How to change people's perception of "wasted vote"

[hyoomen]

My apologies if there is already a thread for this, but I couldn't find it with a couple of simple searches.

What are people's strategies for overcoming the argument against voting for Ron Paul because such a vote would be 'wasted' or 'thrown away'. Essentially this comes down to the electability issue.

The basic "he's electable if we all vote for him" rhetoric is ineffective for stubborn supporters of this idea. I'd like some irrefutable or extremely inspirational responses.

Thanks.

 

[ninepointfive]

yeah. its hard to sway them out of that mentality. You just need to somehow find whats important to them and go from there.

 

[Broadlighter]

Ron Paul can win if enough people vote for him.

Also, why waste your vote on someone who wins the election, then proceeds to erode your freedoms even further?

It's an election, not a gambler's bet, stupid!

 

[acmegeek]

You can vote for either of two candidates, the one you think will do the most good or the one you think will win. If you just vote for the candidate you think you will win, you are simply betraying your conscience and ability to reason.

I think that if explained adequately, MOST Americans would vote for Dr. Paul. We are just up against campaigns of ignorance, suppression, manipulation, and ultimately complacency.

The REAL question you must ask yourself, is as you leave the voting booth, did you make the choice yourself or did you lets others choose for you? That is the only question you must ask.

We as human beings have but our ability to choose.

 

[pacelli]

The best thing to counter the 'wasted vote' argument would be a 1st place finish in a single primary.

 

[Ara825]

It's polotics, not sports, we aren't voting for a team, we are voting for an individual...most valuable player, not most valuable team.

 

[Cooter]

not the best responce in the world im sure, but i just tell people in my opnion that a vote for someone that i dont believe in is a waisted vote and that my vote for ron paul on principal will feel 10 time more rewarding that voting for someone like mccain who i have nothing in common with. i would say if i was sold out to a party i might vote for mccain, but i am sold out to the principals of freedom and liberty and they are only found coming from the mouth of ron paul

 

[hawks4ronpaul]

Explain how “electability” is a liberal scam to steal conservative votes:

"Don’t waste your vote” tricked conservatives into DOING EXACTLY THAT, WASTING CONSERVATIVE VOTES, because it is now obvious that the truly wasted vote was for Romney.

Romney flipped conservative votes into liberal votes:

• Romney tried to out-"liberal" Ted Kennedy for a Senate seat but then argued that was just a phase he was going through and now he is "Mr. Conservative."
• People believed him and voted for Romney as the "electable" anti-McCain.
• Romney took many Paul votes in NH, NV, etc. and then Romney flipflopped by dropping out days after saying he was staying in (making him less electable than Ron Paul after all; you have to be in it to win it).
• Then Romney flipflopped by trying to throw all his anti-McCain votes to McCain.

I would be furious if I were a Romney voter or delegate.

I would be even more furious if I were a Tancredo supporter.

• Tancredo endorsed Romney who endorsed McCain.
• Now, "no amnesty" Tancredo votes are going to "amnesty" McCain.

That is 180-degrees backwards of voter intent.

• Conservative vote entered.
• Liberal vote recorded.

Backfire/blowback: All those Tancredo/Paul/Thompson fans who tactically voted for Romney now must watch their anti-McCain vote go to McCain.

“Are you going to let them reverse your vote?”


http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

 

[TruthAtLast]

If everyone voted for who they think is best for the job, they'd be surprised at who might end up winning.

But people need to realize that if they REALLY want change and it isn't just lip service, then they need to support the candidates that represent their beliefs. This isn't about a Presidential Election. As Ron Paul keeps saying over and over again, it is much bigger than that. People need to make a statement. They need to force those in power to change their ways, or force them out of office by voting for someone to replace them.

If everyone votes for McCain because the Media says "he can win" then why would the establishment ever think of supporting anyone else in the future.

People can only see two inches in front of their face.

 

[homah]

I've told a few people (that I know for sure will be voting no matter what) that "McCain already has the nomination locked up, so you might as well vote for who you like the most." Of course that is a lie, but it is an effective one. I wouldn't use this on people who are apathetic as it may cause them to just not vote, period.

 

[TruthAtLast]

I would be furious if I were a Romney voter or delegate.
[/url]

Good point.

Romney has stripped the voters of their ability to choose by dropping out. The irony is that Romney could have nearly assured a brokered convention. Huck would have still won some of those southern states and Romney would have taken several of those McCain states too.

Other than his wife getting tired of him writing personal checks, I'm not sure why Romney would drop out. Did he make a deal with the GOP? Even if he stopped advertising and simply showed up to make speeches and do the traditional stump campaigning, he would have won a few more states. Seriously, was California really THAT important? Half the country hadn't even voted yet.

 

[hawks4ronpaul]

Your final words to the die-hard McCain voter because no one else can beat him:

"Then we don't even have to vote at all."

"We can forget about the primary."

"That's one less errand to run."



http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

 

[Matt Collins]

Romney Delegate Asks for OUR Advice! Let him have it...

An 'at large' delegate for Mitt Rommey here in Tennessee called into Phil Valentine's show today asking for advice. He wants to know what to do at the convention because Mitt will not be able to win.

Yes, a "politically homeless" delegate is soliciting advice from the general public on who to vote for.

Here is his info:
[email protected]
615-243-6869

fax:
615-261-9100

 

[TastyWheat]

The best arguement is to reverse their statement.

"So my vote means more if I vote for the front-runner? Why do people bother voting for the inevitable winner? Why show up?"

People show up to support the person they want to be president. People show up to voice their opinion. People show up because voting is the most powerful tool to change America.

If that fails mention Lincoln and how he was nominated thru a brokered convention. I think that's true, but lie if it isn't.

 

[TastyWheat]

Just say Lincoln was the nominee from a brokered convention. If nobody wins the first ballot its anyone's game, including ours.

 

[terlinguatx]

....

 

[CzargwaR]

I sometimes say things like, so if Hitler was running for president and there were some other guys that had no chance of winning you would vote for Hitler???

 

[hyoomen]

Interesting ideas. As an aside, I refuse to pull the Hitler trump, even in jest.

Unfortunately, some of the discussions I've had are less about people deciding whether to vote for the "certain GOP nominee" vs. Congressman Paul and more about whether they want their vote, which they think will mean little in the Republican race, to assist in nominating a black candidate to be one step closer to the White House.

My current arguments I try:
-when you help vote in and send a Congressional official to D.C., do you expect them to vote for what needs to be voted on to best represent the constituency and the principles of this country, or do you expect them to vote for the 'certain win'?

-the only wasted vote is the vote cast without conviction

I've also tried some of the aforementioned ideas.

One I came up w/ this afternoon after talking to somebody and reflecting on the UNT Rally yesterday here in D/FW was that we do not vote to win today, we vote to invest in tomorrow. Our votes can (and probably should) do more than elect officials -- they can create and modify public policy that affects us for a generation. We do not vote for a candidate to win 4 years in the White House -- we vote for a nation of people who all deserve to live the best life possible in what has the potential to be the greatest nation in the world.

 

[jsu718]

People are ingrained to think that the election is like American Idol. They get buy-in to vote for the winner. They feel emotionally connected to the process. It's like a horse race, only at the end of the day, the winner's name on your ballot card doesn't get you anything. People don't think that far ahead.

Let's say the Republican nominee was Mussolini and the Democratic nominee was Hitler. People still wouldn't vote third party. They have been indoctrinated over the last 100 years to believe that there are no other options. (60% of) Republicans have bought into the idea that the war is good, and Democrats still think that a vote for a Republican is a vote for more Bush. There is honestly no way to convince most people otherwise. You have to get the few and far between that are active, well read, and knowledgeable about the current state of the country. That comes out to about 5-10%, which is what we have. The rest is just finding those that aren't supporters already and getting the delegates.

Outside of the nomination for president, there is always taking the party back. That is already going on and 100% of the people here need to get in on it at some level.

 

[Paulitical Correctness]

I hate to be a pessimist, but I do believe that the people still thinking this way by now are not going to be swayed in time. Maybe in the next four years, but for this election..they're too far gone.

See, for a lot of people the feeling of "being important" and "making a difference" is essential. People are on a neverending quest to be a part of something big. By voting for the "electable" candidate, they're making themselves a part of something - collectively.

Screw 'em.