The wasted vote

[Elwar]

I would have been reluctant to vote for Ron Paul if he was in the majority because it would have been a wasted vote, here is why.


Imagine you had a twenty dollar bill and you HAD to give it to one of three people.

Donald Trump
Bill Gates
A single mom who is broke and her kids need money for food.

If you give it to Donald Trump or Bill Gates they would just throw it in with the rest, it would have no impact, a waste of your time.

If you gave it to the single mom, you would be making a difference. Your contribution would have an impact and your time will not have been wasted.

Now look at your choice for a vote:

Barack Obama who will be getting millions of votes
Mitt Romney who will also be getting millions of votes
Third Party candidate who may get up close to a hundred thousand votes.

Which candidate will your single vote impact the most? Why would you waste your time throwing your vote toward the one in a million vote.

Also, if you think your vote matters, your single vote will not sway the presidential election. We learned in 2000 that unless you are on the Supreme Court, your single vote will not determine who the president will be.

And in the end, voting for principle just feels so good. Adding the fact that your vote mattered more by voting for a less popular candidate, and you double the good feeling walking out of the voting booth.

 

[DeMintConservative]

The second part of the argument is a great example of the "me me me" dominant mentality these days. When I want to feel good, I buy a chocolate. Actually I don't, but you get the idea.

As for the first part, the one on the impact, you need to read about marginalism and marginal value.

 

[Elwar]

The second part of the argument is a great example of the "me me me" dominant mentality these days. When I want to feel good, I buy a chocolate. Actually I don't, but you get the idea.

As for the first part, the one on the impact, you need to read about marginalism and marginal value.

I am an individual. So yes, "me me me" is important.

With the knowledge that my vote will play no role in electing the president, the only reason to do so is to walk out with some level of satisfaction. Otherwise, why vote?

 

[Southerner]

"Barack Obama who will be getting millions of votes
Mitt Romney who will also be getting millions of votes
Third Party candidate who may get up close to a hundred thousand votes.
A vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for 8 more years of Obama's policies."

Ron Paul would give us the best chance at saving our economy and nation, but 4 more years of Obama would destroy both. 3rd party candidates are spoilers for one faction or the other, and while "protest votes" may feel good, they will NOT put food in your belly. We need to keep working to get our delegates, and liberty minded candidates elected to other offices, but we need to vote for the GOP Nominee to defeat the socialist who is destroying our economy.

 

[atomicsink]

Romney is a socialist too, no doubt about it. I have no need to vote for Romney or Obama. Gary Johnson is a Libertarian and was a liberty Republican, just like Ron Paul. The choice is so clear. If Gary Johnson can get even 5% of the vote the GOP will not be able to neglect the liberty movement again. They will need to try to get our vote instead of just assuming we will give it to them when they nominate a pinko.

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

I am an individual. So yes, "me me me" is important.

With the knowledge that my vote will play no role in electing the president, the only reason to do so is to walk out with some level of satisfaction. Otherwise, why vote?

A good number of philosophers (whom I disagree with) will tell you that it is your consent to be governed by the winner of said election.

 

[sailingaway]

Romney is a socialist too, no doubt about it. I have no need to vote for Romney or Obama. Gary Johnson is a Libertarian and was a liberty Republican, just like Ron Paul. The choice is so clear. If Gary Johnson can get even 5% of the vote the GOP will not be able to neglect the liberty movement again. They will need to try to get our vote instead of just assuming we will give it to them when they nominate a pinko.

But if you don't like Gary Johnson any more than many in the GOP you are not voting for principle by voting for him.

I absolutely agree that if you WANT him as president you should vote for him.

 

[Southerner]

But if you don't like Gary Johnson any more than many in the GOP you are not voting for principle by voting for him.

I absolutely agree that if you WANT him as president you should vote for him.

I personally would prefer GJ over MR or BO, but I know he has zero chance. Since I live in a pretty RED state I *may* vote for Johnson, depends on recent polling in November, but I would BEG anyone in toss up or "close" states not to do so. ETA: The stakes are just too high risking 4 more years of bozo.

 

[sailingaway]

I personally would prefer GJ over MR or BO, but I know he has zero chance. Since I live in a pretty RED state I *may* vote for Johnson, depends on recent polling in November, but I would BEG anyone in toss up or "close" states not to do so. ETA: The stakes are just too high risking 4 more years of bozo.

I don't see enough difference between Obama and Romney to fuss about.

 

[V3n]

I voted for Bob Barr in 2008 'to send a message' ("at least they'll count it for something!").. Lady_V3n wrote in Ron Paul.

She's felt good about her vote ever since. I've felt bad about mine ever since.
Neither vote made a difference in the scheme of jack-anything, her protest or mine, but at least she still feels good about the decision she made.
(and reminds me every time Bob Barr's name comes up!)

That was my wasted vote.

 

[awake]

In the political realm a "vote" is the main currency. In the market economy, production and it's freely chosen money decides who is worthy to command society. "The vote" is what thieves, thugs and liars issue and seek. It is a claim to nothing because they produce nothing of worth. It is a claim on other peoples life and labor, it is deciept. Market producers on the other hand, seek production of other producers via money. Each producer reinforces and builds the wealth of the other. It is receipt.

The idea of government and its current methods in democracy is an error, a disease if you will, in the rightful natural system of free exchange.

 

[Carlybee]

With all the vote cheating it may all be moot anyway but i would rather waste a vote on Ron Paul than expect anything resembling integrity from Romney.

 

[DeMintConservative]

I am an individual. So yes, "me me me" is important.

With the knowledge that my vote will play no role in electing the president, the only reason to do so is to walk out with some level of satisfaction. Otherwise, why vote?

My point was about from where the satisfaction is derived.

For example, if Reagan or the Bushes hadn't been elected, the Supreme Court would certainly affirm Obamacare and government mandates.

I prefer this kind of deferred gratification over the functionally futile instant gratification of voting for the candidate closer to me ideologically or with whom I feel more personal empathy.

If you believe your vote play no role at all in electing the president, the entire first part of the post was superfluous. That assumption is new.

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

I voted for Bob Barr in 2008 'to send a message' ("at least they'll count it for something!").. Lady_V3n wrote in Ron Paul.

She's felt good about her vote ever since. I've felt bad about mine ever since.
Neither vote made a difference in the scheme of jack-anything, her protest or mine, but at least she still feels good about the decision she made.
(and reminds me every time Bob Barr's name comes up!)

That was my wasted vote.

The Barr nomination kinda killed the LP, imo.

 

[tbone717]

I don't see enough difference between Obama and Romney to fuss about.

I don't see a difference between first term Obama and Romney either. The issue, as I see it, though is that a second term Obama is an unknown quantity. Given Obama's ideological background, I shudder to think of what that man would do if given another four years.

I have not yet made a decision as to who I am going to vote for in November yet though. I am waiting to see what comes out of the RNC in regards to the platform, VP selection, Paul speech, etc. Rand's endorsement, however, has made me consider voting for the GOP nominee for the first time in my lifetime.

 

[Weston White]

Elwar (OP), great context for a thread.

However, I will most pleasurably “waste” my vote on Ron Paul.

 

[Weston White]

In the political realm a "vote" is the main currency. In the market economy, production and it's freely chosen money decides who is worthy to command society. "The vote" is what thieves, thugs and liars issue and seek. It is a claim to nothing because they produce nothing of worth. It is a claim on other peoples life and labor, it is deciept. Market producers on the other hand, seek production of other producers via money. Each producer reinforces and builds the wealth of the other. It is receipt.

The idea of government and its current methods in democracy is an error, a disease if you will, in the rightful natural system of free exchange.

You must be a secret genius. While, America is correctly a republic of Creator granted rights for which are inalienable by vote or otherwise.

 

[SantanJ]

IF this is your reason for voting for Ron Paul, then you are doing it for the wrong (and more ridiculous) reasons.

 

[PierzStyx]

No such thing as a wasted vote. Voting your conscience is the best vote you can make, and the only one that means anything.

"We engage in the election the same as in any other principle: you are to vote for good men, and if you do not do this it is a sin: to vote for wicked men, it would be sin. Choose the good and refuse the evil. Men of false principles have preyed upon us like wolves upon helpless lambs. Damn the rod of tyranny; curse it. Let every man use his liberties according to the Constitution. Don’t fear man or devil; electioneer with all people, male and female, and exhort them to do the thing that is right. We want a President of the U.S., not a party President, but a President of the whole people; for a party President disfranchises the opposite party. Have a President who will maintain every man in his rights.” (Hyrum Smith, Source: History of the Church, Vol.6, Ch.15, p.323)

"I will tell you whom to vote for: we will vote for the man who will sustain the principles of civil and religious liberty, the man who knows the most and who has the best heart and brain for a statesman; and we do not care a farthing whether he is a Whig, a Democrat, a Barnburner, a Republican, a New Light or anything else." ( Brigham Young, "Discourses of Brigham Young" pg. 358)

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” (John Quincy Adams, American 6th US President 1825-29, eldest son of John Adams, 2nd US president. 1767-1848)

 

[kuckfeynes]

No such thing as a wasted vote. Or a vote that matters, for that matter.

If anything, unless you really trust someone, abstaining is probably the most productive thing you can do. It is, after all, your consent to be governed. Ron Paul has a history in anarchism, an extensive and impeccable voting record, and a (not so?) subtle distaste for the power of the office. I, the slave, feel comfortable naming him as my master because I believe he would do everything in his power to destroy that paradigm.

Gary Johnson has a history in utilitarianism; a shorter, less revealing, less consistent record; and seems rather eager to assume the power of the office. Is his rhetoric heads and shoulders above the two main candidates? Of course. One could have said the same about Bob Barr. As far as I'm concerned he could "Bob Barr" on us at any point.

The problem with all government positions is that they exist to be auctioned off, and while anyone can get into office with liberty-themed rhetoric, it takes an extremely strong backbone to stand up to the lobbyists that specialize in manipulation of powerful people and the art of bribery. The vast majority of people, many I'm sure with great intentions regarding liberty, do not have that strong of a backbone. That's why the opportunity to support such and individual as Ron Paul is the exception and not the rule.

Don't give up your consent because you feel a need to be ruled by somebody, so you pick the one with the most liberty-friendly rhetoric you can. 99 times out of a hundred that is going to turn out badly. Most people simply don't have the necessary spinal fortitude. Anyone can talk the talk. A rare few in history have managed to walk the walk, convincingly.

Withdrawal of consent is the first step toward nullification... So, barring my ability to vote for someone I truly trust deep down, I am happy to count myself in that category and don't consider it a waste at all.