Can I vote for (write-in) Ron Paul in all 50 states?

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.
 
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.
 
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!"
 
Last edited:
paulbot24 said:
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!"
Click to expand...

You can unify with us to write in Ron Paul if you want.
 
unknown said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
sailingaway said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
libertariantexas said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Blue said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
sailingaway said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
sailingaway said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

libertariantexas said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
sailingaway said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
@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...
 
libertariantexas said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Occam's Banana
California could secede in next ten years, sparking new Civil War
Replies
6
Views
62
69360
6
Voluntarist
One For tod evans - Equal Custody (Kentucky)
Replies
2
Views
37
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
J
40 State Attorneys General Write to Congress Opposing Attempt to Ban State Safety Regulations on AI in Trump's "Big Ugly Bill"
Replies
1
Views
30
James_Madison_Lives
J
Brian4Liberty
  • Featured
Department of War?
Replies
7
Views
416
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
DOGE builds AI tool to cut 50 percent of federal regulations
2 3
Replies
46
Views
368
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Back
Top