Operation Game Theory: Contigency Plan to Takeover the Republican Party

[ProIndividual]

When/if Ron Paul does not get the nomination we should as RP supporters engage Operation Game Theory:

We can make the Republicans lose every election even if we can't win them. We have enough numbers to be able to swing these close elections over and over again away from their Party. If we do not get our candidate (most of us agree the only candidate worth a crap, considering the rest will not even attempt to return us to Constitutional government regardless of their sophistic speeches), then they won't either. If we do this again (we already did it to McCain without even realizing what we were doing) their base (which is only concerned with winning) will have to face us down and meet our demands eventually. Here is how it works:

You can either vote Third Party, which swings one vote away from Republicans:

-1 Repub vote, +1 Third Party, 0 Dem Party

OR you can do what I'll do barring a RP Third Party run; hold your nose and vote Democrat which swings TWO votes (double) away from the Repubs:

-1 Repub vote, 0 Thrid Party, +1 Dem Party

Notice the Party that can likely win is the Dems, not the Third Party. So you take Repubs from -1 and Dems 0, to Repubs -1 Dems +1! This means every other Republican will have HALF the voting strength we do. If there are 10 of us who do this, it will take 20 Repubs to cancel out our votes and just break even!

Using this concept, we can force them into decisions later...like choosing whoever we say as their nominee or face certain defeat. They vote for Romney because the fools want to win more than fix this country. They also do it because they take Party over principles.

We have no such barriers, and that is our strength.

It's going to soon, unfortunately, be time to declare war on this Republican Party, and take it over by force (I mean nonviolently, of course). I don't know about you, but I'm tired of asking nicely and trying to educate them...they are too dense apprarently and aren't nearly reasonable enough. The math is on OUR side.

All it takes for a revolution to succeed is a loud and determined minority, not a large majority. It turns out, the revolution must be first taken to the Party level, and then after the takeover we can take it to the Presidency and Congress en masse as we always originally intended. Otherwise our success will be too limited to stop their fascist advance (and by "their" I mean both of these fascist Parties).

So who agrees? Disagrees? Remember, you can choose either strategy in the absence of a Ron Paul Third Party run...voting Third Party or voting Obama for maximum power swing.

One last detail...if you vote Obama make it known and why you're doing it. Anger them if you must, but make it clear we're taking over and we're the reason their going to lose until we do.

This will also be posted on other forums where they have Ron Paul sections and threads. If anyone would like to take a poll, feel free. Repost as needed.

[cjm]

If one votes Dem, how does the Republican party determine that these are protest votes and not simply support for the Democrat platform? If one votes LP or Constitution party, it's likely that they were drawn to the platform and one can measure exactly how many votes went to small government candidates. Your suggestion has a greater effect on the margin of loss, but it doesn't give a clear indication why there is a loss.

[Bosco Warden]

Interesting idea, and I would actually agree the lesser of two evils right now are on the left, I couldnt vote for any of the GOP "chosen" candidates. I am not opposed to voting LP or Constitution party either.

I am more in favor of letting these states know that we, as RP supporters will not purchase anything from that state, I am a big fan of financial pressure.


I think if we can get names of the people in charge also would be helpful, I just know there is voter fraud going on. I am sure something will turn up. The whole Santorum thing just doesnt make any sense.

[Echoes]

I'll help in anyway (short of voting Dem) to trash the GOP after what they unleashed on Ron the last few weeks.

[Ytrebil]

Or Plan C, do what I did in 2008...write in Ron Paul.

[osan]

It is a decent idea, but it will only work in terms of result and not message. We can keep such and such from winning, but there are no labels to tell the GOP that "we" were responsible for the outcome. "We" can claim responsibility and "they" can ignore us.

But if, for example, we vote for RP by the millions either as an independent, LP, or even as a write-in, then the message can be loud and clear.

Whether any of this really makes any difference... I can no longer say.

[CaptainAmerica]

just dont vote,duh

[Endgame]

A GOP win this election season will be worse than an Obama win. The policy results will be the same. We'll see war with Iran, a police state crackdown, etc. The only difference is, the right wing will be even more on board with it.

[ProIndividual]

If one votes Dem, how does the Republican party determine that these are protest votes and not simply support for the Democrat platform? If one votes LP or Constitution party, it's likely that they were drawn to the platform and one can measure exactly how many votes went to small government candidates. Your suggestion has a greater effect on the margin of loss, but it doesn't give a clear indication why there is a loss.

Unless we tell them what we're doing, as I am suggesting. Don't simply vote Dem...vote Dem AFTER telling every Republican you can that you're doing so. Then cheer when they lose, if you want. The percentages of the electorate is the evidence. We represent X percentage. If right-leaning Third Parties get Y votes, and the Dems win by Z percenatage, and Y < X, then it's easily deduced that Z contains the rest of the missing X votes.

The trick is telling them what we're doing.

And if you're not confortable it's okay, but then vote anything BUT Republican.

[xFiFtyOnE]

I will never vote Democrat, can promise you that. I might vote third party depending on who is running.

[ProIndividual]

It is a decent idea, but it will only work in terms of result and not message. We can keep such and such from winning, but there are no labels to tell the GOP that "we" were responsible for the outcome. "We" can claim responsibility and "they" can ignore us.

I agree somewhat, but then make them lose again, and again, and again...and again. Eventually they'll submit. It's game theory math, they don't have another out. The whole point of game theory is to force the hand of your opponent by limiting their choices. This way, we effectively limit their choices to our candidates or defeat. They are stupid, but not that stupid. Enough defeats at our hands and they'll realize, we're taking over. The trick is solidarity among us. If we vote Republican too overwhelmingly as RP supporters, this all goes to hell and we lose any bargaining power under game theory. As someone who uses game theory for a living I can tell you, that will destroy all progress we've made. We'll be their peons.

[ProIndividual]

just dont vote,duh

The 2nd worst thing you can do. Then, because so many people never vote, you will never be able to be counted. This will ensure you cannot be traced to the effort to make Republicans lose. And that is the goal if the Ron Paul cannot win.

The worst thing you can do is vote Republican. You can write in RP, but I think that's illegal in a couple of States and won't get counted.

[xFiFtyOnE]

The Republican Party will kill itself in the end. Why bother? It is allready the smaller of the two parties and they chase away young voters or anyone who thinks outside the box. Sounds like it is signing its own death warrant.

[Sematary]

Well, you could accomplish exactly the SAME thing and send a MUCH CLEARER message and ONLY vote for Ron Paul in 2012.

[ProIndividual]

I will never vote Democrat, can promise you that. I might vote third party depending on who is running.

That's fine...just don't vote Republican. Any vote to the Republican destroys any ability we have to negotiate under game theory mathematics.

Voting Dem is exploitive strategy (maximum expected value, or +EV), voting 3rd Party is optimal strategy (unexploitable), and voting Republican is negative expected value (-EV). It's really that simple. You can add EV to the cause of liberty, decrease EV to the cause of liberty, or simply make the cause of liberty unexploitable without adding or negating EV.

[realtonygoodwin]

I will vote for whatever candidate is on the ballot that is closest to my beliefs. Right now, that person is Ron Paul. I imagine, if he doesn't get nominated, it will be the LP, but only if they choose a pro-life candidate, or the CP.

[Sematary]

I will vote for whatever candidate is on the ballot that is closest to my beliefs. Right now, that person is Ron Paul. I imagine, if he doesn't get nominated, it will be the LP, but only if they choose a pro-life candidate, or the CP.

Or you could simply write in RON PAUL. It's an easy concept

[ProIndividual]

The Republican Party will kill itself in the end. Why bother? It is allready the smaller of the two parties and they chase away young voters or anyone who thinks outside the box. Sounds like it is signing its own death warrant.

The same argument can be made for our government in general..but I'm of the opinion it should be attempted to be saved. Besides, the weaker their Party gets the more likely we are to succeed in taking it over.


I will vote for whatever candidate is on the ballot that is closest to my beliefs. Right now, that person is Ron Paul. I imagine, if he doesn't get nominated, it will be the LP, but only if they choose a pro-life candidate, or the CP.

Do what you want, I can't (and wouldn't) force you to do anything. But just know, our cause it hurt or helped in this order:

Worst: Vote Republican

2nd Worst: Don't Vote

Neutral: Vote 3rd Party

2nd Best: Vote Ron Paul on a write-in (assumes this is legal in your State and he is not a 3rd Party candidate)

Best: Vote DemoCrip in order to maximize our ability to make Republicans lose

Any of the stratgies from Neutral to Best help the cause of liberty. In the case of Worst, you hurt the cause of liberty.

And remember, this is a longterm strategy. We are sacrificing short term gain (like the difference between a RepubliBlood and a DemoCrip now) for longterm gains that far exceed those small gains in total. It may seem counter intuitive that voting for Obama (ugh, it sucks) is helping the cause of liberty, but if we inform Republicans we are doing it to make them lose, then it achieves a step in negotiation that should eventually lead to us having the trump cards. It's deductively logical, and in fact provable mathematically. Believe me, I wish they'd just nominate Ron Paul...but if they won't, do whatever is in your conscience ranging from Neutral to Best and we'll advance our cause. Just be sure to tell them what we're doing. Don't vote Obama or Third Party, or even write-in, without letting RepubliBloods know "we're doing this to ensure you lose". That's how we end up limiting their choices to our candidates or defeat.

[Sematary]

Only one thing helps the cause of liberty - voting for Ron Paul, no matter what, and sending a CLEAR message to the gop establishment that they WILL side with us, or their party will never be in power again.

[Jingles]

Best: Vote DemoCrip in order to maximize our ability to make Republicans lose

I'd say the worst is vote for Democrat or Republican. We don't want them to think they have support. Third party or not voting are really the only options if there isn't a pro-liberty candidate running in one of the "two" parties.

Our goal is to promote/defend liberty not try defeat one of the parties of the "two" party system. It doesn't matter what political party we are trying to promote liberty through as long as we are promoting liberty and voting on our principles. Voting just as "revenge" isn't going to help promote liberty.

[ProIndividual]

Only one thing helps the cause of liberty - voting for Ron Paul, no matter what, and sending a CLEAR message to the gop establishment that they WILL side with us, or their party will never be in power again.

That's just not the case. In terms of Ev, math-wise, the best thing you can do is vote DemoCrip and cause your single vote to have the value of 2 votes, as I demonstrated in the OP. It will take two RepubliBlood votes to cancel out your one vote. But you can of course vote for Ron Paul IF that's legal in your State. Some States won't even count that vote, thereby making it equal to the 2nd Worst option; not voting at all. But I do think it's fine option as long as the vote gets counted. Also I think voting 3rd Party, like Gary Johnson, is a fine option (although not as good as voting Ron Paul as long as it's counted).

I'm just speaking in terms of math here...what gives us the most negotiation leverage under game theory. The thing that give us maximum value is ensuring the RepliBloods lose, and this is most likely with votes to DemoCrips (but only if we tell the RepubliBlods first). In all cases of Neutral through Best scenarios, the stratgey requires our intentions being known. We need to let them know, politely if possible, what we are doing.

[Czolgosz]

Your vote must not be for a Machine candidate, if you're protesting.

[realtonygoodwin]

Or you could simply write in RON PAUL. It's an easy concept


It is an easy concept, but I won't do it.

[Sematary]

It is an easy concept, but I won't do it.

Isn't that who you support? Then why wouldn't you do it?
I can't use my vote on someone who doesn't believe that liberty is our most pressing need and there is only one man who believes THAT

[WIRP]

Vote Gary Johnson. It stays true to the message, while sowing seeds for future political action.

[realtonygoodwin]

I support Ron Paul because he is the candidate that is closest to my views. If he is not running, I will support the candidate who is running that is closest to my views.

And because write in votes don't count if they are not on the list.

[1000-points-of-fright]

Isn't that who you support? Then why wouldn't you do it?

Because he understands the write-in laws.

[ProIndividual]

I'd say the worst is vote for Democrat or Republican.

Not mathgematically as I've explained. Republican has the worst EV, voting Democrat has the best EV. The math isn't up for debate. But I understand why it's counter intuitive.


We don't want them to think they have support.

It doesn't matter if the Dems think they have support. This isn't variable in the negotiation. We're negotiating with the Republicans. The goal is to make the Republicans lose, and to know we're responsible for it. Whatever maximizes that ability is the only relevant variable. Otherwise we just wouldn't vote at all...that ensures they know they have no support.


Third party or not voting are really the only options if there isn't a pro-liberty candidate running in one of the "two" parties.

Not voting, as I've explained is the 2nd worst choice, as it cannot be counted as part of our negotiation. If voting 3rd Party is your personal ethical choice, fine, no problem...but math-wise it is NOT the only option. The options are listed in this thread from OP to this post in my posts.


Our goal is to promote/defend liberty not try defeat one of the parties of the "two" party system.

The two are the same goal right now. We cannot win an election in the Party we need to unless we win a negotiation...namely they cannot win without us. Otherwise we advance nothing. To promote/defend we need office. This education campaign is only going so far...they aren't listening. Only so many will open their minds, the rest must be brought around by limiting their choices mathematically. This how I make a living playing poker, trust me game theory works. You limit your opponents choices in the negotiation and then exploit their weknesses. The Republicans only weakness right now is that we can make them lose (since we may not be able to win with them).

So the goal of promoting/defending liberty effectively dies/stagnates if we don't use game theory to take over the Party via a sound negotiation strategy. I've been talking about this for a long time going back at least a year on Campaign for Liberty. Not many people seem to understand game theory is the problem. But it is useful...we use it set up our launch sequences for nukes to avoid being exploitable and ensure mutaully assured destruction. That's another metaphor for what we're doing here. We're showing the nuclear armed Republicans we too have a nuke and are not afraid to use it in such a way that keeps us from being exploited, thereby forcing decisions the Repubs do not want to make (lose or nominate our candidates). Had we of employed this strategy sooner we would of eliminated the other candidates as options for the rational members of the electorate a long time ago (as they have attempted to eliminate Paul using the same strategy if you notice). Another good analogy is guns. I 've deatiled both guns and nukes according to game theory here in a previous blog:

Let a gambler break down knives, gun ownership, and nuclear weapons game theoretically P.1

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?388-Let-a-gambler-break-down-knives-gun-ownership-and-nuclear-weapons-game-theoretically-P.1

Let a gambler break down knives, gun ownership, and nuclear weapons game theoretically P.2

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?389-Let-a-gambler-break-down-knives-gun-ownership-and-nuclear-weapons-game-theoretically-P.2


It doesn't matter what political party we are trying to promote liberty through as long as we are promoting liberty and voting on our principles.

I agree...except we picked a Party, so now it's time to take it over. If we keep switching Parties (you can vote 3rd Party as I've said) that we're trying to take over we're never going to take over any of them. We just don't have enough numbers to do that. We have the Republicans where we can actually take over the negotiation if we just employ the strategy. They cannot win. It's mathematically impossible without commiting suicide.If they do that, then the LP replaces them and all the better! Again, they cannot win.


Voting just as "revenge" isn't going to help promote liberty.

I never said it was out of revenge. It's a strategy. Reread the whole thread please. Your adding in some emotional argument I never made (strawman) in order to discount the factual mathematical possibilities. This isn't about revenge, it's about wining and advancing our cause. If you don't understand the math it's okay, not many people do...but you can study it and come to realize I'm absolutely right.

[jmdrake]

Or we could do this time what Ron Paul asked us to do in 2008 and take over the local party machinery. We won some small victories there, but it was hit and miss. Romney has been helped mightily by the party machinery.

[ONUV]

no one but paul?

[Bosco Warden]

I realize this is a premature thread in terms of what to do if, so early in an election.


But at the same time of the GOP, who insists on promoting just a different liberal to run against Obama, then the choice isnt going to be hard for me. Obama has been a do nothing POTUS as far as I am concerned, surely nothing so far is as bad as Bush ever did, its just more of the same.

I am 100% positive we live in a two party, one ideology country, so it just doesnt matter for me, I am not rich, and I don't see anyone anymore of a threat from Obama then I do Romney, or whoever. The conversation has already changed from issue's to personalities, the media dictates the conversation, until we somehow can force the discussion back to issues, then the message of RP isnt going to be heard either way. We can't let the conversation be on personalities, it has to be issues.

But with this looming war with Iran, I think it might get easier if Israel dont attack us first to justify their war.

[ProIndividual]

AND we could do this time what Ron Paul asked us to do in 2008 and take over the local party machinery. We won some small victories there, but it was hit and miss. Romney has been helped mightily by the party machinery.

FYP.

The bolded AND instead of "or" is fine. I'm all for local politics, but that isn't super-useful with national elections. Afterall, that damned Supremacy Clause screws that up.

[Jingles]

Not mathgematically as I've explained. Republican has the worst EV, voting Democrat has the best EV. The math isn't up for debate. But I understand why it's counter intuitive.



It doesn't matter if the Dems think they have support. This isn't variable in the negotiation. We're negotiating with the Republicans. The goal is to make the Republicans lose, and to know we're responsible for it. Whatever maximizes that ability is the only relevant variable. Otherwise we just wouldn't vote at all...that ensures they know they have no support.



Not voting, as I've explained is the 2nd worst choice, as it cannot be counted as part of our negotiation. If voting 3rd Party is your personal ethical choice, fine, no problem...but math-wise it is NOT the only option. The options are listed in this thread from OP to this post in my posts.



The two are the same goal right now. We cannot win an election in the Party we need to unless we win a negotiation...namely they cannot win without us. Otherwise we advance nothing. To promote/defend we need office. This education campaign is only going so far...they aren't listening. Only so many will open their minds, the rest must be brought around by limiting their choices mathematically. This how I make a living playing poker, trust me game theory works. You limit your opponents choices in the negotiation and then exploit their weknesses. The Republicans only weakness right now is that we can make them lose (since we may not be able to win with them).

So the goal of promoting/defending liberty effectively dies/stagnates if we don't use game theory to take over the Party via a sound negotiation strategy. I've been talking about this for a long time going back at least a year on Campaign for Liberty. Not many people seem to understand game theory is the problem. But it is useful...we use it set up our launch sequences for nukes to avoid being exploitable and ensure mutaully assured destruction. That's another metaphor for what we're doing here. We're showing the nuclear armed Republicans we too have a nuke and are not afraid to use it in such a way that keeps us from being exploited, thereby forcing decisions the Repubs do not want to make (lose or nominate our candidates). Had we of employed this strategy sooner we would of eliminated the other candidates as options for the rational members of the electorate a long time ago (as they have attempted to eliminate Paul using the same strategy if you notice). Another good analogy is guns. I 've deatiled both guns and nukes according to game theory here in a previous blog:

Let a gambler break down knives, gun ownership, and nuclear weapons game theoretically P.1

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?388-Let-a-gambler-break-down-knives-gun-ownership-and-nuclear-weapons-game-theoretically-P.1

Let a gambler break down knives, gun ownership, and nuclear weapons game theoretically P.2

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?389-Let-a-gambler-break-down-knives-gun-ownership-and-nuclear-weapons-game-theoretically-P.2



I agree...except we picked a Party, so now it's time to take it over. If we keep switching Parties (you can vote 3rd Party as I've said) that we're trying to take over we're never going to take over any of them. We just don't have enough numbers to do that. We have the Republicans where we can actually take over the negotiation if we just employ the strategy. They cannot win. It's mathematically impossible without commiting suicide.If they do that, then the LP replaces them and all the better! Again, they cannot win.



I never said it was out of revenge. It's a strategy. Reread the whole thread please. Your adding in some emotional argument I never made (strawman) in order to discount the factual mathematical possibilities. This isn't about revenge, it's about wining and advancing our cause. If you don't understand the math it's okay, not many people do...but you can study it and come to realize I'm absolutely right.

My point essentially is just the fact that I have extreme moral qualms about voting for a candidate that doesn't believe in civil liberties, sound money, free markets, a non-interventionist foreign policy, etc... Regardless of the math I don't think I could morally justify it.

[Sematary]

My point essentially is just the fact that I have extreme moral qualms about voting for a candidate that doesn't believe in civil liberties, sound money, free markets, a non-interventionist foreign policy, etc... Regardless of the math I don't think I could morally justify it.

I'm with you. There is only one man I can vote for. If I was in a state where I couldn't write his name in (if he's not the nominee) then I would definitely vote Libertarian. Either way - just a protest vote and a way to let the Republican party know that we are not going away and if they expect to ever win another presidential election, they had better start behaving like goddam Republicans

[Hospitaller]

If a republican wins the most likely outcome will be a 2020 run for Rand, not 2016!

I would much rather an Obama second term so we have another republican primary in 4 years.

[VBRonPaulFan]

voting republican already is the lesser of two evils. write in candidates when there is no real choice, and be active in local elections as much as possible to get liberty minded folks in positions where they can start to make a difference.

[QueenB4Liberty]

Or Plan C, do what I did in 2008...write in Ron Paul.

Same here. Although I didn't write in in 2008. :( I voted for Nader, but still. :p If I bother voting at all, it's for no one but Paul! :)

[QueenB4Liberty]

If a republican wins the most likely outcome will be a 2020 run for Rand, not 2016!

I would much rather an Obama second term so we have another republican primary in 4 years.

Yeah that's a good point, I didn't even think about that.

[Elwar]

Dems feel that they lost in 2000 because of Nader.

The result was being pissed at Nader and blaming his supporters for every bad thing Bush did.

Question is...did they adopt Nader's platform?

[Sematary]

Dems feel that they lost in 2000 because of Nader.

The result was being pissed at Nader and blaming his supporters for every bad thing Bush did.

Question is...did they adopt Nader's platform?

We are far stronger than anything Ralph Nader could have hoped for.

[The Free Hornet]

I never said it was out of revenge. It's a strategy. Reread the whole thread please. Your adding in some emotional argument I never made (strawman) in order to discount the factual mathematical possibilities. This isn't about revenge, it's about wining and advancing our cause. If you don't understand the math it's okay, not many people do...but you can study it and come to realize I'm absolutely right.

I get you and you are correct. Cancel out a neocon vote and make the Republican redcoats pay for their treachery against the constitution. They are just pawns of the MIC/Fed/TBTB/DC machine. Romney or Obama makes no difference to them. Only Obama gives us a shot of having a Congress that fights back or another voter revolt in 2014. It is the upper-middle class and Suburban Republicans that need to have their behavior corrected. They aren't making millions off of the MIC but are its primary base of support. They fear Obama the way Bill Kristol fears Iran. It is irrational in proportion to the actual threat.

Good luck teaching us all Game Theory:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO0cvqT1tAE

[Travlyr]

I support Ron Paul because he is the candidate that is closest to my views. If he is not running, I will support the candidate who is running that is closest to my views.

And because write in votes don't count if they are not on the list.

With all due respect Mr. Goodwin, I do not get your position. Ron Paul is a sound money (http://mises.org/books/goldpeace.pdf) guy who professes "A Foreign Policy of Freedom (http://mises.org/books/foreign_policy_freedom_paul.pdf)", enforce the Constitutional rule of law (http://constitution.org/constit_.htm), and an end to Socialism (http://mises.org/books/socialism/part1_ch2.aspx). Ron Paul is the only candidate promoting liberty, peace, and prosperity. I visit your blog to learn more about you, yet I do not understand your position.

How can you possibly support Ron Paul yet vote for a big government fiat money warmongering guy if Ron does not get on the ballot?

The philosophies are total opposites.

[ProIndividual]

If a republican wins the most likely outcome will be a 2020 run for Rand, not 2016!

I would much rather an Obama second term so we have another republican primary in 4 years.

This is fantastic point in terms of game theory. Bravo!

[ProIndividual]

Dems feel that they lost in 2000 because of Nader.

The result was being pissed at Nader and blaming his supporters for every bad thing Bush did.

Question is...did they adopt Nader's platform?

We're not trying to get them to agree and change the platform...we're trying to takeover the Party and make it so they can NEVER win again without us and who we say will be the candidate...essentially overthrowing and replacing the base. Then the platform will follow suit since they can't have a platform that run candidate after candidate opposed to the stated platform (or at least saying they're opposed to it, as politicians tend to say one thing and do another).

[ProIndividual]

A good explanation of game theory in a setting many of us can relate to (Nash Equilibriums and Governing Dynamics are a major aspect of game theory):


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CemLiSI5ox8

[AGRP]

We can make the Republicans lose....

That is what they want. If they wanted to win then they would select Ron Paul.

[ProIndividual]

THAT IS WHAT THEY WANT. IF THEY WANTED TO WIN THEN THEY WOULD ELECT RON PAUL.[/SIZE][/FONT]

If only that were true, this would be much simpler. They don't want to lose...they think we are irrelevant to losing or winning. I talk to them a lot on talk radio shows online. They don't think we can affect the race because they're in delusion that the whole world sees Obama as bad and neocon ideals as good, minus a pocket of socialist liberals who run some sort of conspiracy theory or something. They are out of touch with reality...hence their ethics and philosophy overall (or lack thereof).

[Feeding the Abscess]

I completely support this idea. Extra effective if we're able to find liberty democrats to run in some districts as a part of this strategy.

[John F Kennedy III]

My plan is to actively campaign for Obama and write in Paul.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Has everyone forgot about the Americans Elect crap TPTB are going to try to pull to block a 3rd party vote?

[The_Ruffneck]

vote 3rd party before democrat , democrats are basically the same as the republican party now
don't forget Obamas top donors = Golman Sachs , BoA , Morgan Stanley , Citi etc same as Mittens

[osan]

That is what they want. If they wanted to win then they would select Ron Paul.

Not quite. They want to win, but are willing to cede to the democrats if Ron cannot be made to go away.

The apparently adversarial reliationship between republicrat and demopublican is just that: apparent. Anyone thinking these two are different at the core is fooling himself. We are in deep shit, but so long as we can all maintain nominally superficial normalcy, we still have some marginal chance of changing things at a deeper level.... at least in theory.

The problem, of course, lies in control of the economic infrastructure. Being very centrally controlled by hostile hands (Fed Res), if real change threatens, there is nothing to stop the Federal Reserve from stabbing the economy in the eye. The ensuing distress will almost certainly succeed in redirecting focus and the threat will be tidily dissipated. The American people are sick and tired of what has happened. Unfortunately, they should have been so a few decades ago. It may be too little too late. Fight on, but expect things to get unpleasant if perchance things start to move against the orthodoxy. They will not sit idly by and allow it.

[ProIndividual]

vote 3rd party before democrat , democrats are basically the same as the republican party now
don't forget Obamas top donors = Golman Sachs , BoA , Morgan Stanley , Citi etc same as Mittens

Right...I agree, I'm no fan of Democrats. This isn't about helping Democrats to win, it's about making Republicans lose. The best way to do that, mathematically, is to vote Obama (in the absence of Ron Paul on a 3rd Party ticket).

Again, you can do anything except vote Republican, and we'd prefer if you didn't abstain from voting altogether (so our efforts can be quantified). Do what your conscience dictates...but if you can put emotion aside, it's best to vote Obama and torpedo the Republican Party. We need to keep up that torpedo attack until they relent and choose our candidates as their nominees. They either relent, or they die as a Party and we replace them as a separate Party. They have no out; they have to allow us to become their base, or face certain destruction.

This is our nuclear option...mutually assured destruction. However, in our case, the destruction we suffer is already promised (no liberty-minded candidate)...so we have nothing to lose and everything to gain. We simply force the Republican Party into a no-win siuation where their only choices are win with us or lose without us. Voting for Obama just maximizes our per vote expectation mathematically in this effort. It's definately NOT about making Obama win.

PS. I saw someone say they planned on campaigning for Obama but voting Ron Paul or 3rd Party...this is also an acceptable alternative. I'd rank it's EV above simply voting 3rd Party (because of how many votes you could potentially influence) and rank it's EV below voting for Obama (an assured EV of +2). So kudos to you, and I definately like this alternate plan.

[RickBelmont]

Voting for Obama makes no sense, and I am sure that maintaining that position will be used as fodder for the RINO's.

As in:
"Paul supporters are saying they will vote Democrat"

It is also very clear that this is what Dems want.

I think people are forgetting that protest votes really aren't all that impactful. The main reason for this is that the MSM would simply not report it as such, and the GOP would spin it as "proof" that most of Ron Paul's supporters were Democrats. It also assumes that the GOP would learn some type of lesson, which they will not.

Realistically, things are broken and Democrats bring things to a breaking point much quicker (in the public eye) than do RINO's. The only dark benefit to an Obama victory is that his "party" would unfurl the authoritarian banner in a more obvious manner, making it absolutely clear to the apathetic spurring response. I think the GOP is better at kicking the can down the road, and less prone to authoritarian arrogance. Take for example Dick Armey's rapid co-opting of the Tea Party, his stripping it of revolutionary rhetoric and turning it into a vote machine for RINO's.

No way I would ever vote for Obama, it is simply immoral. Justifying it seems contrary to the philosophy of what attracts people to Paul in the first place. Voting third party is much more quantifiable as a protest vote. The MSM would be happy to report it since they look for any opportunity to exploit a rift in the GOP marketing demographic.

If Ron Paul doesn't win, it really won't matter much anyway. Which could actually be a good thing, in the Velvet Revolution sense.

[Legend1104]

Or Plan C, do what I did in 2008...write in Ron Paul.

actually that is a pretty good idea. That would tell the other side for sure that we are Ron Paul people. everytime we oppose them, we write-in Ron Paul, even if he is not a candidate. Write-in Paul during the presidential election. Imagine if they saw 1,000,000 Ron Paul write-ins and Romney lost by less than 1 mil.

[Legend1104]

Also, if a rep. won, we would have to wait 8 years before we could run a liberty candidate again because he would probably get the nod to automatically get the nomination next time.

[mosquitobite]

Also, if a rep. won, we would have to wait 8 years before we could run a liberty candidate again because he would probably get the nod to automatically get the nomination next time.

Yep, and in 2016 the dems will probably put up Hillary. So it would be Romney vs Hillary then. :/

I am more and more resigned to just vote 3rd party.

[MikeStanart]

No matter what happens, the delegates we have need to join together to do as much change to the Republican Platform as possible.

[Pericles]

In my way of thinking a Democrat vote hurts us. The correct decision in case of RP not having the nomination is 3rd party.

Reasoning is thus: A Republican loss motivates a change in policy - The policy can be more like the Democrats in order to appeal to that vote, or the policy can be more liberty oriented, as that in where the Libertarian / Constitution Party vote is. Look at what they did after Perot got 19% of the vote in 1992 - the Republicans made big noise about taking on those issues in 1994 as theirs, all the while labeling Perot as a kook.

A bigger vote total for Democrats makes Republicans think that is where the votes are. A big vote total that shifts from Republican to Libertarian, gives them an indication of how big the potential of the liberty oriented vote there is and leads to a policy shift in our direction.

[mosquitobite]

In my way of thinking a Democrat vote hurts us. The correct decision in case of RP not having the nomination is 3rd party.
A bigger vote total for Democrats makes Republicans think that is where the votes are. A big vote total that shifts from Republican to Libertarian, gives them an indication of how big the potential of the liberty oriented vote there is and leads to a policy shift in our direction.

Agree.

If the democrat total is that much larger, the Republican party will just continue to move LEFT to gain those votes.

We have to be a large sum in the 3rd party column to send the right message, imo.

[ProIndividual]

Voting for Obama makes no sense, and I am sure that maintaining that position will be used as fodder for the RINO's.

As in:
"Paul supporters are saying they will vote Democrat"

It is also very clear that this is what Dems want.

I think people are forgetting that protest votes really aren't all that impactful. The main reason for this is that the MSM would simply not report it as such, and the GOP would spin it as "proof" that most of Ron Paul's supporters were Democrats. It also assumes that the GOP would learn some type of lesson, which they will not.

Realistically, things are broken and Democrats bring things to a breaking point much quicker (in the public eye) than do RINO's. The only dark benefit to an Obama victory is that his "party" would unfurl the authoritarian banner in a more obvious manner, making it absolutely clear to the apathetic spurring response. I think the GOP is better at kicking the can down the road, and less prone to authoritarian arrogance. Take for example Dick Armey's rapid co-opting of the Tea Party, his stripping it of revolutionary rhetoric and turning it into a vote machine for RINO's.

No way I would ever vote for Obama, it is simply immoral. Justifying it seems contrary to the philosophy of what attracts people to Paul in the first place. Voting third party is much more quantifiable as a protest vote. The MSM would be happy to report it since they look for any opportunity to exploit a rift in the GOP marketing demographic.

If Ron Paul doesn't win, it really won't matter much anyway. Which could actually be a good thing, in the Velvet Revolution sense.

Actually mathematically it makes the most sense.

Who cares what Dems want? It's about making the Republicans lose.

The impact of these votes is double when going to Dems. I've pointed this out pretty clearly. It's not a protest vote, per se, it's a strategy to win a zero-sum game. That's all an election is, a zero-sum game. Hence, I'm using game theory math to win it. What the MSM reports is irreleavant, as I've made it abundantly clear WE need to inform Republicans of what we're doing. What we are doing is destroying their chances to win EVER AGAIN if they refuse to choose our candidates. They don't need to "learn a lesson"...their Party dies and we replace it or they lose OVER and OVER again until they choose our candidates. Game theory is absolute on this.

If you think Republicans are less authoritarian please review the Bush Administration and the support for NDAA Gingrich and Romeny display. It's wishful thinking, honestly. They are both equally bad at statism. The goal must be NOT allowing Republicans to win...who wins is irrelavant to the strategy. It just so happens that unless we have a credible 3rd Party as a choice, the best decsion to cause a Republican loss is voting Democrat (it doubles per vote expectation mathematically).

It's not unethical (immoral) to vote Obama...in absolute terms. It's immoral to vote, really (statism depends on it). Even THAT is not an ethical absolute, however. If we are to assume a moral/ethical universal, then the immoral vote is one cast for Republicans IF/WHEN they don't nominate Ron Paul. Any vote for them will help them win without us, diminishing our power to negotiate within the Party. In game theory terms, this sets us back 4-12 years in the movement. The Republicans simply must lose if they don't nominate Ron Paul.

Three ways of voting are quantifiable...for Ron Paul as a write-in, voting for any 3rd Party, and by voting for Obama. Our numbers will be CLEARLY known by the end of the nomination process...we will simply be the quantity of Republican votes that went for Ron Paul. If that percentage is 20% (just making up a number here for the sake of example) of the Republican vote, then we represent 10% of the total electorate. If Obama wins by less than 10% (54.9% to 45.1%), and our votes show up as 3rd Party and write-ins and Obama votes in the 10% range combined (simply a bit of logic can derive what votes went where based on deduction) then we have swung the election.

Notice...if you vote Obama, it takes 2 Republicans to cancel your vote by casting their vote to the Republican candidate. If you vote write-in or 3rd Party it takes only one Republican to cancel out your single vote. Go back through the thread to review why if you're confused...simply look at my posts and you'll see the logical and math breakdowns (and link I provided for another topic shows how you can arrive at game theory strategies in a simple way for simple games).

I can only HOPE the MSM reports the rift we will create on the Right...but I don't expect it. But cool by me if they do...that's just more Republicans being made aware of the stratgey and that they CANNOT win without us, and WON'T win without us in the future, and definately will DIE as a Party if they keep up this fight against us and liberty in the future.

If you think we'll have a peaceful Revolution, I think that's also wishful thinking. At best it's an outside chance. I'd also say that violent revolution is COMPLETELY out of the question for me (I will never support it). So we have an outside shot at some "Velvet Revolution", a less outside chance of violence as the statism gets worse and government bankrupts and inflates currency, and a great chance to either takeover the Republican Party (or kill it and replace it) if we just WIN this game we're already in the middle of! We can win this game, and soon, if we simply vote 3rd Party, write-in Ron Paul (if it's legal to do so in your State), or vote for Obama. Voting Obama is best in terms of expectation...not morality/ethics, not in terms of one short term election, but in terms of the longterm cause of liberty overall.

And remember...if Rand wants to be President in 2016 a Republican CANNOT WIN. If a Republican wins we have to wait for Rand until 2020 or 2024. This, again, sets back the cause of liberty 8-12 years. That's 8 more years, maybe 12 more years, than it has to be given my presented alternative.

[ProIndividual]

No matter what happens, the delegates we have need to join together to do as much change to the Republican Platform as possible.

Don't be satisfied with this (although I agree it's something) because they have ignored the platform for the better part of a century. It's throwing a dog a bone.

[ProIndividual]

In my way of thinking a Democrat vote hurts us. The correct decision in case of RP not having the nomination is 3rd party.

Reasoning is thus: A Republican loss motivates a change in policy - The policy can be more like the Democrats in order to appeal to that vote, or the policy can be more liberty oriented, as that in where the Libertarian / Constitution Party vote is. Look at what they did after Perot got 19% of the vote in 1992 - the Republicans made big noise about taking on those issues in 1994 as theirs, all the while labeling Perot as a kook.

A bigger vote total for Democrats makes Republicans think that is where the votes are. A big vote total that shifts from Republican to Libertarian, gives them an indication of how big the potential of the liberty oriented vote there is and leads to a policy shift in our direction.

It's simply a matter of arithmetic to discover our votes went to Obama...and the best way to help the movemnet is to make Republicans lose...which I maximize by voting for a Democrat. In terms of math, the best way to make Republicans lose is to vote Dem, the best way to be counted is to vote for anything at all. It's easy to deduce where our votes went.

We shouldn't confuse our goals in the game. The game is to make the Republican lose so we can control the negotitation (who gets nominated later)...NOT to show them we vote Libertarian or Constitution Party while they win. We get NOWHERE if they win. So, do what your conscience dictates...but if you can put emotion aside, pull the lever for the Democrat. That is the most assured path to victory in the game.

We have to take over this Party by 2016 so we can run Rand and win...we only do that by making them LOSE in 2012 (otherwise Rand waits until 2020 at the earliest to run and get the nomination). If we cannot take it over, we can destory it and replace it. We essentially control the negotitation IF and ONLY IF the Republicans lose the election. We have NO POWER AT ALL if they win without us.

[ProIndividual]

Agree.

If the democrat total is that much larger, the Republican party will just continue to move LEFT to gain those votes.

We have to be a large sum in the 3rd party column to send the right message, imo.

No, they won't. It's simple math to figure out how many Ron Paul voters there were in the Primaries, and how many voted for the Democrats. It's a zero-sum game where mathematical deduction is ultra simple.

[ProIndividual]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7008/6712906277_4c09fc1f26_b.jpg

Okay, so as you can see, it's irrelevant to the game whether you vote, don't vote, vote Republican, vote Democrat, vote 3rd Party, or vote and write-in Ron Paul (whether campaigning for Obama or not) AS LONG AS REPUBLICANS LOSE.

This means the main goal of the game is to make Republicans lose, not to vote any particular way. This is the only rational way to view the game.

That being said, what way can we vote to give us the best chance of winning the game? Voting for Obama.

The valuation of bets are as follows, and for the following reasons (EV is estimated value):

Voting Republican : -2 EV

This is -2 EV because it will take 2 Democratic votes to cancel out your one vote (1 to erase it, and one to swing the election one vote to the Democrats; the Democrats being the most likely option to win).

Don't Vote : -1 EV

This is -1 EV as the vote cannot be quantified among the majority of Americans who also don't vote. The only way to be counted is to vote. Also, essentially once you do not vote but could of voted AT LEAST 3rd Party you have taken one vote away from our cause.

Vote Third Party : 0 EV

This is 0 EV because you take one vote from the Republicans but do not add one vote to the opposition most likely to beat them. Therefore, it is better than not voting and better than voting Republican, but not as good as voting for a more quantifiable "Ron Paul write-in", a more vote influential version like "Vote Ron Paul as a write-in, Vote 3rd Party, etc., BUT campaign for Obama", and definately not as good as voting for Obama. We'll discuss all the rest of those choices next.

Vote Ron Paul as a write-in (this assumes it's legal to do so in your State; CHECK that it is legal before doing this or your vote will NOT count and will be the same as "Don't Vote"!) : +1 EV

This is +1 EV because it clearly quantifies your vote and takes one vote away from Republicans. Although it doesn't add one vote to the best opposition to the Republicans (the Democrats), I believe it has more value because of it's ease of quantification. All types of the voting choices presented except "Don't Vote" are easily quantified...but this one is in-your-face, and therefore slightly better for the purposes of communication with non-liberty oriented Republicans. Remember, we must not only carry out the strategy presented but also must COMMUNICATE it to the rest of the Republicans we are engaged in the game with (the game is versus them, not the Democrats).

Write-in Ron Paul OR Vote 3rd Party BUT actively campaign for Obama : +1.5 EV

This choice was brought up by another poster and is a great idea. This is +1.5 EV because you not only remove one vote from Republicans but also have a chance to gain additional votes for our best choice (voting Obama). You get to vote emotionally (the irrational choice that is less than optimal strategy; in other words not voting for Obama) AND you get to swing a possible vote to Obama. Assuming a low estimate of 1 person being influenced to vote Obama who wouldn't of already for every 2 people in our cause doing this, we add .5 EV to the otherwise +1 EV for voting Ron Paul as a write-in...and since we're underestimating (I think our campaign abilities are better than average), I also add 1.5 EV for the usual 0 EV choice of voting Third Party alone. All in all, this means we will swing votes 1 to 1...or you must try and get no less than 1 more Obama vote that wouldn't of already voted for him for every person trying this voting choice strategy, on average. It's a solid alternative.

Vote for Obama : +2 EV

This is +2 EV because you take one vote that would of went to Republicans away from them (-1 EV Repubs, 0 EV Dems), and hands it to their opposition with the best chance to beat them, The Democrats (so now it's -1 EV Repubs, +1 EV Dems). This means what started out as +1 vote for Repubs ends up +1 for Dems. This means (THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART) that it takes 2 Repub votes to cancel out your one vote! They need one vote to equal and void it, and another vote to swing the vote total one vote in favor of the Republicans! This essentially turns your one vote into two votes. This is why it's labeled +2 EV. The only possible way to make it more advantageous to victory is to vote Obama AND campaign for Obama (something I don't expect of people). Think this through one last way....if we represent 10% of the entire national electorate (20% of the Republican Primary electorate, for the sake of simplicity) then we can swing the election the equivalent of 20%!

Obama: 50% of vote
Repub: 50% of vote

Assume that we all vote Republican in the above.

If we vote Repub it will take them to 50% and Obama will stay at 50%...BUT, if we take that 10% away from the Repubs (-10%, to 40%) and give it to Obama (taking him to 60%, a +10%), the Repubs are now trailing the election 40% to Obama's 60%. This is a 20% differential, or double our total numbers as 10% of the voting population.

After:

Obama: 60%
Repub: 40%

This is why the maximum EV move in this zero-sum game is to vote Obama. If you can act purely rationally, you'll do so. If you cannot, then vote your conscience...but for the sake of the cause of liberty DO NOT vote Republican! AND be sure to VOTE!

I would like to close by saying, "rational" isn't a word to be insulted by. It's a mathematical term. In a Prisoner's Dilemma the most obvious ethical/intuitive choice is not what results when the game is played to it's conclusion. The intuitive choice is to not snitch on your fellow prisoner, and to get the lowest penalty for the charge pending. Unfortunately Governing Dynamics do not function well here because the other prisoner must also follow this strategy and often he will not. So the only rational choice is to be the first prisoner to snitch on the other to get the 2nd lowest penalty available. This is why the police separate you from your compatriots when arrested and trying to interrogate you guys. If in the same room, both will agree clearly to not snitch and be aware if the other does. Being in spearate rooms ensures enough doubt in the game to make snitching mathematically profitable.

http://infotechusa.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/prisoner_s-dilemma.gif

Last thing: IN NO WAY will Obama winning swing the Republicans to th LEFT! Him being elected has swung the country to the RIGHT! Him getting 4 more years will swing them further to the RIGHT! There is no reason to believe the country would go Left, as they tend to swing the opposite of the ruling Party, hence the function of the Two Party System. We moved Left as a Party (Republicans) not because the country moved Left with numerous Democrat wins, but because numerous Left-leaning Republicans allowed incrimentalism by giving in to the moderates (neocons) or becoming moderates themselves over the years...especially after Repubs didn't stand their ground and stop things like Social Security, welfare, Medicare Part D, etc., which the voters them become used to and feel entitled to! Without the passage of such programs the public would not of moved incrimentally to the Left along with our liberal Republican moderate politicians.

If the problem was the people first, and not the rulers, then that would be an argument against democracy and a Republic in general, not our game strategy.

(BTW, it is an argument against Democracy and a Republic in general, and Franklin foresaw this problem. He knew we'd vote ourself every convenience if the Senate was directly elected and if the constraints of the enumerated powers were violated. So, here we are. The weakness of our system exposed. Now we either win this game and return to a managable system, or we give up on it altogether. My final goal, and the goal of some others on this site, is not simply a return to this original system...but it's necessary to even attempt what our aspirations for society are. We ALL need to return to the Constitutional Republic, whether we see this as the end destination or not! So let's work together to get there, and debate the rest out when we come to that bridge!)

[Xenophage]

I will never vote Democrat, can promise you that. I might vote third party depending on who is running.

I won't say never. Some day a libertarian could run as a Democrat in a race I get to vote in. Who knows?

I only vote libertarian, or I don't vote at all.

[Pericles]

No, they won't. It's simple math to figure out how many Ron Paul voters there were in the Primaries, and how many voted for the Democrats. It's a zero-sum game where mathematical deduction is ultra simple.

In the last 20 years, since Perot got 19% of the vote, has the Republican party moved to be more like the Democratic party, or the Libertarian party?

[ProIndividual]

In the last 20 years, since Perot got 19% of the vote, has the Republican party moved to be more like the Democratic party, or the Libertarian party?

What's that got to do with it?

If you can mathematically deduce how many votes are from our movement that ended up in the Democrats column, then it won't "fool" the Repubs into going Left to get out votes, logically.

In order for you to be correct in your assertions you'd have to demonstrate they didn't move to the Left when both Party were in power. There simply was no long string of Democrat wins when this country went Left...it went Left while both Repubs and Dems were in office alternating rather equally (relatively).

You asserted if Obama won we'd go farther Left...but the country went farther RIGHT when he was elected. The Repubs go braindead and cheer for leftist incrimentalism when Repubs are in office!

If Obama gets re-elected it will swing us even further right. This is the function of the 2 Party System, the history of American politics in general, and the trend to be expected ESPECIALLY in a recession/depression.

In no way did this country become more Left due to a string of Left victories. In every way we got Left because Repubs get elected and then do Leftist crap (a function of power corrupting and statism being a shared philosophy of both Parties without any ethics binding them to individualism) while the braindead base sit there and say nothing because "their team" is in office.

I'm sorry, but your assertion an Obama win pushes us farther Left flies in the face of all evidence.

My question for you is this:

What has swung the public more to libertarian values more; Obama being in office or Bush being in office?

The answer is obvious...the Republicans ignored us and called us nuts through 8 years of Bush, and took a term of Obama to wake up to the extent they have now. When Ron ran last time they still were mostly asleep, still saying Bush was great. Now they are partly awake. Why? BECAUSE THEY AREN'T IN OFFICE ANYMORE.

And comparing the Dems to the Libertarian Party makes no sense, as one is 3rd Party with the 3rd Party Stigma (they can't win). That surely will be a bad comparison from the outset.

Correlation is not causation...and you don't even have correlation on your side. The moves to the Left inside the Republican Party occur when Repubs are in power, not out of power. The country moved Left since it's beginning for the reasons Ben Franklin described; democracies and Republics are all doomed to devolve into the public voting themselves every convenience until it collapses if the enumerated powers of the Constitution are not upheld and the Senate is elected directly and not by the State Legislatures as they were intended to be.

All you need to do is watch Star Wars to realize why every Republic becomes an Empire and every Empire then becomes Republic. It's not even really a Left or Right thing...as those things don't even really exist. Left/Right are two dimensional false paradigms thats try to assert themselves in a 3 dimensioanl (or more) political reality. This is why FAR Leftists like Dennis Kucinich and Barney Frank can work with FAR Rightys like Ron Paul on some issues (even some very important ones like Drug Wars, Foreign Policy, etc.). Left and Right run into way too many dichotomies to exist.

What we have done is move from individual sovereignty to statism...from individualism to collectivism. The Party in power is always more collectivist than the Party out of power...and then they switch once elected. This is because power corrupts. It just so happens the Dems are collectivist on economic issues and some social issues but not others (like they like public schools but also like civil liberties). The Repubs tend to say they are anti-collectivist (anti-communist rhetoric) while simultaneously being just like Dems; individualist on economics and collectivist on some social issues but not others (they like enforcing morality with laws but also sometimes, like Ron Paul, support civil liberties). In essence one Party is collectivist on economics and not social policies as a general rule, while the other Party is collectivist on social issues but not economics as a general rule. But both violate their own rules regularly.

There is no Left/Right...there is individualism/collectivism and individual sovereignty/statism.

We have 2 Parties...the Communist Party (Democrats) and the Fascist Party (Republicans). They both got more like themselves along the way, not like the other...because NEITHER is free of blame and virtuous by nature. They both equally approached totalitarianism, authoritarianism, and tyranny.