketbook they used to say.
Though I'm a member of the Libertarian party and have been for some years, I think you are more solidly so than me. The eminent domain issue should be a national Libertarian issue instead of the fatal (though justified!) focus on the drug war. Regardless of that, I tend to vote Libertarian or (locally) Repubs who are quasi libertarian too. I have only voted for a Dem once as I consider them hopeless as a party while the Repubs have a few good people still in trying to change their party's ways.
The Alabama Libertarians have more ex Repubs than ex Dems and I think it's because they (like me) were attracted to a party that said some great things. However, for most Repubs command and control is as important as it is for the Dems with the Repubs tending to be slightly less evil in most categories. The Dems make no bones about their goals while the Repubs have at least made some nice rhetoric. For voters like myself, voting the lesser of two evils has to stop.
There is no hope for the Dems but at least there is a few Repubs who haven't totally sold out. They know there is much rot to be cut out and maybe they'll do it enough to get my vote again. Until then, its the Libertarians. At least I no longer will have to pretend to like my lack of representation in Washington by either party.
Charles specifically, I agree with your point about the drug legalization thing. It is something I would like to see done, but most Libertarians push it so strongly that they are immediately labeled as "wacko potheads" or something similar, and the rest of their ideas are totally ignored. There are much bigger and more important items on the agenda than that, and it automatically marginalizes the "movement". Still, the Libertarian Party has been the fastest growing party for 20+ years and Ron Paul's movement can only help it further. I'm looking forward to his convention of REAL conservatives next month, I hope it outshines the "NeoCon/Rove" GOP convention across the river.
The problem is that we tend to do things backwards. Top down is no proper way to start a revolution. Let’s take Ron Paul. Ron Paul is a great singular sensation. But why is he just a singular sensation? Why aren’t there Ron Paul type people right now running for local, state and federal positions. Back in the old days in New York the Republicans were generally quite liberal. William F. Buckley Jr. helped launched the minor Conservative party and managed to steer the party in New York back to the conservative roots. The Conservative party is still a major force in New York today and still has a strong influence on the selections within the Republican Party.
For some minor parties there is a good reason to be steadfast and true. The Right to Life Party in New York floundered recently because they did not get minimum percentages at the polls, even though for the most part they were supporting candidates who were on other party lines on the mechanical voting machines.
A minor third party candidate has no chance of becoming president. He or she may have a better chance of being in your town council, your state legislature or even in congress.
However, I ask (no - beg) you to consider what our country might be like had Al Gore been president instead of George Bush for the last 7 years.....think about it. Please.
However, I ask (no - beg) you to consider what our country might be like had Al Gore been president instead of George Bush for the last 7 years.....think about it. Please.
I believe in a primary it is really important to vote for one's candidate, but knowing that these are national elections I am practical. I will not vote for someone who cannot achieve 50% of the vote, although, again, I respect and support your viewpoint.
I have looked at all the candidates, and do not like what I have seen. Barr is as close as we will get to a good President as I have seen. Especially with his economic plan is the most sound.
In America, you should always vote for who you feel is right, for the reasons you believe. Many do not understand that thought though. America has always been made of free thinkers, and risk takers, even our voting habbits have shown that, and has made us what we once were, and can become again.
Well, I am happy to be wrong and appreciate the later comments, as well as the support for what I've said. It's nice to see I won't be alone.
I do want to specifically address Elizabeth's post. She said: "Many of us believe that Nader unnecessarily cost Al Gore the election, and we all know what happened because of that."
That comment is based on some assumptions. First of all, do you really know that the people who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore had Nader not been on the ballot? Perhaps they wouldn't have been motivated to vote at all? Perhaps they would have misread their "butterfly ballot" and voted for Pat Buchanan? Perhaps they would have voted for Bush?
Second of all, and this is far more important, you're going back to a base assumption that there are only two choices. The Nader vote only "looks" like a Bush vote if you have a predisposition to a "binary" mindset. Why must you assume only two options? Have you been that thoroughly snowed by the media and two major parties to believe that no other way is even conceivable? A Nader vote is a Nader vote, PERIOD. It's not a Bush or a Gore or any other vote. Why can't you just respect the decision of the voter who cast it, without second-guessing them?
I don't want to sound overly harsh in my reply, so if it comes across that way I do apologize. I did note the very open manner in which you were accepting of my viewpoint, and I do appreciate that. I accept yours as well, if you choose only to vote for a candidate that might get 50% that's certainly your prerogative, just as it is mine to do otherwise. I'm just trying to tear down some of what I see as myths surrounding the two-party mindset. So please take my reply in that light.
Ron Paul 2112 (if whoever wins this one doesn't destroy our country before then).
We are no longer a two party system, as was intended by The Constitution, thus we'll want to turn a "third party" in to a true second party.
Every important vote and loss of freedom, including our recent financial freedom, was across party lines.
VOTE THEM ALL OUT! Politicians are like diapers, they need changed often, and for the same reason.
We must ALWAYS follow their vote - not what they say. Many good politicians are in office but easily intimidated and threatened by the "good old boys" (including "stretch" Pilosi.
I'm voting third party (aka second party) BECAUSE, I'd rather have my vote count for something than count for nothing. The lesser of two evils is STILL EVIL!
I also say, I'd rather have freedom than security, because without freedom, there is NO security!