Is anyone here silly enough to not vote? [Archive] - Ron Paul Forums / Liberty Forest

tttar

11-09-2007, 03:33 AM

Could it be that FIFTY PERCENT won't?

I crunched these same numbers a couple of months ago,

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/muratore5.html

and was assuming close to a 100% turnout for RP supporters. The general turnout for NH has actually been around 45% - nowhere near as low as the average for the country - because, I guess, they know everyone's watching.

I hope for no more than a 20% Repub turnout in the other states. That 8.2% estimate would be really awesome.

BUT - Kathryn Muratore points out in her article that many potential RP supporters won't vote AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/non-vote-arch.html

And so she is forced to assume only half of you will bother to show up.

Yea, that's real intelligent - let's show those elites that we won't "play their game" by first knocking ourselves out getting RP noticed, and then let's just abandon him, ok?

If that won't send them a message they won't soon forget, I don't know what will.

If anyone believes this bs, why don't we just have it out right here. Let's hear your best arguments for just wasting our time. I think I may find a little help here in convincing you that this isn't the way to go...

Maybe we can ask some of the authors at that link for some input. They were mostly writing in 2004, about Bush-Kerry, but why they thought "spending the day with the kids", as one wrote, was better than writing in someone they agreed with who surely deserved their support - even if just symbolic- I'll never know.

I made a spreadsheet into which you can enter your own assumptions about the primaries - where can I post it?

And please - you guys need therapy. I know of no better and cheaper way to get it, than to go to the next RP function, get on the platform, and tell the crowd, "I really love this guy, but I'd like to see him lose. It's about principles, you understand..."

Roxi

11-09-2007, 04:15 AM

i dont expect 100% but i do expect it to be really high. the ones who wont vote either, don't live in the US, will miss the deadline on registering, wont be able to register in their state because of rules, get drunk/high and fall asleep before the polls close, be afraid because of warrants/legal issues... don't want to register because they live off the radar and don't want to file with the government for any reason JMHO

johngr

11-09-2007, 04:19 AM

Boycotting the corrupt and immoral system is a principled stand, imo. If noone voted, they'd have a serious problem.

Taco John

11-09-2007, 04:25 AM

Boycotting the corrupt and immoral system is a principled stand, imo. If noone voted, they'd have a serious problem.

No they wouldn't. We'd have a serious problem. They're the government. If we didn't do our part, they'd do it for us.

a_european

11-09-2007, 04:25 AM

Boycotting the corrupt and immoral system is a principled stand, imo. If noone voted, they'd have a serious problem.

Agreed, but i can't see a problem for the hardcore anarchists to vote in the nomination of a party. It's not like you vote someone in office.

@Taco John, I think at 0% there would be a problem. If 10% vote, the other 90% "are happy with the status quo and don't care".

tonyr1988

11-09-2007, 04:34 AM

The biggest problem I worry about isn't that enough people will purposefully not vote on principle, but that a lot of people won't vote for other reasons.

In the past, us young'uns don't vote very well. Don't get me wrong - I hope that we're different. I know for a fact that I'm voting, and I would hope that everyone that donated votes, and that most people on the campus groups are voting, but I'm not sure. No matter what campaigns they do (Vote or Die?), it doesn't work.

Of course, Paul is different. I just hope that enough people see that, and are willing to vote for it.

tttar

11-09-2007, 04:39 AM

Boycotting the corrupt and immoral system is a principled stand, imo. If noone voted, they'd have a serious problem.

Oh, man - am I misunderstanding you?

"Boycotting" someone you don't agree with is fine.

"Boycotting" those who you DO agree with... I don't get your point.

Are you saying we should do nothing but post in forums? I haven't seen anything else you've said, so I'm just dumbfounded at what you seem to be saying for the moment.

a_european

11-09-2007, 04:49 AM

Oh, man - am I misunderstanding you?

"Boycotting" someone you don't agree with is fine.

"Boycotting" those who you DO agree with... I don't get your point.

I think he means this: Ron Paul has a huge(?) following of Anarchists. Many Anarchists don't vote, because they think they legitimize the government with it - its immoral. Of course you can argue that, if you believe in legitimizing by voting, you're falling into the scam of a legitimate government.
Anarchists will not vote out of principle even for their dream candidate. It's like Ron Paul not giving Rosa Parks a Gold Medal.

Baseline

11-09-2007, 04:52 AM

Yeah well don't forget a lot of states have ridiculous primary voting laws, like NY. I was getting ready back in mid-October to change from independent to Republican to vote for Ron Paul and saw that you couldn't vote in the Republican primary unless you changed party affiliation by Oct. 12th. Yeah, even if you're an independent.

Ridiculous.

misconstrued

11-09-2007, 04:57 AM

Well, I am all registered as a Republican and very ready to vote.

V-rod

11-09-2007, 05:54 AM

If less than 80% of this forum doesn't vote in the primaries, we failed.

AlexMerced

11-09-2007, 06:04 AM

I got screwed since I'm moving in december and couldn't register in NYC due to lack of my housing information for the time, I think this might be the case for many december graduates who plan on moving out of the state although I have definetley have recruited at least 100 solid votes who are all recruiting themselves, and have made weekly donations despite being a broke college student.

misconstrued

11-09-2007, 06:07 AM

Can't new NYC voters still register? You just can't change party affiliation now if you are already registered.

AlexMerced

11-09-2007, 06:32 AM

what if I'm currently not registered with either party, then I can still register, I just can't CHANGE parties, is this right?

thoughtbombing

11-09-2007, 06:40 AM

I think he means this: Ron Paul has a huge(?) following of Anarchists. Many Anarchists don't vote, because they think they legitimize the government with it - its immoral. Of course you can argue that, if you believe in legitimizing by voting, you're falling into the scam of a legitimate government.
Anarchists will not vote out of principle even for their dream candidate. It's like Ron Paul not giving Rosa Parks a Gold Medal.

I'm an anarchist. I normally don't vote out of principle, like was said here. That will be changing very soon. I vote in City and sometimes STATE elections, where I feel the responsibility lies(community).

I will vote for Ron Paul, because if we MUST have Government, I want the least Government possible:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.

theoddmonkey

11-09-2007, 06:51 AM

It is of the UTMOST essence that every able person, who supports Ron Paul, vote in the primaries. We are doomed otherwise. I have confidence though that if you're motivated to pass out a flyer/slim jim or wave a sign, the least you would do is show up to the voting booth. my .02

Zarxrax

11-09-2007, 07:14 AM

Wow, I can honestly say I don't understand how an anarchist could justify not voting for someone like Ron Paul. Give legitimacy to government by not voting? By not voting you give them your implicit acceptance of their government!

Evil thrives when good men do nothing!

If you disagree with something, you are simply a fool to ignore it and let it grow! The only way to subvert it is by shaking it up--don't vote for the establishment, vote for Ron Paul!

If a man starts punching you in the face, do you say "I dont like you punching me in the face, so I'm just going to sit here and take it!" Hell no! Punch him back!

walt

11-09-2007, 07:15 AM

if nobody gets RP on the ballot with delegates in illinios, this does not matter.

Sematary

11-09-2007, 07:18 AM

what if I'm currently not registered with either party, then I can still register, I just can't CHANGE parties, is this right?

correct

TurtleBurger

11-09-2007, 07:51 AM

DealzOnWheelz

11-09-2007, 08:01 AM

Can't new NYC voters still register? You just can't change party affiliation now if you are already registered.

that raises something very big;

many of you college students that are registered to vote and are still registered to vote in your hometown but are going to school in a different state need to do one of the following things...

A) make sure you get your ass(pardon my french) home on election day

or B) actually register in the state where you goto school

the only other thing would be absentee ballots but I'm not to knowledgable about how they work or even if they work for people that still are in the US

AlexMerced

11-09-2007, 08:02 AM

Voting Immoral, to me voting is equating with expressing opinion, and expressing opinion being immoral doesn't compute, but I'd love to hear the argument for that.

I do think voting in something you don't believe in immoral, but I believe in Ron Paul, and probably wouldn't be voting any other candidate.

I think that's what makes him such an X factor. People like us.

still... hard to think of an argument for voting as immoral...

MsDoodahs

11-09-2007, 08:10 AM

I'm one of those that generally believes that voting is immoral. I have registered Republican and I will vote for Ron Paul in the primaries, but it was actually a very difficult decision. I would never judge those who made the decision not to vote.

Add me to the list of nonvoters. I have not yet registered, but intend to do so.

I have struggled with the decision, and still do at times.

TruckinMike

11-09-2007, 08:11 AM

This thread needs to be erased!
Of course we know we'll vote... but they don't need to know that! Let them think that we will not show up... in fact spread the rumor... that we won't. We don't need the competition:D

TruckinMike

a_european

11-09-2007, 08:15 AM

johngr

11-09-2007, 08:15 AM

alien

11-09-2007, 08:17 AM

That's the stupidest thing I've heard on this forum yet. I can understand if someone missed the deadline but we are not doing all this for nothing. We have a chance to make it better. These people that will not vote on principle and would rather continue to have freedoms repealed just boggles ones mind. Kind of ironic - "I won't vote because I don't beleive in the system so lets make it worse by doing nothing."

Zarxrax

11-09-2007, 08:20 AM

Note that i could be described as a mini-anarchist (state as a monopole to enforce property rights) , so anarchists please correct me if i write something wrong.

Why voting is immoral:
By voting you send a message to the state that you approve the system and it should do crimes in your name. You choose a leader for you, but also enforce him on others.

The big issue i think is if fighting the state with its own established tools can be justified.

This seems completely illogical to me.
Do you pay taxes? Your tax dollars are used to support this system of tyranny, and even fund these elections. The government does not exist without funding. Funding comes through taxes. Voting does not send a message that you approve of government, it voices your opinion on how the government should be run. The only way to lower/eliminate taxes is by voting. Thus, if you are opposed to supporting the government, you must vote.

QED.

a_european

11-09-2007, 08:39 AM

Zarxrax , i think thats a very good point. Voting doesn't legitimize the government, its legitimizing itself. Its just asking your opinion to make you feel better.
Maybe it can be compared to a robber, asking you to give him either 100 or 1000 bucks. Do you say in this situation: "No, you decide" ?

shadowhooch

11-09-2007, 08:55 AM

I think it makes total sense that so many Ron Paul supporters are willing to give them their cold hard cash but not bother wasting their time and voting for him in the Primaries.:rolleyes:

(yes, this is sarcasm)

huchahucha

11-09-2007, 09:36 AM

I subscribe to the philosophy of voting by not voting. I have already changed my party affiliation from Independent to Republican and I will be voting for RP in the primaries. However, if he does not make it to the general election I will still vote by showing up to the polls and leaving the Presidential portion of my ballot blank. Statistically my vote will count, but will be a vote against both candidates.

ppc1040

11-09-2007, 09:44 AM

I've always been a principled non-voter. Please understand that to say "OMG, how could you spend your time and money supporting Ron Paul and not vote" is non-responsive to the claim of the principled non-voter. The claim is a entirely a moral one, not a pragmatic one, and the response must be in kind.

Thoreau said it more eloquently than anyone ever has. Voting doesn't change anything, and never really has. In fact, the votes have always been the last thing to change. That is to say, actual change has always preceded the change in voting.

Take, for example, the Civil Rights movement. The Civil Rights Act was simply the postscript to the Civil Rights movement. The change happened in the hearts and minds of white Americans when they were confronted with the struggle for civil rights on the nightly news; when they saw the horrific images of peaceful marchers being bowled over by fire hoses, for example. That change in the hearts and minds of voters eventually allowed the Act to be passed, but the meaningful change had already occurred. To point to the Act as the vehicle of change, in my opinion, soils the entire civil rights movement.

All that being said, I will be voting for in an election the first time in my life, and that vote is going to Ron Paul. Perhaps it is just cognitive dissonance on my part. I've justified it thusly: I've always actively not voted because there has never been a viable candidate that I have been able to envision as my leader. However, I comfortable with Ron Paul being my president.

MsDoodahs

11-09-2007, 09:51 AM

I've justified it thusly: I've always actively not voted because there has never been a viable candidate that I have been able to envision as my leader. However, I comfortable with Ron Paul being my president.

That is a great help to me personally. Thank you. :)

jake

11-09-2007, 09:53 AM

Ron Paul supports will turn out at >90%

tttar

11-09-2007, 10:11 AM

tttar

11-09-2007, 10:19 AM

[QUOTE=ppc1040;381628]I've always been a principled non-voter. Please understand that to say "OMG, how could you spend your time and money supporting Ron Paul and not vote" is non-responsive to the claim of the principled non-voter. The claim is a entirely a moral one, not a pragmatic one, and the response must be in kind.

I'm sorry I must be too thick to understand how your voting for a good candidate could possibly make things worse rather than better, but do appreciate you sacrificially sullying your principles, just this once.

My answer to what I think you said would be that change doesn't just happen in one predictable way. I would NEVER suggest voting for a scumbag as a matter of strategy, and if they were all scumbags, I believe you shouldn't vote, either. But there's practically ALWAYS been someone worth writing in, who would have appreciated your support in the past.

tttar

11-09-2007, 10:25 AM

If less than 80% of this forum doesn't vote in the primaries, we failed.

Yea, it looks as if our letter-writing campaigns should be directed at our own "supporters".

tttar

11-09-2007, 10:38 AM

Add me to the list of nonvoters. I have not yet registered, but intend to do so.

I have struggled with the decision, and still do at times.

Ok, you're not voting - just what is your moral "struggle"?

I've been a libertarian for many years, and until I read that article I quoted, I'd never heard of such a thing as not voting for a good candidate for reasons of "conscience".

Do you think you're somehow leading by example? I don't think anyone even gets it - it seems akin to privately slashing your wrists in "protest", having people find your body, and having everyone say that you were some sort of nut no one could ever figure out.

Your effect on society, and its memory of you, will be zero.

werdd

11-09-2007, 11:13 AM

Alot of people only vote in the "real" election, and they are usually voting against someone. We can win this thing, if everyone who can vote turns out 100%, of course more supporters is great.

MsDoodahs

11-09-2007, 11:33 AM

Ok, you're not voting - just what is your moral "struggle"?

If I don't vote, I don't have one. The struggle exists because I am registering to vote for Dr. Paul. :)

I've been a libertarian for many years, and until I read that article I quoted, I'd never heard of such a thing as not voting for a good candidate for reasons of "conscience".

http://www.wendymcelroy.com/dissent/index.html

Do you think you're somehow leading by example? I don't think anyone even gets it - it seems akin to privately slashing your wrists in "protest", having people find your body, and having everyone say that you were some sort of nut no one could ever figure out.

Your effect on society, and its memory of you, will be zero.

And your point is ??? That the only way an individual leaves a mark on society is through the political process? :rolleyes:

tttar

11-10-2007, 11:38 AM

And your point is ??? That the only way an individual leaves a mark on society is through the political process? :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

No, my point was that you believe the only way an individual leaves a mark on society is OUTSIDE the political process. The political process is one of many ways, I think. Why exclude anything?

I saw the site, might get the book, read the "I wouldn't vote against Hitler, but I'd shoot him" essay, but just don't get it.

You guys could have written in *somebody* who thought like you all these years. It would have lessened all the snickering about how such principled people are all alone and just wasting their time. If we all thought like you did, Ron Paul would be laughed off the air.

Wendy McElroy agonizes that "Voting for or against Hitler would only strengthen the institutional framework that produced him".

So she believes that voting FOR Ron Paul would strengthen his opposition? Then why are they doing everything they can to fight him?

They must not know what's bad for them, she seems to be claiming.

I'm guessing the anarchists' vision of victory involves the state somehow collapsing under its own weight, since they don't want to change it.

That seems very risky to me, to say the least, and I don't see some sort of anarchist paradise emerging at the other end. A mob rule is more like it, since most of the mob will never read anything outlining your positions, let alone be motivated by them.

If Ron Paul wins, I think it will be by a razor-thin margin, because he can only overcome the odds by having a much higher turnout than the others.

I guess he's got you convinced, and hope you're not the only one.

Goldwater Conservative

11-10-2007, 11:43 AM

Yeah, I think this is one of the reasons the polls numbers are unreliable (aside from my problems with polling that go back even before Paul's candidacy). Paul's supporters will probably have the highest percentage turnout, and are definitely more willing to brave cold and snow to vote for him. However, some of the others will fare better with people who make their decision at the last minute. I think it'll shake out to be a net positive for Paul.