PDA

View Full Version : Can I vote for (write-in) Ron Paul in all 50 states?




unknown
09-18-2012, 11:28 AM
I'm a bit confused.

It would seem that in some states, we can write him in, in other states we cant.

Which are the states and why not? Just individual state rules?

sailingaway
09-18-2012, 11:31 AM
Does it matter to you if it is counted as more than just a none of the above vote? Because in all states either writing him in or leaving it blank would have you counted as a 'none of the named candidate' vote, which I see as a vote of no confidence. They track that 'undervote' everywhere, and if it is large, we can call attention to it.

Beyond that, some states do and some states don't also break out the votes for a write in candidate in Ron's position. In CA I am getting together electors to have Ron's votes formally counted as being for RON, not just against all the named candidates. In some states like NH, you can write in anyone and they will count that person's votes. It varies by state, on that part. But for me, regardless of whether they do or don't split my vote out as specifically for RON rather than just against all the names on the ballot, I am going to vote for Ron. It is important to me.

CPUd
09-18-2012, 11:31 AM
Here's a graphic:

http://writeinron2012.com/writeinBlog/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/map.jpg

sailingaway
09-18-2012, 11:37 AM
except that despite that map ^^^ your vote will be counted as a 'none of the above' no confidence vote if you do a write in. For me that expresses my opinion better than voting for someone on the ballot as if they reflected what I want, when they don't. That map only says where do they tally votes by name for the write in candidate.

unknown
09-18-2012, 11:39 AM
But for me, regardless of whether they do or don't split my vote out as specifically for RON rather than just against all the names on the ballot, I am going to vote for Ron. It is important to me.

This.

juvanya
09-18-2012, 03:43 PM
I dont understand this "wont count" crap. Write in votes COUNT in every single state. The question is whether it can win, and usually it cannot. Its like NOTA in Nevada counts, but cant win. When county clerks see 1% of the vote for Ron Paul, theyre are likely to report it as a curiosity. Every year you get articles about people voting for God and Mickey Mouse.

acptulsa
09-18-2012, 03:47 PM
I dont understand this "wont count" crap. Write in votes COUNT in every single state.

Not only are write in votes never counted in Oklahoma (as per state law), I doubt they're ever seen. We have ballots, but they're scanned electronically.

We have new machines, so I don't know if it's still true, but once upon a time writing in a name created a 'defaced ballot'. And no vote was counted if it was on a 'defaced ballot', even if it was no write in vote. The excuse was the 'defacing' confused the scanner's grain 'o sand brain.

ronpaulfollower999
09-18-2012, 03:52 PM
You can only vote for Ron Paul in ONE state, the state you are registered to vote in.

nobody's_hero
09-18-2012, 03:54 PM
In Georgia, they'll throw half the write-ins away, even if the candidate is qualified. I was one of over 3,000 Georgia voters to write-in Chuck Baldwin in 2008, but I'm not sure if I am one of the 1,402 they reported.

sailingaway
09-18-2012, 04:28 PM
Not only are write in votes never counted in Oklahoma (as per state law), I doubt they're ever seen. We have ballots, but they're scanned electronically.

We have new machines, so I don't know if it's still true, but once upon a time writing in a name created a 'defaced ballot'. And no vote was counted if it was on a 'defaced ballot', even if it was no write in vote. The excuse was the 'defacing' confused the scanner's grain 'o sand brain.

then you could leave it blank for a 'none of the above' vote, they do count the 'undervote' who don't vote for any of the named candidates. If that is what you want to do.

acptulsa
09-18-2012, 04:29 PM
then you could leave it blank for a 'none of the above' vote, they do count the 'undervote' who don't vote for any of the named candidates. If that is what you want to do.

Of course it isn't. I want to vote for Ron Paul again!

Nonetheless, it's what I did four years ago, along with tens of thousands of other Oklahoma voters. And I'm pretty sure I remember how. :(

Todd
09-18-2012, 04:53 PM
I'm confused about what that means for Virginia if "candidate must file". I have no idea if that has happened.

sailingaway
09-18-2012, 04:56 PM
I'm confused about what that means for Virginia if "candidate must file". I have no idea if that has happened.

If Ron Paul had to file, I'd be pretty sure he won't so you are looking at having a vote for him counted as a general 'none of the above', not tallied to his name.

tangent4ronpaul
09-18-2012, 06:49 PM
There is a fairly simple way to be able to vote for RP in all 50 states and have it counted...

Simply get him to change his name to Mitt Romney :)

-t

Smart3
09-18-2012, 07:02 PM
I voted for Ron Paul.

A vote in the primary for Dr. Paul is all he ever asked for. He is not still running for President. Writing him in is silly. If abortion is your key issue, then vote for Goode, if not then vote for Johnson.

I will be voting for Johnson - out of respect for Dr. Paul. If Dr. Paul was still running, I'd vote for him.

sailingaway
09-18-2012, 07:05 PM
I voted for Ron Paul.

A vote in the primary for Dr. Paul is all he ever asked for. He is not still running for President. Writing him in is silly. If abortion is your key issue, then vote for Goode, if not then vote for Johnson.

I will be voting for Johnson - out of respect for Dr. Paul. If Dr. Paul was still running, I'd vote for him.

Vote however you want. A lot of people on Ron Paul forums want to vote for Ron Paul.

unknown
09-19-2012, 09:21 AM
Not sure if this has been posted before but I came across this website:

http://writein-ronpaul.com/

May be worth a new thread if it hasnt been posted previously.

I wonder how close we could get to the goal if there was an all out concentrated push.

Massachusetts
09-19-2012, 10:57 AM
...

VBRonPaulFan
09-19-2012, 11:29 AM
Not sure if this has been posted before but I came across this website:

http://writein-ronpaul.com/

May be worth a new thread if it hasnt been posted previously.

I wonder how close we could get to the goal if there was an all out concentrated push.

ugh... who the hell uses tables anymore? that is hideous to look at...

at least some of the info is centralized.

juvanya
09-19-2012, 07:04 PM
To quote Emma Goldman...

RickyJ
09-19-2012, 07:11 PM
You can only vote for Ron Paul in ONE state, the state you are registered to vote in.

That is a shame.

KevinYeaux
09-19-2012, 07:40 PM
I also think writing in Ron Paul is a waste of time, although it is usually a harmless waste of time (organizing write-in campaigns for him, however, is not harmless: it's taking time and energy away from liberty candidates downballot that could actually win).

However, those who have said that in most states it either doesn't count or counts as NOTA are correct. Some states (La, for example) won't count write-in votes for president. Some may count them but it doesn't mean anything. To my knowledge, the only states where writing in Ron Paul would actually count as a legitimate vote for him are states where presidential candidates can file a slate of electors to be counted for a write-in. If your state doesn't allow that, your vote will be counted as a NOTA.

Remember, in the general election you are not voting for a candidate or ticket, but a slate of electors. "RON PAUL" doesn't mean anything to the state of California if it appears on your ballot for president unless they have a record of who they should send to the Electoral College should the "RON PAUL" write in vote win.

sailingaway
09-19-2012, 07:54 PM
actually, that isn't correct, we are going through the procedure right now to fill 55 electors for Ron Paul so if you write Ron Paul on your ballot in California it will mean those 55 electors. Elsewhere some places count whomever you write in, such as New Hampshire, and in others it will count as none of the above, which is at least a rejection of the named candidates. For me that would be the way I would go if we didn't have the ability to make him a certified write in candidate in CA, which we do.

paulbot24
09-19-2012, 10:13 PM
While we're all giving our opinions....Don't let your vote get thrown into the Elmer Fudd and Mickey Mouse pile. We are not just disgruntled grandpas, sitting on a park bench with an attitude of "This system is stupid." Writing in a name that gets put in a trash heap does not send a message other than "f*ck this sh*t." We're not just a few little cliques of fringe groups that just whine like hippies about how the system is so screwed but offer no answers ourselves. It's not my place to tell you how to vote. If I thought it was, I couldn't say I stand for liberty. Just imagine the fear in their minds when they realize the Liberty movement is actually growing from the "tireless irate minority" it was to something that cannot be ignored? We can't have statistical anomalies and hanging chad type reactions by our pathetic media marginalizing our vote and throwing away hard earned numbers. These people expect us to finally just go away at some point so they can have their old red and blue gangland pseudo-fight again. They must see that we have the numbers now and are growing so fast we are a force to be reckoned with and we are now the independent "swing" vote that decides elections from now on. How is that for progress? Taking those votes and unifying them behind a third option, as long as it is a unified message sends a powerful message. The duopoly is over. We are more than just the annoying group that cost the __________s the election. We are now the group that decides the election, for BOTH parties from now on until we ultimately put a Liberty President in the White House. They both fear this, certainly more than they act like they fear "the other party" since we know it's a gimmick and they serve the same masters. More than the right "fears" the jihadist under the bed and the left "hears" the pain the trees scream during deforestation. What they fear the most is a third party coming in and creating a massive paradigm shift, confusing people on "who's fault it all is" when the illusion is exposed. This will seriously screw with their divide and conquer game they've played so well for too long. Both of them, equally. The "discomfort" they experienced at the RNC and DNC conventions where they ignored the will of the people is just the beginning. We've changed things. A unified vote sends the most powerful message, one that cannot be ignored. "I feel a change in the wind coming says I..." What the hell, it's talk like a pirate day. Here's another one. "Hoist the Colors!"

sailingaway
09-19-2012, 10:15 PM
While we're all giving our opinions....Don't let your vote get thrown into the Elmer Fudd and Mickey Mouse pile. We are not just disgruntled grandpas, sitting on a park bench with an attitude of "This system is stupid." Writing in a name that gets put in a trash heap does not send a message other than "f*ck this sh*t." We're not just a few little cliques of fringe groups that just whine like hippies and how the system is so screwed but offer no answers ourselves. It's not my place to tell you how to vote. If I thought it was, I couldn't say I stand for liberty. Just imagine the fear in their minds when they realize the Liberty movement is actually growing from the "tireless irate minority" it was to something that cannot be ignored? We can't have statistical anomalies and hanging chad type reactions by our pathetic media marginalizing our vote and throwing away hard worked numbers. These people expect us to finally just go away at some point so they can have their old red and blue gangland pseudo-fight again. They must see that we have the numbers now and are growing so fast we are a force to be reckoned with and we are now the independent "swing" vote that decides elections from now on. How is that for progress? Taking those votes and unifying them behind a third option, as long as it is a unified message sends a powerful message. The duopoly is over. We are more than just the annoying group that cost the __________s the election. We are now the group that decides the election, for BOTH parties from now on until we ultimately put a Liberty President in the White House. They both fear this, certainly more than they act like they fear "the other party" since we know it's a gimmick and they serve the same masters. More than the right "fears" the jihadist under the bed and the left "hears" the pain the trees scream during deforestation. What they fear the most is a third party coming in and creating a massive paradigm shift, confusing people on "who's fault it all is" when the illusion is exposed. This will seriously screw with their divide and conquer game they've played so well for too long. Both of them, equally. The "discomfort" they experienced at the RNC and DNC conventions where they ignored the will of the people is just the beginning. We've changed things. A unified vote sends the most powerful message, one that cannot be ignored. "I feel a change in the wind coming says I..." What the hell, it's talk like a pirate day. Here's another one. "Hoist the Colors!"

You can unify with us to write in Ron Paul if you want.

paulbot24
09-19-2012, 10:28 PM
You can unify with us to write in Ron Paul if you want.

I know it is a seriously long rant. I just want both parties to know we are gaining on them. That is all. Forgive the Gingrich-like long-winded pontification.:D FOR LIBERTY!

jmag
09-20-2012, 09:24 AM
Not sure if this has been posted before but I came across this website:

http://writein-ronpaul.com/

May be worth a new thread if it hasnt been posted previously.

I wonder how close we could get to the goal if there was an all out concentrated push.

I committed to writein RP in Colorado on the site yesterday, and the number didn't go up. :confused:

acptulsa
09-20-2012, 09:35 AM
I committed to writein RP in Colorado on the site yesterday, and the number didn't go up. :confused:

We have promoted He Who Must Not Be Named. Now he's He Who Must Not Be Counted...

Blue
09-20-2012, 09:35 AM
Writing him here in New York is a waste as well. He needs to be an official write-in candidate. And they throw out all of the write-ins anyway because of all the people who vote for Mickey Mouse, Hitler, Elvis, etc. :p

sailingaway
09-20-2012, 09:37 AM
Writing him here in New York is a waste as well. He needs to be an official write-in candidate. And they throw out all of the write-ins anyway because of all the people who vote for Mickey Mouse, Hitler, Elvis, etc. :p

Even so, there is a tally of all who refused to vote for the named candidates. It becomes a 'none of the above' vote rather than specifically for Ron, but for some of us that is still the best reflection of how we feel, rather than voting for someone we don't support.

libertariantexas
09-21-2012, 10:52 AM
Because in all states either writing him in or leaving it blank would have you counted as a 'none of the named candidate' vote, which I see as a vote of no confidence. They track that 'undervote' everywhere, and if it is large, we can call attention to it.



This is NOT TRUE.

Here in Texas, Ron Paul's home state, where he surely received many write-in votes in 2008, the OFFICIAL Results from the Texas Secretary of State are:

http://elections.sos.state.tx.us/elchist.exe

RACE NAME PARTY CANVASS VOTES PERCENT
President/Vice-President
John McCain/ Sarah Palin REP 4,479,328 55.45%
Barack Obama/ Joe Biden DEM 3,528,633 43.68%
Bob Barr/ Wayne A. Root LIB 56,116 0.69%
Chuck Baldwin/ Darrell L. Castle W-I 5,708 0.07%
Thaddaus Hill/ Gordon F. Bailey W-I 216 0.00%
Jonathan Allen/ Jeffrey D. Stath W-I 104 0.00%
Alan Keyes/ Marvin Sprouse, Jr. W-I 895 0.01%
Ralph Nader/ Matt Gonzalez W-I 5,751 0.07%
Cynthia McKinney/ Rosa Clemente W-I 909 0.01%
Brian Moore/ Stewart A. Alexander W-I 135 0.00%
-----------
Race Total 8,077,795

NOT A SINGLE VOTE FOR RON PAUL, nor is there a "NOTA" vote tally.

The only write-in votes that counted were for those that registered as write-in candidates.

If you follow this erroneous advice, your "vote" counts the same as if you had stayed in bed. Texas is the second largest state in the union, and I'll bet that Texas is not the only state where this holds true.

That's a lot of wasted effort "writing in" Ron Paul when it won't count for anything.

sailingaway
09-21-2012, 10:55 AM
This is NOT TRUE.

Here in Texas, Ron Paul's home state, where he surely received many write-in votes in 2008, the OFFICIAL Results from the Texas Secretary of State are:

http://elections.sos.state.tx.us/elchist.exe

RACE NAME PARTY CANVASS VOTES PERCENT
President/Vice-President
John McCain/ Sarah Palin REP 4,479,328 55.45%
Barack Obama/ Joe Biden DEM 3,528,633 43.68%
Bob Barr/ Wayne A. Root LIB 56,116 0.69%
Chuck Baldwin/ Darrell L. Castle W-I 5,708 0.07%
Thaddaus Hill/ Gordon F. Bailey W-I 216 0.00%
Jonathan Allen/ Jeffrey D. Stath W-I 104 0.00%
Alan Keyes/ Marvin Sprouse, Jr. W-I 895 0.01%
Ralph Nader/ Matt Gonzalez W-I 5,751 0.07%
Cynthia McKinney/ Rosa Clemente W-I 909 0.01%
Brian Moore/ Stewart A. Alexander W-I 135 0.00%
-----------
Race Total 8,077,795

NOT A SINGLE VOTE FOR RON PAUL, nor is there a "NOTA" vote tally.

The only write-in votes that counted were for those that registered as write-in candidates.

If you follow this erroneous advice, your "vote" counts the same as if you had stayed in bed. Texas is the second largest state in the union, and I'll bet that Texas is not the only state where this holds true.

That's a lot of wasted effort "writing in" Ron Paul when it won't count for anything.

It is true, even if it isn't on that list. Because if nothing else you can add up the total of voters on one side and the total of voters for all the named candidates and subtract the second from the first, and, voila, your number. If it is large we can spread it around. Who knows the number Barr got, off hand, without looking? It would need to be made a point of and if it is large, we could.

However, I am pretty sure if I go through the SOS web page in Texas I'd be able to find a count of the undervote, already done.

Do I need to move this to the other subforum too? Because this is not the proper subforum to try to get Ron Paul supporters to vote differently. The discussion has been had over and over, note there are 32 posts on just this one thread on it, and a ton of views. At some point it is just annoying.

libertariantexas
09-21-2012, 10:58 AM
Writing him here in New York is a waste as well. He needs to be an official write-in candidate. And they throw out all of the write-ins anyway because of all the people who vote for Mickey Mouse, Hitler, Elvis, etc. :p

Exactly.

So, at a very minimum, 2 of the 3 largest states in the country, a "write in" for Ron Paul is a completely wasted effort. I'll bet the same is true in many other states as well.

That's why I see a "write-in for Ron Paul" as tilting at windmills.

At least a vote for Gary Johnson will be counted, and will help keep the Libertarian Party on the ballot.

A write in for Ron Paul is utterly pointless.

If you want to get up, trudge the to polling center, then caste a vote that will be IGNORED in many states, go for it, but make sure you know the rules first- that your vote won't count, not even as a "protest" vote.

libertariantexas
09-21-2012, 11:04 AM
It is true, even if it isn't on that list. Because if nothing else you can add up the total of voters on one side and the total of voters for all the named candidates and subtract the second from the first, and, voila, your number. If it is large we can spread it around. Who knows the number Barr got, off hand, without looking? It would need to be made a point of and if it is large, we could.

However, I am pretty sure if I go through the SOS web page in Texas I'd be able to find a count of the undervote, already done.

Do I need to move this to the other subforum too? Because this is not the proper subforum to try to get Ron Paul supporters to vote differently. The discussion has been had over and over, note there are 32 posts on just this one thread on it, and a ton of views. At some point it is just annoying.

Okay, I'm an engineer and an MBA. I'm pretty good at math, yet I can't even figure out how you would be able to figure out the uncounted write-in votes for Ron Paul based on these official results from Texas, as there doesn't appear to be any count of total voters.

Can you explain?

And if it takes complex mathematical acrobatics to figure out that Ron Paul got 0.09% (or whatever) from a write-in campaign that even he isn't interested in, is this really likely to have any noticeable effect?

The results for the candidates on the ballot will be reported in the news (Obama, Romney, and JOHNSON) as well as counting toward maintaining ballot access.

Official write-ins (which all received less than 0.08% of the vote) will be reported nowhere other than the Secretary of State's page.

Non-official write-ins disappear into thin air.

Vote as you will, but know the rules going in.

ClydeCoulter
09-21-2012, 11:07 AM
It is true, even if it isn't on that list. Because if nothing else you can add up the total of voters on one side and the total of voters for all the named candidates and subtract the second from the first, and, voila, your number. If it is large we can spread it around. Who knows the number Barr got, off hand, without looking? It would need to be made a point of and if it is large, we could.

However, I am pretty sure if I go through the SOS web page in Texas I'd be able to find a count of the undervote, already done.

Do I need to move this to the other subforum too? Because this is not the proper subforum to try to get Ron Paul supporters to vote differently. The discussion has been had over and over, note there are 32 posts on just this one thread on it, and a ton of views. At some point it is just annoying.

@libertariantexas, did you read what @sailingaway posted before you posted the following?


Exactly.

So, at a very minimum, 2 of the 3 largest states in the country, a "write in" for Ron Paul is a completely wasted effort. I'll bet the same is true in many other states as well.

That's why I see a "write-in for Ron Paul" as tilting at windmills.

At least a vote for Gary Johnson will be counted, and will help keep the Libertarian Party on the ballot.

A write in for Ron Paul is utterly pointless.

If you want to get up, trudge the to polling center, then caste a vote that will be IGNORED in many states, go for it, but make sure you know the rules first- that your vote won't count, not even as a "protest" vote.

libertariantexas
09-21-2012, 11:13 AM
@libertariantexas, did you read what @sailingaway posted before you posted the following?

No, because I was writing my second post as he was posting his post.

I'm not saying "don't write in for Ron Paul", I just said KNOW THE RULES before deciding.

sailingaway
09-21-2012, 11:17 AM
but you were saying there was no way to get the count of 'none of the above' and that is where the disagreement is. Even where Ron Paul votes will not be individually counted, his will be part of 'none of the above' and if 'none of the above' reflects your position better than voting for a different candidate, that will be ascertainable.

There is a number count of all who vote for any office, that is the total number of voters who went for the polls. You add up the total who voted for named candidates. The difference is those who took the trouble to vote and didn't vote for a named candidate for president, or none of the above.

libertariantexas
09-21-2012, 11:48 AM
but you were saying there was no way to get the count of 'none of the above' and that is where the disagreement is. Even where Ron Paul votes will not be individually counted, his will be part of 'none of the above' and if 'none of the above' reflects your position better than voting for a different candidate, that will be ascertainable.

There is a number count of all who vote for any office, that is the total number of voters who went for the polls. You add up the total who voted for named candidates. The difference is those who took the trouble to vote and didn't vote for a named candidate for president, or none of the above.

There probably is such a number, somewhere.

But if it's not even reported on the SOS page, where is it?

Lets assume you find the information, eventually. Then add up the named candidates from all the ballots in all the states, and figure out "NOTAs" total days (or weeks) after the election.

I doubt many people are going to take the trouble to run down the numbers, but even if they do, what is the end game?

A few people, weeks after the election, running down the street yelling "Eureka, "NOTA" received 0.06% of the vote, and we think that most of those NOTA votes were meant to be for Ron Paul because Mickey Mouse, Hitler, Gary Coleman, and "Eat My Shorts" are not legitimate candidates!"

"Take that, Obama!"

"Woo Hoo"

Could be fun after a few beers, I guess, but I'm not sure it would be a terribly effective course of action.

ClydeCoulter
09-21-2012, 11:54 AM
@libertariantexas,

A "None of the above" vote would include GJ. There are multiple ways to vote "None of the Above", write-in, vote for all positions except prez, etc...

sailingaway
09-21-2012, 12:03 PM
There probably is such a number, somewhere.

But if it's not even reported on the SOS page, where is it?

Lets assume you find the information, eventually. Then add up the named candidates from all the ballots in all the states, and figure out "NOTAs" total days (or weeks) after the election.

I doubt many people are going to take the trouble to run down the numbers, but even if they do, what is the end game?

A few people, weeks after the election, running down the street yelling "Eureka, "NOTA" received 0.06% of the vote, and we think that most of those NOTA votes were meant to be for Ron Paul because Mickey Mouse, Hitler, Gary Coleman, and "Eat My Shorts" are not legitimate candidates!"

"Take that, Obama!"

"Woo Hoo"

Could be fun after a few beers, I guess, but I'm not sure it would be a terribly effective course of action.

not many are going to know the third party numbers either, the only way either will make a dent is if we spread it. Which we can do if it is large enough. Meanwhile most places (likely TX as well) report the undervote somewhere, on the SOS page, if not every time they mention the other, and anyone who can do subtraction can find it from the numbers reported of turn out and numbers voting for the other candidates. If you want Gary vote for him. If you don't, voting him makes no more sense than voting for Romney whom you also don't want.

libertariantexas
09-21-2012, 12:52 PM
not many are going to know the third party numbers either, the only way either will make a dent is if we spread it. Which we can do if it is large enough. Meanwhile most places (likely TX as well) report the undervote somewhere, on the SOS page, if not every time they mention the other, and anyone who can do subtraction can find it from the numbers reported of turn out and numbers voting for the other candidates. If you want Gary vote for him. If you don't, voting him makes no more sense than voting for Romney whom you also don't want.

The Libertarian candidate's numbers will be reported locally and nationally on election night, rather than having to wait until January for all the states to tally up the write-in votes.

On top of that, voting for Gary Johnson can help the Libertarian Party maintain ballot access (in Texas, at least, I'm not sure about other states).

I prefer Ron Paul to Gary Johnson, but I'd be glad to see either of them in office. Neither is perfect, but both are vastly better than the other candidates.

And since Gary Johnson is running, and Ron Paul is NOT, I will vote for Gary Johnson.

Nevertheless, I'll be eager to find out how the "write-in NOTA/Ron Paul" thing turns out when the numbers are finally crunched in January. Is there going to be a press release?

Edit: If Ron Paul chooses to run as an official write-in candidate, which I believe he can still do, I will vote for him, but if he doesn't, it's pointless to write him in.

sailingaway
09-21-2012, 01:40 PM
You can vote for whomever you want. there will only be advertisement of the number of none of the above if it is particularly large, but anyone can deduct the votes of the named candidates from the voter turn out number and find it.

Those who like GJ and want a vote counted for GJ will vote for him. those who want a vote for Ron Paul can't convey that, imho, by voting for another name, whereas Ron IS in the 'not in the above' category.

At this point it looks as if Ron Paul has a better shot at electoral votes, which is what really counts if you are counting, isn't it?

juvanya
09-21-2012, 08:56 PM
Do they not throw away all the losers votes as well? :p

sailingaway
09-21-2012, 08:58 PM
Do they not throw away all the losers votes as well? :p

from what I can tell from Maine and RNC, they throw away whatever votes they don't like.... be that as it may.....

I'm still going to write in Ron Paul.