A protest vote makes sense

[WhistlinDave]

Anybody have a reliable list/matrix of what the requirements are in each state for write ins? I have heard conflicting information for California, for example... I was told write ins here aren't allowed, then I heard they are allowed but the candidate has to file some paperwork with the registrar of voters or something.

It would be nice to know what the deal is in every state so more of us could try to see if we can get those write in votes to be counted. (Again, this is assuming something miraculous doesn't happen... Still praying for one.)

 

[QuickZ06]

Hat tip to pcosmar

Zang!

 

[CPUd]

This is a strategy that should be worked out on a state-by-state basis.

If you vote for local candidates and leave the President blank, it's what they call the (Presidential) undervote; it is typically around 3%. In the 2004 elections, when they caught election officials in Ohio taking ballot boxes home, and throwing away reams of tally tape, they also discovered counties that had as high as 25% undervote. It's difficult (when you're looking to rig an election) to toss the whole ballot out altogether, because a paper trail exists between number of voters and number of ballots. You can't flip a vote if there is no vote to flip. And the math would be evident even to a 3rd-grader. It's easier just to spoil part of the ballot and let the rest of the ballot properly register its vote.

The point is- if there is a state that has a close race, it automatically triggers more scrutiny, and if someone is gonna lose, they go to the undervote to see if it is within its normal threshold. If they see it at 10-25%, they start making some noise, and try to recover some of those votes if they can find a counting error. By this time, the press is all over it, and they figure out 25% of the voters simply did not vote for Pres. Then they can't say GJ 'got the Paul voters', or Obama 'got the Paul voters'. The Paul vote is not a commodity that can be delivered to another candidate, because the Paul vote doesn't exist.

 

[Working Poor]

The Paul vote is not a commodity that can be delivered to another candidate, because the Paul vote doesn't exist.

I really had to chew on that one for a minute.

I wish for the people who are Ron's supporters vote to be counted. I want liberty to matter and to influence government. Vote in your local elections for the liberty candidates. We have to be like the UN and think global and act local. We just can't let our voice be shut down for the sake of the whole world even.

If we don't vote at all we loose our change to vote for local liberty. Leaving the presidential box unchecked seems like an excellent idea to me. I am pretty sure there are a lot of people that do not want Romney or Obama to be the winner in fact I think it is possible they are the majority. We could blog the heck out of that idea.

The only thing about not checking the box for President is that even I can sit here and figure out that that vote could be rigged too. But it might prove something to a lot of people about our votes not counting or are rigged.

I wish Ron could make an announcement the day of the election telling us what to do so that the voting machines can't all be changed in time to screw us.

 

[jmdrake]

By writing in, even were they not counting it and were my vote only noted as a gap between the number who voted for president and the combined numbers who voted for named candidates, I have a much more accurate impact of what I actually think and the number exists. If it is large, we can make a big deal of it. 3d parties may be reported but not much, and voting the way that accurately reflects my feelings, is much more important to me. Making a statement that I liked a candidate I don't like doesn't appeal to me at all. I'm just speaking for myself, however.

The "vote gap" strategy is only viable to the extent that everyone who writes in Ron Paul specifically votes for a democrat or a republican in other races. It also requires that people who vote for Obama or Romney not skip or write in other people. And lastly it requires an extremely cooperative media to pick up your compiled numbers of "votes for non presidential candidates", because that number will not be obvious. (Do you know what that number was for 2008? Because I have no idea even how to Google it.)

However in my state I should be able (with help) to make Ron a certified write in so they count votes.

Good for you. Does that mean on election night they'll actually say "Ron Paul got X number of votes"? Under that circumstance it makes sense to write in Ron Paul.

 

[anewvoice]

You think they actually track that crap?

Doesn't much matter whether they track it, nobody will ever report it.

 

[michaelwise]

Good to see a lot of the old Paul Crew still here..

 

[Yieu]

I would rather have a write in for Ron Paul not be counted than have a vote counted for any of the candidates likely to make it to the general election. You can't vote against someone, only for someone.

 

[kahless]

Write-in amounts to "scatter" where I live and have ruled out Johnson since he is pro-abortion. My only hope is Ron announcing a 3rd party bid after the convention but that seems unlikely.

So the choice for me is either stay home or vote for Romney. Despite people claiming no difference between Obama and Romney there in fact are many that effect me directly financially. For example taxes and health insurance (competition across state lines). You also do not see Obama making concessions to Ron Paul as Romney has like auditing the fed, currency legislation, etc.

 

[Razmear]

This is a strategy that should be worked out on a state-by-state basis.

If you vote for local candidates and leave the President blank, it's what they call the (Presidential) undervote; it is typically around 3%. In the 2004 elections, when they caught election officials in Ohio taking ballot boxes home, and throwing away reams of tally tape, they also discovered counties that had as high as 25% undervote. It's difficult (when you're looking to rig an election) to toss the whole ballot out altogether, because a paper trail exists between number of voters and number of ballots. You can't flip a vote if there is no vote to flip. And the math would be evident even to a 3rd-grader. It's easier just to spoil part of the ballot and let the rest of the ballot properly register its vote.

The point is- if there is a state that has a close race, it automatically triggers more scrutiny, and if someone is gonna lose, they go to the undervote to see if it is within its normal threshold. If they see it at 10-25%, they start making some noise, and try to recover some of those votes if they can find a counting error. By this time, the press is all over it, and they figure out 25% of the voters simply did not vote for Pres. Then they can't say GJ 'got the Paul voters', or Obama 'got the Paul voters'. The Paul vote is not a commodity that can be delivered to another candidate, because the Paul vote doesn't exist.

In close races they have also tried to determine "voters intent" when there is a blank space. Meaning if you vote for all Republicans and leave the president slot blank, in a tight vote they may determine that you intended to vote for Romney but forgot to check that box. The safest protest vote is for a 3rd party candidate.