RON Paul 2016 vs. Romney (Wead)

[EBounding]

I want to write-in Ron Paul, but I don't want my ballot to be invalidated either. I might just go BLANK.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I do feel that in order to place a no confidence vote you do actually have to go to the polls and vote on something, so people don't spin it as contentment or laziness, though. But you could write in Ron Paul or even just leave that office blank, and it would be a vote of no confidence in the others.

If Ron Paul is not on the ballot, voting for him would be the same as not voting at all. Your vote won't be counted and it won't be a vote toward "no confidence", or anything of the sort.

The establishment that we are trying to wrest control away from, doesn't care if we don't vote. In fact they prefer it. They only care if we pose a threat to toppling them.

 

[sailingaway]

I want to write-in Ron Paul, but I don't want my ballot to be invalidated either. I might just go BLANK.

I have never seen any authentic source say an entire ballot is invalidated for wrongly filling out a single vote. That VOTE might be invalidated, which would have the same effect as being blank, but I'd really like to see any source saying an entire ballot is invalidated, I don't believe that would ever happen.

 

[sailingaway]

If Ron Paul is not on the ballot, voting for him would be the same as not voting at all. Your vote won't be counted and it won't be a vote toward "no confidence", or anything of the sort.

The establishment that we are trying to wrest control away from, doesn't care if we don't vote. In fact they prefer it. They only care if we pose a threat to toppling them.

'your vote' may not be counted but the number who vote is counted and the number who vote for the named presidential candidates is counted and the difference is the number of people who bothered to vote who refused to vote for any names on the ballot. WE can spread the number if it is large; it isn't as if third party numbers aren't something you have to look up yourself.

In your state, a write in for Ron might have the same impact as leaving it blank. In mine, I'm pretty sure we will get him as a certified write in candidate to have his votes counted. We did in 2008, unfortunately it was only 2 weeks before the election with no real time to spread the word except to those who were still tuned in to the DP etc.

 

[LibertyEagle]

'your vote' may not be counted but the number who vote is counted and the number who vote for the named presidential candidates is counted and the difference is the number of people who bothered to vote who refused to vote for any names on the ballot. WE can spread the number if it is large; it isn't as if third party numbers aren't something you have to look up yourself.

In your state, a write in for Ron might have the same impact as leaving it blank. In mine, I'm pretty sure we will get him as a certified write in candidate to have his votes counted. We did in 2008, unfortunately it was only 2 weeks before the election with no real time to spread the word except to those who were still tuned in to the DP etc.

No one but us is going to go to the trouble to calculate this number, Sailing, and what good would it do? It's only useful if it sways opinions and they don't care if we do not vote.

 

[sailingaway]

No one but us is going to go to the trouble to calculate this number, Sailing, and what good would it do? It's only useful if it sways opinions and they don't care if we do not vote.

I don't think the third party number is any more useful if it isn't Ron, it is a vote for someone I don't want, and you have to look it up anyhow.

So if you want to do that fine, but I think the number will only be a big deal if we spread it anyhow and I'd rather spread the 'none of the above ' number as being much more in tune with my thinking. But in my state, California, Ron Paul will be a certified write in candidate when 54 electors join me in filing as such saying he is the candidate we are pledged to: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=elec&group=08001-09000&file=8650-8653

That is what happened in 2008 and our votes were counted (generally, San Bernardino filed without counting his but they were breaking the rules. Even SB filed how many were for none of the above, though.).

What disturbs me is Johnson's site apparently says in CA Ron's votes won't be counted unless RON files, which is no where required even in the provisions they link to.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I don't think the third party number is any more useful if it isn't Ron, it is a vote for someone I don't want, and you have to look it up anyhow.

So if you want to do that fine, but I think the number will only be a big deal if we spread it anyhow and I'd rather spread the 'none of the above ' number as being much more in tune with my thinking. But in my state, California, Ron Paul will be a certified write in candidate when 54 electors join me in filing as such saying he is the candidate we are pledged to: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=elec&group=08001-09000&file=8650-8653

That is what happened in 2008 and our votes were counted (generally, San Bernardino filed without counting his but they were breaking the rules. Even SB filed how many were for none of the above, though.).

What disturbs me is Johnson's site apparently says in CA Ron's votes won't be counted unless RON files, which is no where required even in the provisions they link to.

Well, that's 1 state. I'm sure that will have an impact.

 

[sailingaway]

Well, that's 1 state. I'm sure that will have an impact.

I don't think ANY of this will 'have an impact' but it is my vote and I want to vote for someone I actually want for President -- and that is Ron Paul. Regardless of if he were counted in my state I'd write him in and be part of the 'none of the above' vote.

 

[staerker]

Ron Paul 2016 would not be successful, sadly. The handful of people I personally know, who are leaning toward his views, have bought into the "he's too old" line. Four years from now? Yeah...

 

[July]

Ron Paul 2016 would not be successful, sadly. The handful of people I personally know, who are leaning toward his views, have bought into the "he's too old" line. Four years from now? Yeah...

Well anyone who would actually try to primary Romney would not win--it would have to be someone with nothing to lose, who could do it just to make statement, if it turns out Romney is doing a very poor job. So yeah, I don't think he would be too old for something like that. It would be an embarrassment for Romney and he would try to avoid it and shut it down as quickly as possible, but there could be a media spectacle.

 

[sailingaway]

I don't think Ron has plans for 2016, but I don't think he had plans for 2012 either. I'll let 2016 take care of itself. I do remember in 2008 people saying the same thing about his age and how he wouldn't get as far as he had in 2008, yet in 2012 he doubled his vote, got huge crowds, and despite massive cheating STILL had enough states petition to put him into nomination so they had to change the rules. That is a whole lot more than happened in 2008.

 

[erowe1]

If Ron Paul doesn't really want to retire completely fro politics, then I would rather see him run for Senate than another run at the presidency.

 

[sailingaway]

If Ron Paul doesn't really want to retire completely fro politics, then I would rather see him run for Senate than another run at the presidency.

I dont' think he is interested in being a junior senator. I am not looking ahead to 2016 though. What will happen will happen.

 

[John of Des Moines]

I dont' think he is interested in being a junior senator. I am not looking ahead to 2016 though. What will happen will happen.

Junior Senators get paid the same and are charged the same price at the Senate Barber Shop.

 

[sailingaway]

Junior Senators get paid the same and are charged the same price at the Senate Barber Shop.

He was tied for first place for Huchison's seat when they first started polling it, and he wasn't interested. At the time he hadn't declared for president yet and I assumed a senior House member with a subcommittee had more real say. But he wouldn't get good committees in the Senate.

I'd support him, whatever he did, I just don't think he will.

 

[erowe1]

I assumed a senior House member with a subcommittee had more real say.

I don't think that's correct. His role in that capacity didn't give him the amount of influence of a single junior senator.

I don't blame him if he doesn't want to be one. But I think he could win the seat. His age wouldn't be an issue. And he wouldn't be the guy who keeps running for the same office and losing every time, like he would if he ran for president again.

 

[Jordan Liberty]

I was originally ready to vote Obama but after thinking about it a while I cannot vote for either him or Romney. I'm now torn between writing in RP or voting GJ. Either way my vote won't make a difference but my principles will remain in tact. Of of all the scenarios Wead presented I think a Obama reelection is the lesser of two evils. If RP can't win fairly in this year's primary how is it possible for him to win against a possible incumbent Romney in 2016? So I plan on voting RP or GJ and let the chips fall where they may. I predict another 4 years of socialism, and hopefully the establishment doesn't cheat Rand out of the GOP nomination in 2016.

 

[WIwarrior]

I'm voting for GJ. I know Obama will win but I believe the economy will collapse during his second term. Thus the Dems will be blamed for the dire economic conditions and I hope a freedom/liberty candidate will emerge in 2016 to save the country.

 

[sailingaway]

I don't think that's correct. His role in that capacity didn't give him the amount of influence of a single junior senator.

I don't blame him if he doesn't want to be one. But I think he could win the seat. His age wouldn't be an issue. And he wouldn't be the guy who keeps running for the same office and losing every time, like he would if he ran for president again.

that last bit isn't persuasive to me if he is the best candidate, however I'll let 2016 take care of itself.

Completely independently of 2016, I don't think he is interested in being a Senator. An opinion leader using C4L to keep congress honest, like Norquist does with his organization, that I could see.

 

[erowe1]

that last bit isn't persuasive to me if he is the best candidate, however I'll let 2016 take care of itself.

It wouldn't be persuasive for me either. I'd still support him. I just think it would be baggage.