Election 2012

Should You Vote for President?

As long as your vote is consistent with your conscience, it is impossible to waste your vote.

|

Can you vote by not voting? In a presidential election year in which the critical issues have been how much personal behavior the federal government should regulate and how much private wealth it should transfer and consume, rather than whether it should do so, many folks who are fed up with what George W. Bush and Barack Obama have brought us and fear more of the same from Mitt Romney are seriously suggesting that they will express their profound objection to big government by not voting for anyone for president. 

On the other hand, I know many good freedom-loving people who are fed up with big government but view Romney as the lesser of two evils from whom they expect a turn away from the path of government sector growth and private sector shrinkage on which President Obama has taken us.

The president has stated in his campaign for re-election that he underestimated the weakness of economic forces, and he now knows that no one could have corrected them in the past four years. Essentially, his best argument is that he has consumed his first term learning what to do to correct our economic woes, and he needs another four years in office to put into effect what he has learned. He wants to borrow more and spend more and transfer more wealth.

What he fails to realize, of course, is that you cannot correct a problem essentially created by too much government borrowing and spending with more government borrowing and spending. The president's values are Wilsonian: Personal freedom and private property can be subordinated to the common good; the federal government knows better than the free market how to bring about prosperity; killing is such an effective tool of foreign policy that the decision to kill cannot be vested in a Congress that can't produce a budget; and the Constitution is merely a guideline to be consulted from time to time. I am sure he believes that our rights come from the government and not from our humanity.

Romney does understand that only private enterprise can produce wealth, while the government merely transfers or consumes it. I believe him when he argues that the degree of federal involvement in the free market distorts the market, gives certain parts of it a false sense of stability and expectation, and ultimately costs more than it helps. The cost is in tax dollars taken from those who could otherwise employ those dollars for investment, thus impeding prosperity and jobs. And the cost is in government borrowing that is never repaid but merely rolled over, and in the debt service that now exceeds half a trillion dollars annually.

Romney is right to condemn the $5 trillion increase in the federal government's debt during the Obama administration, but he's curiously silent on his running mate's voting record: Rep. Paul Ryan, the Republican candidate for vice president, voted to authorize the debt increases sought during the Bush and Obama years.

The case for Romney would also be far more appealing to libertarians and others who fear the size and scope of the federal government if he were not such a clone of George W. Bush on foreign policy. Hasn't he learned that the hundreds of thousands of lives lost and the $2 trillion the federal government borrowed and spent on war and nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan have not made a single American one iota more free or safer?

Now back to voting. Can one morally vote for the lesser of two evils? In a word, no. A basic principle of Judeo-Christian teaching and of the natural law to which the country was married by the Declaration of Independence is that one may not knowingly do evil that good may come of it. So, what should a libertarian do?

If you recognize as I do that the Bush and Obama years have been horrendous for personal freedom, for the soundness of money and for fidelity to the Constitution, you can vote for former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson. He is on the ballot in 48 states. He is a principled libertarian on civil liberties, on money, on war and on fidelity to the Constitution. But he is not going to be elected.

So, is a vote for Johnson or no vote at all wasted? I reject the idea that a principled vote is wasted. Your vote is yours, and so long as your vote is consistent with your conscience, it is impossible to waste your vote.

On the other hand, even a small step toward the free market and away from the Obama years of central economic planning would be at least a small improvement for every American's freedom. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. That is Romney's best argument. I suspect it will carry the day next Tuesday.

NEXT: Brickbat: Pants Off the Ground

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. In any market one’s leverage is only as strong as one’s willingness to walk away from the deal. This is as true in elections as it is at the car dealership or the grocery store. If you are willing to vote for one of the two major party candidates no matter how disgusting both of those choices are your leverage in the marketplace of electoral politics is essentially zero.I have already voted and it was for Gary Johnson. I was not willing to vote for Obama or his clone called Mitt Romney.

    1. I was leaning toward not voting OR voting for Gary Johnson. If there are other issues of importance on ballot I am more likely to vote.

      I live in a state where Romney will win anyway so my vote will only be symbolic and may not get noticed unless Johnson draws at least 2-3% of the vote.

      One thing that just occurred to me after reading the Judge’s essay is that IF I could get 2 or 3 other members of my family to vote for Johnson (wife, kids) it would help. They are not all libertarian to the same degree I am but in a case where Romney will win anyway, they might do it. Except they are all lazy (when it comes to voting), so it probably won’t work.

      Just a thought for the rest of you. Get some people to join you in a symbolic vote! If we all do it, maybe johnson will get 5%

      1. Maybe you could offer to take them to their favorite restaurant afterwords if they come with you to the polls.

      2. They are not all libertarian to the same degree I am but in a case where Romney will win anyway, they might do it.

        This is what I’ve been saying to everyone around me that will listen. Romney is going to win my state by no small margin. I’ve even been pushing Jill Stein for my more die hard progressive friends. Any vote cast not for the big two is a win in my book (got to take the victories when you can). I’ve had three people tell me I’ve convinced them to vote GJ, but I think my dad might be wavering as it comes down to crunch time. It’s hard to get someone to vote against the party they’ve voted for their entire lives if they don’t come to that conclusion on their own.

      3. I literally don’t know one person who would do it for me. Even my dad, who sometimes votes libertarian, is voting for Romney. That’s because he was career military and is so angry about Benghazi. I told him it doesn’t matter because he lives in a solid red state, but for him, voting for Romney is voting his conscience.

  2. One can always count on the Judge for Team Red pablum.

    A basic principle of Judeo-Christian teaching and of the natural law to which the country was married by the Declaration of Independence is that one may not knowingly do evil that good may come of it.

    He scored a hat trick in that one awful sentence.

    1. Do you disagree with this statement that you just quoted above?

      1. In many ways.

        1) Why should I care what Judeo-Christian teaching is?

        2) Natural law is a bogus concept foisted on us by authoritarians.

        3) The DoI is not married to anything and is in no way a governing document. Its purpose was to sever us from England – which it did well. Why bring it up? Because the Judge needs the pseudo religious language in it to combat the secular Constitution.

        4) What is evil? A law he doesn’t like? Is the US Dollar evil?

        Just a mish-mash of muddleheadedness in that sentence.

        1. “Why should I care what Judeo-Christian teaching is?”

          Whether you subscribe to it or not it has had a huge impact on Western Civilization, including its political philosophy. I do not adhere to Roman Mythology but I do understand its role in forming many of the concepts we now take for granted. I recognize Roman Mythology as important in shaping the world we now live in.

          “Natural law is a bogus concept foisted on us by authoritarians.”

          Quite the opposite. Natural law is what exists whether or not any government exists. Can you repeal gravity? No? It is a natural law.

          “The DoI is not married to anything and is in no way a governing document.”

          Incorrect. It is the first governing document of the Untied States. The United States as a country would not even exist were not for this founding document.

          “What is evil? A law he doesn’t like? Is the US Dollar evil?”

          The U.S. Dollar is inanimate. Inanimate objects are neither evil nor good (in the ethical sense of good). Evil is not mere dislike, I dislike reality television but do not view it as evil. Evil is harm that is brought to an unwilling person or a person who is not yet of fully developed mental capacity (i.e. a child). A good example of evil is warfare. Even if we assume all of the soldiers are there by their own volition it harms and kills many people who have no desire to participate ? they simply want to be left alone.

          1. Yes, J-C teaching has had a huge impact. Nearly all negative in my opinion.

            Gravity is a law of science – not of man. Ethics and morality are tied to higher life forms and are relative to each.

            We just won’t agree on today’s legal relevance of the DoI. These simply is not any.

            The Judge would say a fiat dollar is evil I am sure.

            1. “Yes, J-C teaching has had a huge impact. Nearly all negative in my opinion.”

              Does this mean you should not understand it? If something is horrible shouldn’t you understand why it is?

              “Gravity is a law of science – not of man. Ethics and morality are tied to higher life forms and are relative to each.”

              Gravity impacts human beings – it would not be important to humans were this not the case. It is because human beings live in a world where physical laws exist that natural ethical laws also exist. Studies have shown that even infants have an inherent sense of fairness. All of us who are not sociopaths have a natural understanding of ethics. That is the basis of natural laws. We are communal animals but not in the same sense as bees or ants. We must interact with one another but at the same time recognize property rights. That is where ethics comes into play. This is something that government interferes with and does not solve.

              “We just won’t agree on today’s legal relevance of the DoI. These simply is not any.”

              I know government schools like to teach that lie, but were it to cease being in force we would suddenly become part of the United Kingdom.

              “The Judge would say a fiat dollar is evil I am sure.”

              No, not the dollar itself. The people who manipulate its value at the Federal Reserve, yes, but not the dollar as an object. A gun is not in and itself evil even if the person wielding it is.

              1. I know government schools like to teach that lie, but were it to cease being in force we would suddenly become part of the United Kingdom.

                No, we would just become a Commonwealth realm.

                1. then you’d start playing cricket, so it’s not all bad

                  1. I’m already a Windies supporter!

                    If I remember correctly, the U.S. and Canada have had the longest running series of Test matches, but it’s early and I need more coffee.

                    1. the US has never played Test cricket, but it did play the first international in 1844, and the custom has been revived. I wouldn’t call that a series, as it’s sporadic. It ain’t the Ashes

                    2. You’re right, international…not test….

                      Coffee.

              2. “but were it to cease being in force we would suddenly become part of the United Kingdom”

                Um, no. That is a really silly thing to say. We are not independent of the UK because of any document, but because we are, in fact and effectively, independent of the UK.

            2. “Yes, J-C teaching has had a huge impact. Nearly all negative in my opinion.”

              All are equal in the eyes of God, punishment should be in proportion to the offense, don’t rape, lie, cheat on your spouse, kill or steal, love your neighbors (and even your enemies), take care of poor people and the sick, who would rule must first serve, etc, etc.

              Awful!

              1. Well, not to nitpick, but…

                All are equal in the eyes of God,

                Except some are more equal than others, e.g. Kohanim, Levites, the Pope, the curse of Ham, Amalekites, et al.

                punishment should be in proportion to the offense

                Death is proportionate to sticking one’s dick in another man’s anus?

                don’t rape, lie, cheat on your spouse, kill or steal, love your neighbors (and even your enemies)

                Great stuff, except for the proportionate punishment caveat.

                take care of poor people and the sick,

                More good stuff.

                who would rule must first serve

                Unfortunately, monarchy is integral to the Judeo-Christian tradition. When the Kingdom of God becomes a republic, or at least a constitutional monarchy, I’ll give that aspect more respect.

                Jus’ sayin’

                1. HM, two things to consider. If you are talking about Jesus himself this excludes the Old Testament teachings many of which he was actually arguing against with – for example, Mark presents Jesus challenging the Jewish purity system.

                  Secondly, the letters of Paul are not presenting Jesus’s actual words but rather the interpretation of a man who had lived most of his life as a Manachian.

                  1. If you are talking about Jesus himself this excludes the Old Testament teachings many of which he was actually arguing against with – for example, Mark presents Jesus challenging the Jewish purity system.

                    That’s the problem with the term Judeo-Christian. It ignores the fundamental differences between the two religions.

                    Secondly, the letters of Paul are not presenting Jesus’s actual words but rather the interpretation of a man who had lived most of his life as a Manachian.

                    It’s unfortunate, then, that the Pauline doctrines have been so popular in the history of Christianity.

            3. Needs more Christfag.

            4. Palin’s Reargear said:
              “Gravity is a law of science – not of man.”

              In what way is science separated from man?

              I think you’re trying to say something correct, but you’re not getting it out.

        2. Are you seriously this dense? All that sentence is saying is that a moral end cannot come from amoral means. It’s a declaration of an ethical principle. It doesn’t have anything to do with unfavored laws or the dollar.

          1. Morality is relative. I reject the morality (or lack of such) of the Judge.

            1. Oh, so you are seriously this dense? Got it.

            2. If morality is relative you can’t reject his morality.

            3. Palin’s Reargear said:
              “Morality is relative.”

              Is that statement relative?

        3. 2) Natural law is a bogus concept foisted on us by authoritarians.

          John Locke is an authoritarian? Frederic Bastiat? De Tocqueville?

          1. Of course not – just as Isaac Newton was not a relativist.

            Natural law breaks down when someone tries to define what those laws are.

            Please link to a list of all natural laws – you can’t.

            For example I say I have the Right to Privacy. The Judge disagrees. Why does he disagree? He wants to use the authority of the state to monitor pregnancies.

            1. Palin,

              Here is a good intro to Natural Law if you are actually interested.

              http://mises.org/daily/2426

              1. Natural law is an appealing concept. Don’t get me wrong. You just can’t get a classic liberal like myself and a conservative to agree on what those laws are.

                We would no problem on the Right to Self Defense. But that is a vague concept in itself. Do I have the right to kill an unarmed person who threatens me? A conditional threat?

                “I will kill you if you touch my daughter!”

                Me – “Officer, he threatened to kill me. It was self-defense”.

                Natural law breaks down on close scrutiny.

                1. “a classic liberal like myself”

                  Paek Derp, ladies and gentlemen, we have found the headwaters!

                  1. And remember, “Peak Derp” must be spelled wrong, for full effect!

                2. “I will kill you if you touch my daughter!”

                  Me – “Officer, he threatened to kill me. It was self-defense”.

                  Natural law breaks down on close scrutiny.

                  Wrong-o, Shriekzoid. This is dependent on whether or not you touched the daughter (depending on her age, there is that “minor status” thing), of course. If you did, well, then you are an idiot for doing so, as you were given very explicit conditions and boundaries to give berth.

                  However, if you killed him or her in self-defense as a preemptive measure, without breaching the given parameters, you are in the wrong. You have the right to admire his or her daughter all you wish (sans voyeurism of her changing clothes in her room or something like that, as that would be a violation of privacy), but that does not give you the right to summarily execute him because he forbids you to lay a finger on his or her daughter.

                3. Most people, except perhaps people who grew up in other cultures, would understand that the statement “I will kill you if you touch my daughter!” is usually not meant in a literal sense.

                  Something that Rothbardians have advocated for quite some time is the concept of competing legal systems. If you do not like the way legal system A is run you can purchase services from legal system B.

                4. Don’t succumb to hasty generalizations. Just because you can propose an ethical rule and then show an accident fallacy, does not imply that you have, in general, declared all ethics fallacious.

            2. He wants to use the authority of the state to monitor pregnancies.

              Oddly enough, so do collectivist Platontisc Progressives, such as Kathleen Sebelius, most of your TEAM BLUE-ster ilk, a disturbing number of “Repeal and Replace” TEAM RED-sters, and in the spririt of the lovely Margaret Sanger, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, just to name a few. Oh, and Sandra (appropriately named) Fluke, of course, how could I forget her? I can do this all day, Shriek.

              In fact, as does our hip, young, beleaguered President, as not only does he want to monitor pregnancies, but post partum wants to monitor them up until the age of 26, provided you actually get to survive delivery, as he has shown demonstrable hostility to the newly born sans an umbilical cord.

              Whose really the “ABORTO-FREAK” here, Shriek?

              1. Granted, those Team Blue members do so. But they don’t justify their statism with vague terms like natural law.

                1. No, they use an even more nebulous rationale known as “MEDICAL CARE IS A RIGHT!!!!”

                  Natural Law is not vague, Shriek. It’s pretty clear cut.

                  As for your question @ 8:01, “The Right to Privacy” is, I believe, falls under Natural Law. However, it has also been bastardized to mean, “MY RIGHT TO PRIVACY FOR MY PERSONAL DECISIONS AND YOU ARE GONNA PAY FOR IT MOTHER FUCKER!”

                  Once that line has breached, then yes, if I am forced to pay for your decisions and forced to treat you at gunpoint, yes, any of my objections become morally valid as I, or anyone else, have a personal stake in them.

                  Again, it’s the aforementioned “ABORTO-FREAKS” I specified that have pushed and distorted this dog-whistle, via a rhetorical taffy-pulling machine, that you continue to blow.

                  1. Medical care is not a right. Period.

                    I would never argue that.

              2. Also “Who’s…” MOAR coffee!

            3. What is Natural Law? What is ethics/morals?

              Life or death is man’s only fundamental alternative. To live is his basic act of choice. If he chooses to live, a rational ethics will tell him what principles of action are required to implement his choice. If he does not choose to live, nature will take its course.

          2. Is the Right to Privacy a natural law or a positive law?

            1. That’s actually a fascinating question. If you look at the Abrahamic tradition, for example, the concept of privacy didn’t exist until Adam and Eve tasted of the Fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and thusly realized they were naked.

              The question is, can we use reason to deduce that privacy is necessary to living a happy and good life? I think you can; however, the reasoning is beyond the scope of 1500+ characters in a forum comment.

            2. According to some, it is found in various penumbras and emmanations… sounds kind of superstitious to me.

            3. Palin’s Reargear said:
              “Is the Right to Privacy a natural law or a positive law?”

              False choice. Reading the Wiki on “natural law,” however, I see how you could propose such a question.

        4. “The DoI is not married to anything and is in no way a governing document. Its purpose was to sever us from England – which it did well. Why bring it up? Because the Judge needs the pseudo religious language in it to combat the secular Constitution.”

          So you admit the DoI helps the Judge’s argument, you simply don’t like the Declaration so you declare it irrelevant. If the Preamble to the Declaration said “Down with Bushpigs and Christfags, all hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster,” you would be here hailing its wisdom and genius.

          And you’re really going to claim there’s a conflict between the Declaration and the Constitution?

        5. I, persoanlly, do not believe that “natural rights” can be derived from J-C beliefs. To accept J-C teachings is to accept mysticism. And to accept mysticism is to necessarily deny logic. However, that does not invalidate the concept of natural rights. Natural rights can be derived from the most basic law of logic: The Law of Identity.

          The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A?and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man’s rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life.

    2. “One can always count on the Judge for Team Red pablum.”

      One can always count on the resident moron to not understand the point.

      1. Sorta like those nutty parents that want to ban Fahrenheit 451 from schools because the Bible gets torched?

        1. How numerous are those parents – I’m actually curious.

          1. Um, I’d say there’s at least one for every county in the US, so bottom limit would start at about 3,000.

          2. Book nazis are numerous than you think. At least a half dozen or so in every school, public and private. I’ve seen books challenged that were much less controversial than F451. You really haven’t lived until you’ve had to defend a Scooby Do book against charges that Scooby and the gang are a gateway to the occult.

            One thing you can guarantee: the person who screams the loudest (and wants your job) will NOT have read the book in question.

            Yep. That Judeo-Christian thing is working out just fine…

            1. The term “ban” generally conflates throwing books out of the school library and using certain books in the curriculum. As for the latter, it’s convenient to categorize anyone who doesn’t want Huckleberry Finn or The Merchant of Venice taught in English class as a Christfag censor – though by choosing a book to teach in class the teacher is “censoring” other books she then doesn’t have time for.

              1. Except that the bans are from school boards, telling teachers that they may not use certain books.

            2. “Scooby and the gang are a gateway to the occult.”

              That’s funny. Isn’t the whole thing with Scooby Doo that there never actually turns out to be anything to do with ghosts or the occult going on.

      2. It understands it, but cannot take the main argument head on. Therefore, it picks around the edges and attempts to misdirect defenders. You spend your time trying to defend minor points and weak areas peripheral to the main idea, while it chuckles and thinks it’s won against the main point.

  3. Voting against your conscience is wasting your vote.

    1. According to Bill Maher and Michael Moore, not voting for the Democrat is wasting your vote.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EI1Y_rRPy40

      1. I value my roommates’ dogs’ shit more than I value Bill Maher or Michael Moore’s opinions.

        1. Ha! Good one!

          And I would rather spend an evening conversing with your roommate’s dog’s shit than watch Maher or Moore’s nonsense.

          As to John Stewart or Stephen Colbert (vs your roomate’s dog’s shit) it’s a toss up. I could go either way.

        2. Very true, dog shit makes good fertilizer while their opinions are worthless.

  4. voting doesn’t work anyways

    1. Well, for the presidential election, you’re right.

      You have a 1/120000000 chance of affecting the popular vote for president, but of course, the popular vote doesn’t even decide the president.

      1. Actually the chance of your vote impacting the presidential election depends upon the state you live in. Not only the sheer population but also how close the polling in your state happens to be. California itself has a huge population but pretty much everyone knows it is going to go for Obama. New Hampshire has a much smaller population but is more evenly divided this year in terms of polling. Someone’s vote in New Hampshire counts more than someone’s vote in California.

        1. HA HA HA! Fuck you California!

          I’m voting for Lizard People!

        2. Thanks for rubbing in the fact that I live and vote in Illinois….grumble.

          1. Don’t worry, in 2008 I voted for George Phillies, because I couldn’t stand Barr/Root. No one has more conscious-vote cred than me.

            1. *conscience, though the original works too.

  5. Well, I early-voted last weekend for Gary Johnson and the rest of the Libertarian ticket. My choice was certainly consistent with my conscience.

    1. Then you voted for Obama!!!111!

      /Team Red

    2. Then you voted for Romney!!!111!

      /Team Blue

  6. An sew kitteh praid to Ceiling Cat
    OMFG! I has a hngry
    Maybee Moarning Lynk fur teh noms?
    But teh Edtrs not cut n payst teh Lynx
    An teh kittehs were like, “Ware my fud lol wut?! We haz a hngry!”
    And Ceiling Cat was layk, U dowted my luvs fer u? then ur pwnd!
    And teh Ceiling Cat smoted teh kittehs
    And they were layk sore skeered and peed on teh carpetz.

  7. Last election was the first time I voted for one of the majors, and I felt dirty for weeks.

    A lesser of two evils is still evil.

    Erect Gary’s Johnson!

  8. 89.4% of Syrians voted to keep Assad in power until 2028. Surely, he was the lesser of whatever other evil their was. I mean, how could you not have voted for the guy if you were a Syrian?

  9. I think we are doomed either way. I am no fan of Obama, but one thing is certain. If Romneys mouth is moving, he is lying.

    http://www.anon-e.tk

    1. Well he says opposite things so you have to figure he’s only lying 50% of the time.

      1. Not really. A thousand miles south of the truth, the man who says to go east is lying just as much as the man who says to go west.

  10. I wish I lived in Ohio so I could vote for Gary Johnson there. I already voted for Johnson in Indiana, but to vote for him in a battleground state is a real way to put a knife in the Republican party for having no principles.

    1. I supported Obummer in 2008 for all his anti-war, pro-civil liberties talk. Should have known better. The SOB voted for retroactive immunity for the telcos. That was a clear warning sign.

      Now I am going to vote Gary Johnson, in a state that is “leaning Obummer” by about 3-5 percentage points. I don’t give a rat’s ass if Romney or Obama wins. They are equally turdlike in composition.

      1. Obama signed the NDAA into law too!

    2. Well that will be what I do when I vote.

      Best part is that I live in Franklin County in Ohio which is in the most politically divided areas in the Nation.

      Each of the major parties are salivating for my vote but to them I say…

      Fuck Off and I cannot wait to vote for Johnson.

    3. If you live in several states, who stops you from voting in all of them?

  11. A journey of one thousand miles begins with one step, but it needs to be in the right direction.

    Eliminating the federal government’s debt doesn’t begin with adding another trillion to it every year, as Romney and Obama each plans to do.

  12. I’m Canadian, so the anwser is obvious. 😉

    On the other hand, some Hollywood stars like former Seinfeld star Jason Alexander, should not be afraid to try Gary Johnson instead and Jason got lots of grudge against Breitbart.com. (I think having the role of Cosmo for the live-action Fairly Oddparents special didn’t helped him but that’s another story).

  13. The problem is that getting outraged over the way the country is going and so you decide to not vote in protest is kinda like being outraged at falling overboard, so you decide not to swim in protest.

    The only person harmed or in any way inconvenienced by your decision is you. The people and processes you are protesting against won’t even notice.

  14. Nobody 2012, fuck Obama & Romney! Either way the banks and the Federal Reserve wins!

  15. The issue is that the Spoiler effect ensures that a vote for a 3rd party is essentially meaningless. I wish it weren’t that way, but that’s reality.

    The core of the problem is our FPTP voting system, it ensures the tyranny of the two party system. We need something like Alternate Voting, Score voting, or proportional representation to free us from it.

    Until then, we’re stuck with the two hulking tyrants that are allowed to stay complacent, indolent, deaf to the ears of the people.

    1. Voting 3rd party is an influence vote for your fellow Americans.

      It bolsters social acceptance of 3rd party voting.

      If 20% of the electorate voted for Gary Johnson, then next time around it would easily break 30%, just on lemmings.

      Voting 3rd party while the house is burning is not a wasted vote, its an influence vote for social acceptability.

      Ppl will see your actions and rethink its validity. Herdthink.

      1. I am voting for Gary Johnson, but I don’t agree with this supposition. Witness, Ross Perot.

  16. I did not care for him, is expected from this situation, I did not really say, fell from the capital. Even if there http://www.cheapuggsbootsforwomen.org/ was a gun in the hand must not mean Doude Guo Zhang Yan. Thought this, I saw the boss Zhang nodded. Heroes do not eat immediate loss anyway, now she brings those things that I did not need Senate combined.

  17. Vote Libertine! Dope and Strange!

  18. Hey Judge,

    I agree with your entire premise here. I voted for GJ for the very reasons you stated above and I have been accused of wasting my vote. I am glad that I am not alone in thinking the lessor of two evils is not the only choice and that a consciences vote is never wasted. I don’t particularly fear 4 years with either “mainstream” candidate, my guess is not much will change under either one.

    What I see, in the two parties, is a lot of arguing about the things that don’t really matter and a lot of agreement on the status quo of the things that need to change.

    My guess though, is that Obama will win another 4 years.

  19. obama claims the power to execute both foreign nationals and american citizens via his terror tuesdays ‘due process’. romney would embrace the system, and substitute it with his version of ‘due process’ on a different day. and for that reason i dont think any true libertarian or constitutionally sensitive independent can justify voting for obomney.

    there is a reason they would not allow johnson in to the debates and it wasn’t how much of the vote he was deemed to be able to capture by ‘polls’. it was the fact that he would have made both these hypocrites look like absolute fools. and the republicrats couldn’t have that, now could they? a young, well spoken, ron paul-esque republican, with much less ‘kook’ factor to many mainstream voters is a true threat to their plutocracy

  20. I will vote for Gary Johnson knowing he will not win. Even in defeat more votes will create a place at the table for Libertarian philosophy to enter the conversation in creation of public policy. If freedom loving people stay home or continue to vote the lesser of two evils we will remain stuck with the status quo.

  21. Story about attendance may cause curiosity. But he is the most http://www.cheapfootballcleatsmall.com/ important issue, or that mouth filled coffin fox. In any event, the facts can not be implemented in the case, he must find a way to get rid of that coffin. But for some reason, it is http://www.cheapuggsbootsforwomen.org/ difficult to think of a way.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.