Making our voices heard?

[Intoxiklown]

Ok....before anyone starts, I am fully down with waiting until it is fact that Paul is not the nominee. And while the convention could possibly become very interesting, chances are this won't happen.

So, looking ahead, I'm curious as how people think best to make our voices actually heard. Meaning, I've been one of the "If I have to, I'll wite Paul in" crowd. However, as I think about it, that starts to seem like not such a good idea. Why? Because if write ins are not counted, and thrown aside, then there is no actual data to be gathered from the election.

I believe in the truth of what our founding fathers said regarding voting your conscience, and your's is never a wasted vote. However, should we be considering a unified vote to demonstrate how many votes the GOP is losing by basically telling us to "get f$^#&@"? One of the common things I heard from debate opponents on other political forums is "It doens't matter who the Paul crowd votes for, there isn't enough of them to matter either way". Now, even when I show them polling data, and pundit opinion that says the contrary, they still ignore it. So, shouldn't we be looking at a way to document our votes, and thereby demonstrating just how much voting power we have?

[kathy88]

Good luck unifying this crowd. LOL. But I do agree. I think we should plan on a campaign to get us to support ONE idea. Whether it's a write in campaign (which may be bad for the reasons you already enumerated) or Johnson, or Roseanne Freaking Barr (if she gets the nom). But if we vote for Obama (not that I could unless EVERYONE else agreed to) our votes will be lost. It has to be a third party or a write in. Johnson is the most logical choice, although I do not agree with him on many things. Who's the Constitution party running? Do they even have 50 state ballot access?

[Intoxiklown]

I would find it just as hard to vote for Obama as I would Mitt, which pretty much isn't going to happen either way. The only reasoning I could see that would make sense in us aligning together in voting for Obama would be to prepare to start the fight anew in 2016, based on the premise of "better 4 years of Obama than a possible 8 years of Mitt". However, considering some of the policies we've already seen accelerated under Obama, I don't see how supporting either is sane.

I'm not a huge fan of Johnson, or the Libertarian party (key words there, the PARTY) itself honestly. However, any 3rd party we support is in no danger of winning to be fair. But it would give us a place where our votes would be documented, and a focal point for the GOP to realize how many votes they are losing. Because regardless of what anyone wants to think, attempting to put a good President in office without utilizing one of the two main parties is foolish and won't happen. And I think we all agree we find ourselves more inline with the Republican thought (the actual platform, not the actions) more so than the Democratic party.

I just hate for a party or candidate to be falsely representated with support. For example, if we all vote for Johnson, the Liberatrian party will see a significant increase in votes this cycle, and Johnson would be seen as the catalyst for it. When in reality, he was just the person on a safe ticket to cast a vote knowing they won't win.

And people had better start getting unified again, and off this infighting kick. To be honest, it's starting to get downright childish.

[Origanalist]

And people had better start getting unified again, and off this infighting kick. To be honest, it's starting to get downright childish.

Yes, it is.

[MelissaCato]

Until the mission statement changes for this Ron Paul Forums - I think some people need to curb it and stay outta our way .. this mission isn't over yet. We are not retreating, we are not holding our position - we are advancing our position.

Ron Paul 2012 !!

[Cdawg45]

I always planned on just writing in Ron Paul...I thought if a write-in got enough votes, they would be listed on the results. If that's not true, this thread seems very Important. What are we supposed to do in November to make our presence known?

[Q11Q]

What are we supposed to do in November to make our presence known?

Not voting for Romney and then answering exit polling questions as to why you did not vote for Obama or Romney would send a message to America that the progressive status quo will not be an option for sane voters concerned with Liberty in America.

Imagine 10 million+ Ron Paul supporters pro-actively getting the Liberty message out on November 6, 2012, by showing a spirited unity in their communities.

That should send a strong message to our family members, friends, and neighbors that we interact with on a daily basis.

[Intoxiklown]

Not voting for Romney and then answering exit polling questions as to why you did not vote for Obama or Romney would send a message to America that the progressive status quo will not be an option for sane voters concerned with Liberty in America.

That should send a strong message to our family members, friends, and neighbors that we interact with on a daily basis.

While a good idea in theory, not all polling places offer exit polling questionaires. This is definitely something to take advantage of if provided to be sure, however, you still cause some people's voices to be "lost in the sauce". I honestly feel if we all voted for say the Green party (just throwing a 3rd party name out there, in no way endorsing them) and made it public that was our intent. And say Mitt loses by 12%, and the Green party saw a 17% increase in support as opposed to 2008, then that sends a powerful message to the GOP.

I fully expect Mitt to lose to Obama, which is why I feel it paramount we find a place where we can document how large a voting block we are. So people are able to compare those numbers, and then are left with no other recourse but to admit they HAVE to deal with us if they ever want to win the Presidency again. This argument is strengthened by the fact we already have data showing the increase in numbers and support the liberty movement has garnered since 2008. So, if you apply that trend to this idea, we are establishing ourselves with numbers and facts as the future of the party. Because, right or wrong, people simply laugh us off as running our mouths when we voice this. But to prove it, that is the next step in my opinion for advancing our movement. Once it is undeniable the GOP cannot win without us, after the blame game of them losing to Obama blows over, I think we'd see a much friendlier party for support going forward.

[CPUd]

As an alternative to a write-in, I had thought about voting on everything except president. A spike in the undervote should register to someone's watching eyes.

[No1butPaul]

In California (not that our votes count here), the ballots are scanned, so I don't think a write-in would be counted.

[cheapseats]

Not voting for Romney and then answering exit polling questions as to why you did not vote for Obama or Romney would send a message to America...


Disagree.

If I wuz a GAMBLER, I'd bet it would get a mention in ELECTION NIGHT COVERAGE, then be yesterday's news.

[John F Kennedy III]

We will be blamed for Mitt's loss no matter what. And I don't like the write in idea because they don't get counted.

[Intoxiklown]

As an alternative to a write-in, I had thought about voting on everything except president. A spike in the undervote should register to someone's watching eyes.

I disagree with this, as the response would be another McCain'esque loss excuse. "We didn't pick someone conservative enough to excite the base, and people just didn't vote."

[MelissaCato]

Well then what's with all that Warren G. Harding 29th president going to the GOP convention with only 39 delegates and 10th round of voting won the nomination and defeated his Democratic opponent ?

Ron Paul has a few hundred delegates going into the 2012 GOP convention.

If Romney doesn't get the nomination on the first ballot, delegates committed to him, Santorum, or Gingrich, will all be released and can then cast their votes for Paul if they so choose. And many of the delegates are already Ron Paul supporters!

Why can't we just stick to the delegate strategy ?

[Intoxiklown]

Well then what's with all that Warren G. Harding 29th president going to the GOP convention with only 39 delegates and 10th round of voting won the nomination and defeated his Democratic opponent ?

Ron Paul has a few hundred delegates going into the 2012 GOP convention.

If Romney doesn't get the nomination on the first ballot, delegates committed to him, Santorum, or Gingrich, will all be released and can then cast their votes for Paul if they so choose. And many of the delegates are already Ron Paul supporters!

Why can't we just stick to the delegate strategy ?

Who said anything about adandoning it? I made that clear in the first paragraph of the OP, in that I am fully in agreement with waiting until Mitt is officially the nominee and not Paul. However, what I'm also saying we should be talking about is how to utilize our group document how large a voter block we truly are should Paul not get the nomination.

[Libertytree]

Here's the write in guide.

http://www.anamericanvision.com/info/state_certifications.php

[Intoxiklown]

Here's the write in guide.

http://www.anamericanvision.com/info/state_certifications.php

So all but 8 states count write ins? That is even better, as it would be much easier for us to coordinate 8 states as opposed to all 50.