Voting for Ron Paul anyway

[Thunderbolt]

I ran across this article tonight. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/hamilton4.html

I loved it. It talks about voting for Ron Paul anyway, even if it isn't "allowed". Pass it on.

[Kludge]

It seems fairly ironic that you'd vote against the person-you're-voting-for's wishes.


This cycle's presidential isn't worth as much thought as we (myself especially) are giving it. Voting third party will give some percentage MSM can work with. Voting for president is merely voting for which message you'd like to send and voting on how effective that message is. I say that using the following soft logic:

Nader - Highest percentage, diverse group = loud message which is likely to be interpreted as a protest vote against Obama OR a vote for Nader because the message is diluted.

Barr - High-ish percentage, non-diverse group = quieter message, likely to be interpreted either as a protest vote against McCain or a vote for Barr.

Baldwin - low percentage, non-diverse group = quiet message, if heard would likely be interpreted as a vote for Baldwin.

McKinney - tiny percentage, non-diverse group = silence, if you told someone who she is, they'd probably believe you to be batshit crazy.

[Thunderbolt]

I am not sure it is against Ron Paul's wishes to be President. He certainly spent a long time campaigning. Perhaps he just doesn't want to be on any other party's ticket?

Nonetheless, I disagree with your analysis. I think it is foolish to vote for someone you don't like to try to send a message. The only message you are sending is that you LIKE that person's platform and that you wish that more candidates would hold those positions.

The article: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/hamilton4.html

has a much better way of sending the message that you are unhappy with them forcing you to choose from an unacceptable slate of candidates. It also shows that you do not accept the government's right to prevent you to vote for whomever you choose. Moreover, the article also mentions voting for none of the above as a choice.

The only chance we have of ever winning is if we change the rules. We cannot change the rules by playing by them.

But that is just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[Bradley in DC]

Dr. Paul explicitly does not want us to vote for him and affirmatively orders state Secretaries of State to remove his name from the ballot. This is MORE than Shermanesque; "If nominated, I will not..."

Dr. Paul wants us to promote the third party movement.

Of those choices, Nader and Barr are the only ones with any traction and getting any attention (which is what Dr. Paul wants). Of those two, Barr is clearly closer to Dr. Paul's agenda. (In the spirit of full disclosure, I voted for Nader last time.)

[RonPaulVolunteer]

Of those choices, Nader and Barr are the only ones with any traction and getting any attention (which is what Dr. Paul wants). Of those two, Barr is clearly closer to Dr. Paul's agenda. (In the spirit of full disclosure, I voted for Nader last time.)

What a load of crap. Barr's campaign is OVER. Completely and utterly over. And to say he's closer to Ron Paul than Chuck Baldwin, is a complete and utter fcking joke. Baldwin will get more votes than Barr will now. You watch.

[mitty]

Dr. Paul explicitly does not want us to vote for him and affirmatively orders state Secretaries of State to remove his name from the ballot. This is MORE than Shermanesque; "If nominated, I will not..."

Dr. Paul wants us to promote the third party movement.

Of those choices, Nader and Barr are the only ones with any traction and getting any attention (which is what Dr. Paul wants). Of those two, Barr is clearly closer to Dr. Paul's agenda. (In the spirit of full disclosure, I voted for Nader last time.)

the fact that baldwin and mckinney were invited to the press conference and were allowed to make speeches there with paul watching tells me that he encourages us to vote for them as well. nice try though

[Highland]

regardless of LR's advice...I will vote for Ron Paul. Also, a friend of mine once said..."Ron Paul is my President"...and she was right. Regardless of who is elected, Ron Paul's ethics and theory on government and policy will be my compass.

[Highland]

Plus...I am in NC and I can only vote Nader or McKinney...a non-choice. No Baldwin choices.

[Bradley in DC]

What a load of crap. Barr's campaign is OVER. Completely and utterly over. And to say he's closer to Ron Paul than Chuck Baldwin, is a complete and utter fcking joke. Baldwin will get more votes than Barr will now. You watch.

Dr. Paul introduces legislation to repeal the online gambling laws--the CP aims to go after gambling.

Dr. Paul says he does not want to run our lives, the economy, and the world--the CP aims to micromanage world trade and our economy with extreme dirigiste trade and tariff policies...

Barr is on the ballot in more states with LOTS more people than Baldwin. Barr is qualified to be president, has much higher name ID, gets major media access and will get more votes than any other Libertarian has ever got (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=155287). Baldwin will likely get fewer votes than the CP got four years ago (not being on the ballot in CA, TX, NY, ...).

Yes, we'll watch.

[Kludge]

And to say he's closer to Ron Paul than Chuck Baldwin, is a complete and utter fcking joke.

Re-read and feel sheepish (no pun intended ;) ).

Baldwin might get near the coveted 1%, but I seriously doubt it. Most polls have the CP at their regular 0.xx%.

Barr may be able to come close to 2%, but I doubt after today he'll go beyond that.

Nader is on the ballot in the 46 states and a write-in in all but Oklahoma and may be able to take ~5% if he's lucky.

[Scotso]

Now, I understand that coming from a supporter of extremely "longshot" candidates this might sound odd, but a vote for Ron Paul is really a wasted vote. It won't be counted. It won't be tabulated, it won't send any message. Voting for any third party/independent candidate is better than voting for Paul at this point. Even if it's the most Communist idiot on the planet, it's counted. If you don't like the choices so much that you will write in a vote for someone that isn't counted, there's no point in voting.

I'm sure Paul's reason for telling us not to vote for him is not because he doesn't want or appreciate the support, it's because it's more important that we send a message that we will not vote for the candidates of the ruling oligarchy. I implore you to cast a vote that will be counted.

[Scotso]

What a load of crap. Barr's campaign is OVER. Completely and utterly over. And to say he's closer to Ron Paul than Chuck Baldwin, is a complete and utter fcking joke. Baldwin will get more votes than Barr will now. You watch.

I hope not, if only for the sake of the Libertarian Party. I agree Barr will get a LOT less votes than he would have now. I'm torn, part of me would love to see this neocon in libertarian clothing crash and burn, but part of me worries that that would do irreparable harm to the Party.