Wasting our Vote

[ATM]

Ya know what sucks ATM? There's a ton of good people on this forum. Most all of them want the same thing. Or pretty darn close. And they are divided about the best way to get there.

One group says "minimize the short term damage by voting for the lesser of two evils" , and the other says "vote for someone with no legit shot of winning this time around, and hope it turns the next election.". Neither group will get what they're after this time around. The question is more of what WILL we get?

I'm thinking that there needs to be an INGO election night OC/CC bash in November where we all drown our sorrows together.

^ Agreed, and I drown my sorrows best with coffee and shooting.

 

[Classic Liberal]

Ya know what sucks ATM? There's a ton of good people on this forum. Most all of them want the same thing. Or pretty darn close. And they are divided about the best way to get there.

One group says "minimize the short term damage by voting for the lesser of two evils" , and the other says "vote for someone with no legit shot of winning this time around, and hope it turns the next election.". Neither group will get what they're after this time around. The question is more of what WILL we get?

I'm thinking that there needs to be an INGO election night OC/CC bash in November where we all drown our sorrows together.

That's not how I see it. It is more like this...
One group says they are willing to overlook some of their principles to vote in a "conservative" Republican...whatever it takes to beat Obama. And, we have another group that sees it doesn't matter which establishment politician you vote for, if you don't vote for principle, you will always get what you've got so far. If enough people held true to their principles, Ron Paul or Gary Johnson would win by a landslide. If you give up on principle, what else do you easily give up?

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Classic -

Unfortunately, it's not that cut and dried. The truth lies in the numbers. 15% -20% of R's clearly agree with RP/Libertarians on principle. They voted for him in the primary. Me included. Let's say another 20% agree with him on principle - but were put off by him on foreign policy, or some other issue. My brother falls into this camp. Or they don't see him as electable. Even a total of 40% of R's DOES NOT CONSTITUTE EVEN A VICTORY IN THE GENERAL. Much less a landslide.

There is a danger of oversimplification and saying of the electorate - "they're just dumb [insert plural expletive here], they're not true to their principles, they weak, they're inferior"... Be careful. The truth is bidirectional here. Not enough of them bought in. But part of that is the buyer's doing, and part the seller's. It's always the case. Ron Paul made some missteps in selling.

Gary Johnson is a better guy to close the deal - EXCEPT nobody knows who the heck he is at this point. He could not get free of RP's shadow. If RP was not in the R game, Gary Johnson would be the R champion of the little L cause right now. He would never have switched over.

The biggest danger to Libertarians at present is when they choose to rub the salve of arrogance into the wounds of the loss of Ron Paul , and in so doing lose the opportunity to bring even more to their side. It's an easy and natural thing to do. It's also the wrong way to sell.

A lot of people agree in principle but RP couldn't close the deal. Both buyer and seller bear responsibility.

 

[Classic Liberal]

Classic -

Unfortunately, it's not that cut and dried. The truth lies in the numbers. 15% -20% of R's clearly agree with RP/Libertarians on principle. They voted for him in the primary. Me included. Let's say another 20% agree with him on principle - but were put off by him on foreign policy, or some other issue. My brother falls into this camp. Or they don't see him as electable. Even a total of 40% of R's DOES NOT CONSTITUTE EVEN A VICTORY IN THE GENERAL. Much less a landslide.

There is a danger of oversimplification and saying of the electorate - "they're just dumb [insert plural expletive here], they're not true to their principles, they weak, they're inferior"... Be careful. The truth is bidirectional here. Not enough of them bought in. But part of that is the buyer's doing, and part the seller's. It's always the case. Ron Paul made some missteps in selling.

You are right, it is part buyer and part seller, except when you look at mainstream Republican candidates, they had major assistance with their selling through the media, whereas Ron Paul and Gary Johnson had to take another approach. As for the buyers, it is sad that only 15% - 20% agree with Ron Paul on principle. What does that tell you about the Republican establishment? It tells me they don't give much thought or concern into principles.

Gary Johnson is a better guy to close the deal - EXCEPT nobody knows who the heck he is at this point. He could not get free of RP's shadow. If RP was not in the R game, Gary Johnson would be the R champion of the little L cause right now. He would never have switched over.

The biggest danger to Libertarians at present is when they choose to rub the salve of arrogance into the wounds of the loss of Ron Paul , and in so doing lose the opportunity to bring even more to their side. It's an easy and natural thing to do. It's also the wrong way to sell.

A lot of people agree in principle but RP couldn't close the deal. Both buyer and seller bear responsibility.

You identify the failings of Ron Paul' selling, but I can't think of anything that could get me to vote for Romney at this point, so what have the Republicans done to lose this sell?

 

[ATOMonkey]

I plan to waste my vote.

Principle is more important than winning. I'd rather have the greater of 2 evils win than contribute to the slow decline of the nation.

At least that way, we can get to the bottom faster and begin to fix things instead of just putting band-aids on them.

 

[indiucky]

There is no such thing as a wasted vote.

There are voters and politicians who are a waste but the vote itself is never wasted.

IMHO lest my comments be construed as fact or "testy".

 

[navarre1095]

IMHO the entire group needs to be thrown out on their collective heineys.

So what happens if enough of us just vote against the incumbent (regardles of party affiliation) for the next 3 election cycles?

 

[pirate]

 

[mrjarrell]

Guess libertarians DO draw from the left, too. Even democrats get that Johnson is a better choice than Barrack and Mittens.

Former Democratic Party Press Secretary Supports Gary Johnson for President - Reason.com

 

[88GT]

When enough people realize that how we've been doing it cannot work and our national ruin becomes impossible to ignore.

Okay, when is that? And given the happenstances across the Pond, what makes you think it will happen at all?

I hope and strive for sooner,

Sooner? There are only two reasons they don't, and nothing you're offering is significant enough to change that. How could you make it sooner?

I have zero control over the current establishment and my vote made zero impact in 2008. I voted for McNasty and the hot chick because I didn't know any better and bought into the lesser evil blah blah blah.

And it will arguably have even less impact--relative to the direction you are wishing to go--this time around based on your reported intended vote.

I've learned much since then and will never waste my vote, my support or my voice according to that scheme again.

And why is using a different set of principles a wasted vote? I get really tired of the holier-than-thou arrogance in the implication that not voting third party--and specifically YOUR third party (though understand the "YOU" means anybody taking your stance)--isn't a principled vote. In my mind, I'd prefer to have some say in the achievable results rather than a protest vote that has yet to be registered with the people who need to see/hear it the most.

Not that I don't understand your rationale. I do. I even agree with it. Except that when I weigh the PRACTICAL RESULTS, I feel my vote has more value in voting for/against one of the two main parties rather than a fringe party that has little to no chance of winning.

If you truly believe that you have some minimal control in the process by voting differently than I, I don't blame you for exercising it as you see fit.

You say that like you don't believe it's true. Then let me ask you: if my vote for one of the two parties that WILL win doesn't have any control, then how does a vote for a third party that can't/won't win have any more?

Carry on!

Absolutely. And without the implications that voters with different priorities are scum of the earth.

If enough people held true to their principles, Ron Paul or Gary Johnson would win by a landslide.

Based on what? Their monumental poll rankings when strategy didn't matter and they were free to "vote" on principle?

If you give up on principle, what else do you easily give up?

Are you so arrogant to think that your principles are the only principles people can have when casting a vote? Are you implying that every last Dem who votes for the Kenyan socialist is devoid of principles?

We've discussed this "principled" stance ad nauseum around here and the only thing I think I've learned is that there's an elitist bunch of boors who feel they hold the monopoly on determining what an acceptable principle is, OR they are too dense to understand, despite it being repeated a good number of times, that a principle isn't an absolute and that it is relative to the priorities and designs of the person holding it.

Like I said above, it's not that I disagree or find fault with your approach. It's just that the "principled" justification is about as logically sound as the Kenyan's presidency is transparent.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Like I said above, it's not that I disagree or find fault with your approach. It's just that the "principled" justification is about as logically sound as the Kenyan's presidency is transparent.

I agree with everything you said except for this last simile. The Kenyan's presidency has always been transparent and I think more and more folks are seeing that transparency for what it is - no clothes - but it's not the brand of transparency he implied it would be.

 

[88GT]

I agree with everything you said except for this last simile. The Kenyan's presidency has always been transparent and I think more and more folks are seeing that transparency for what it is - no clothes - but it's not the brand of transparency he implied it would be.

Touche. But you knew what I meant.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Touche. But you knew what I meant.

Yes I did.

 

[Classic Liberal]

And why is using a different set of principles a wasted vote? I get really tired of the holier-than-thou arrogance in the implication that not voting third party--and specifically YOUR third party (though understand the "YOU" means
Based on what? Their monumental poll rankings when strategy didn't matter and they were free to "vote" on principle?


Are you so arrogant to think that your principles are the only principles people can have when casting a vote? Are you implying that every last Dem who votes for the Kenyan socialist is devoid of principles?

We've discussed this "principled" stance ad nauseum around here and the only thing I think I've learned is that there's an elitist bunch of boors who feel they hold the monopoly on determining what an acceptable principle is, OR they are too dense to understand, despite it being repeated a good number of times, that a principle isn't an absolute and that it is relative to the priorities and designs of the person holding it.

Like I said above, it's not that I disagree or find fault with your approach. It's just that the "principled" justification is about as logically sound as the Kenyan's presidency is transparent.

When you have 2nd Amendment supporting, Republican voters speaking about principles, I laugh as I see their words mean nothing. How can you support the 2nd Amendment and ignore it while voting for Romney who has a terrible history on gun issues.
How can one speak of principle, then ignore it? It looks hypocritical to me.

 

[hornadylnl]

When do you expect this strategy of yours to start working?

How many election cycles must we try it your way before it's determined that it doesn't work?

Reagan
Bush
Dole
Bush2
McCain
Romney

I see a trend here. The car is pulling to the left. How many more ever leftward republican nominees must we endure before your strategy is determined not to work?

 

[churchmouse]

It is not working as I/we would want it to. The entire electorate (save we few) seems to be pulling left with the car you mentioned. A president alone is not the answer only a stop gap.
This mess is like opening up the garage and trying to make more space by "Piling" stuff up and loosing it in the mess. The garage needs to be completely "Cleaned" out and started from scratch. Throw out all that is no longer needed.
This is a simple analogy of a deep and dark problem. Throw out everything and start fresh

 

[mrjarrell]

It is not working as I/we would want it to. The entire electorate (save we few) seems to be pulling left with the car you mentioned. A president alone is not the answer only a stop gap.
This mess is like opening up the garage and trying to make more space by "Piling" stuff up and loosing it in the mess. The garage needs to be completely "Cleaned" out and started from scratch. Throw out all that is no longer needed.
This is a simple analogy of a deep and dark problem. Throw out everything and start fresh

And how is voting the status quo going to do that?

 

[hornadylnl]

It is not working as I/we would want it to. The entire electorate (save we few) seems to be pulling left with the car you mentioned. A president alone is not the answer only a stop gap.
This mess is like opening up the garage and trying to make more space by "Piling" stuff up and loosing it in the mess. The garage needs to be completely "Cleaned" out and started from scratch. Throw out all that is no longer needed.
This is a simple analogy of a deep and dark problem. Throw out everything and start fresh

How do you throw everything out and start fresh by continually voting for more of the same?

I started a diet awhile ago. I didn't actually make any changes to the types of foods or amounts I ate previously. I'm at a loss as to why the pounds aren't coming off.

 

[churchmouse]

And how is voting the status quo going to do that?

It won't. It (Gov.) will continue to go the route it is on until it either collapses
or implodes.

 

[churchmouse]

How do you throw everything out and start fresh by continually voting for more of the same?

I started a diet awhile ago. I didn't actually make any changes to the types of foods or amounts I ate previously. I'm at a loss as to why the pounds aren't coming off.

That is not my point. I hate the offerings we are given. The point I hope to make is that just electing a 3rd party president is not the answer. The entire body politic has to be house cleaned. As stated, A President alone is not the answer. That is not voting the status quo. I understand what you mean but that is not my point.