Saturday, October 13, 2012

My 2012 Write-In Vote for Ron Paul

If you write-in Ron Paul's name for president in 2012, your vote WILL count -- at least in Alabama, Iowa, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, California, Vermont, New Hampshire, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Maine (so far -- more states may yet be on the way).

That's according to an October 5, 2012 posting on The Daily Paul.

I live in California, and I cast my write-in vote for Ron Paul this past week!

Even if my vote didn't count, I'd still vote for Paul. A vote that's not counted is like not voting -- and not voting is better than voting for one of the lesser evils on the California ballot. quotes Libertarian Party candidate Gary "lesser of three evils" Johnson as saying that a write-in vote for Paul is "meaningless."

Thanks for the tip, Gary. But how "meaningful" would a vote be for your confused and contradictory message, including your support for wars.

Sure, Paul won't win. But neither will Johnson. It's likely that Johnson won't even get 1% of the vote. Contrary to the LP's big hopes and daydreams, Johnson didn't get into the debates, and the race tightening such that Romney looks to have a fighting chance of beating Obama.

Since this is "the most important election in history" and "too important to lose," Americans will once again be "going home" to the major parties that actually have a chance of winning.

If I'm going to vote for a candidate who can't win, I'd rather vote for someone who is uncompromisingly antiwar -- or even not vote at all -- than vote for Gary "lesser of three evils" Johnson.


John Chrysostom said...

I can understand basing your decision not to support Gary Johnson on the idea that he is the lesser of three evils, and your observation about the problems with his positions is accurate. But why isn't Paul the lesser of four evils? His positions on immigration and abortion are very strange and anti-libertarian. I like him a bit more than Gary Johnson, but I hated Bob Barr and I voted for him anyway in 2008. My vote wasn't for Barr so much as for the libertarian party. If the libertarian party candidate, whoever s/he is, gets a high enough percentage of the vote, that advances the cause of liberty on its own. I'd be more reticent to vote for Johnson if he had a hope of winning -- as is, I'm voting to raise awareness of the libertarian party and libertarianism. Splitting the vote with another person who equally has no chance doesn't really further any goal. I like Paul more than Johnson, but Paul isn't perfect either. If he were, I think your position would be a little more reasonable (though in the end I still would probably vote for the libertarian party candidate for the reasons I stated above -- not being able to win substantially mitigates the amount that relative differences in policy positions in the margins actually matter).

Thomas said...

I think the primary issue is war and empire -- the danger of the U.S. evolving into an empire, and all which that entails.

The "war and empire" issue impacts the economy and civil liberties, so it's the Prime Issue that one must get right. Paul gets it right, so yes, I'll overlook his lesser evils.

My remarks about Johnson being the "lesser of three evils" is really a shot aimed at Libertarians' always implying (if not explicitly saying) that, since one must not vote for a lesser evil, that the LP is perfect.

JohnJeremyVines said...

I wish I had the option to write in Dr. Paul. Alas, I live in Louisiana which does not allow write-in votes at all.
What I'll more than likely do is vote but not for President.
I believe Dr. Paul will easily receive more votes than all the minor-party combined and could even win electoral votes from faithless electors.