To the Gary Johnson supporters, hear me out.

[WesSeid]

Everyone can vote how they choose, but you are making it easy for the media and establishment to pretend this movement doesn't exist. 95% of the population will never even know about any gap between voters and votes. But they would take notice of a Perot type of showing for Johnson. And again, Johnson isn't going to come close to winning, you are just helping to support the future of this movement...giving it a little Street Cred.

I'd say that's a good point. The masses aren't going to pay attention to anyone saying, if they even say it, that there were x voters but only y voted for President. But they maybe might pay a little attention to, "Hey, look at that, a third party got 10% of the vote."

 

[Cdawg45]

You can't have it both ways. You don't get to say "95% of the population will never even know about any gap between voters and votes" and then turn right around and claim that "they would take notice of a Perot type of showing for Johnson."

If that "gap between voters and votes" was Perot-style, they damn well *would* notice.

I disagree...the media isn't obligated to spend much time talking about those kind of details. At best it would be on a scroll bar at the bottom of the screen with no explanation for what that means. Most people would think that people forgot to fill in the bubble and the media would spin it that the RP people were so high on Pot that couldn't find the bubble or some shit. I cannot once in my life recall a discussion of an election that had higher or lower than normal votes/voter ratios, but I have had many conversations about relatively successful 3rd party runs. While a high % vote for Johnson would send a clear message, that is was the Ron Paul Army that drove up that vote

 

[Libertytree]

Our only real option is to vote GJ, and that's IF we can trust that the vote %'s are reported correctly. It would send a clear message if the RP'ers, indy's and the pissed off R's and D's voted in this block.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I disagree...the media isn't obligated to spend much time talking about those kind of details. At best it would be on a scroll bar at the bottom of the screen with no explanation for what that means. Most people would think that people forgot to fill in the bubble and the media would spin it that the RP people were so high on Pot that couldn't find the bubble or some shit. I cannot once in my life recall a discussion of an election that had higher or lower than normal votes/voter ratios, but I have had many conversations about relatively successful 3rd party runs. While a high % vote for Johnson would send a clear message, that is was the Ron Paul Army that drove up that vote

Nope. Nope. Nope. My original point still stands. You're still trying to have it both ways.

Say Obama gets 43.0% of the vote and Romney gets 37.5%, leaving a 19.5% discrepancy.

You are trying to claim that that discrepancy WOULD be noticed if it was the result of Gary Johnson on-ballot votes, but that it would NOT be noticed if it was the result of Ron Paul write-in votes.

That's just nonsense. A discrepancy that large WILL be noticed. Period. Regardless of who it was for (or what cockamamie "analysis" MSM hacks might concoct to explain it).

 

[WesSeid]

Nope. Nope. Nope. My original point still stands. You're still trying to have it both ways.

Say Obama gets 43.0% of the vote and Romney gets 37.5%, leaving a 19.5% discrepancy.

You are trying to claim that that discrepancy WOULD be noticed if it was the result of Gary Johnson on-ballot votes, but that it would NOT be noticed if it was the result of Ron Paul write-in votes.

That's just nonsense. A discrepancy that large WILL be noticed. Period. Regardless of who it was for (or what cockamamie "analysis" MSM hacks might concoct to explain it).

The discrepancy would be noticed more with Gary because the discrepancy would have a third party name next to it and regular people can see that.

Unless Ron Paul write-in votes will be listed on TV screens as "Ron Paul write-in votes: 10%" no one except party elites will care.

 

[ronpaulfollower999]

So I have been toying with the idea of voting for GJ for the last few months, then I realized Ron Paul will be on my ballot…after I write him in.

NOBP!!!

 

[Occam's Banana]

The discrepancy would be noticed more with Gary because the discrepancy would have a third party name next to it and regular people can see that.

Unless Ron Paul write-in votes will be listed on TV screens as "Ron Paul write-in votes: 10%" no one except party elites will care.

Cite a single presidential election in US history with a 10% discrepancy (let alone a 19.5% "Perot-style" descrepancy, which was Cdawg45's claim) with respect to which "no one except party elites cared."

Just one. Unless you can do this, you are making an entirely arbitrary assertion for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

While it may indeed be true that, on election night itself, there might not be a "Ron Paul write-ins" label explicitly & immediately associated with such a discrepancy, "regular people" (at least, the ones who stay up to watch election returns) are not so stupid that such a significant outlier won't be noticed (regardless of whether there is any label associated with it or not). And enough of them will be aware enough of the politics of the situation to correctly guess the source of the discrepancy.

What's more, such a significant discrepancy will have a *major* impact on who the winner will end up being. The MSM hacks who "analyze" the returns will NOT be able to pretend that the outlier doesn't exist (though they may try to pretend that they don't know or haven't guessed what's causing it). They will be forced to account for the discrepancy in their "analysis" and as a result even the dimmest of dim-bulb viewers will realize that *something* is up.

Furthermore, it's extremely unlikely that the MSM hacks/analysts would conceal their (inevitable) suspicions that Ron Paul write-ins might be at the root of things - the story and it's implications would just be too big to pass up & the truth would inevitably come out anyway in the days following the election.

 

[WesSeid]

Cite a single presidential election in US history with a 10% discrepancy (let alone a 19.5% "Perot-style" descrepancy, which was Cdawg45's claim) with respect to which "no one except party elites cared."

I can't without looking it up. Why? Because I, like millions of other people, Don't Care.

Do an internet search for variations of "voter discrepancy." What comes up? Links about potential voter fraud and the need for voter I.D.
If you want to push forward the issue of why we need voter I.D. laws, you might be on the right track with this.

Sure, maybe a news story or two will come out after the fact about "why is there a big discrepancy?" and maybe a couple or three people not on Ron Paul Forums will pay attention to the result, but the masses will be more affected by seeing a big fat "Gary Johnson 10%" staring them in the face.

While it may indeed be true that, on election night itself, there might not be a "Ron Paul write-ins" label explicitly & immediately associated with such a discrepancy, "regular people" (at least, the ones who stay up to watch election returns) are not so stupid that such a significant outlier won't be noticed (regardless of whether there is any label associated with it or not). And enough of them will be aware enough of the politics of the situation to correctly guess the source of the discrepancy.

It sounds like a fantasy to expect people who thought Ron Paul dropped out of the race months ago to see a discrepancy number and think, "Hey, I bet that's because of Ron Paul write-ins."

What's more, such a significant discrepancy will have a *major* impact on who the winner will end up being. The MSM hacks who "analyze" the returns will NOT be able to pretend that the outlier doesn't exist (though they may try to pretend that they don't know or haven't guessed what's causing it). They will be forced to account for the discrepancy in their "analysis" and as a result even the dimmest of dim-bulb viewers will realize that *something* is up.

...The same media that censors Ron Paul constantly, the same media that has barely made a peep that the Republican convention wouldn't allow his name to be spoken except in their video, including that Rand Paul himself had to resort to saying, "My son's grandfather," you now expect them to talk him up as being the hidden reason Obama or Romney still won, but not by as much as expected. I don't share your faith in the media talking up Ron Paul.

I bolded one of your sentences there. The media won't be forced to do anything they don't want to. And even if they do mention Ron Paul, the story will get a brief mention and then be pushed aside for the more important news of how soon is America going to bomb another country in the name of defense and peace.

...but, hey... you have two months to convince me otherwise.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I can't without looking it up. Why? Because I, like millions of other people, Don't Care.

Do an internet search for variations of "voter discrepancy." What comes up? Links about potential voter fraud and the need for voter I.D.
If you want to push forward the issue of why we need voter I.D. laws, you might be on the right track with this.

Sure, maybe a news story or two will come out after the fact about "why is there a big discrepancy?" and maybe a couple or three people not on Ron Paul Forums will pay attention to the result, but the masses will be more affected by seeing a big fat "Gary Johnson 10%" staring them in the face.


It sounds like a fantasy to expect people who thought Ron Paul dropped out of the race months ago to see a discrepancy number and think, "Hey, I bet that's because of Ron Paul write-ins."


...The same media that censors Ron Paul constantly, the same media that has barely made a peep that the Republican convention wouldn't allow his name to be spoken except in their video, including that Rand Paul himself had to resort to saying, "My son's grandfather," you now expect them to talk him up as being the hidden reason Obama or Romney still won, but not by as much as expected. I don't share your faith in the media talking up Ron Paul.

I bolded one of your sentences there. The media won't be forced to do anything they don't want to. And even if they do mention Ron Paul, the story will get a brief mention and then be pushed aside for the more important news of how soon is America going to bomb another country in the name of defense and peace.

...but, hey... you have two months to convince me otherwise.

The grand total of Gary Johnson on-ballot votes *and* Ron Paul write-in votes *combined* is going to be so miniscule - so vanishingly small, in fact - that the media won't even bother reporting *either* of them. Given this fact, I don't feel particularly inclined to try to convince you of anything further as regards these matters. So I'll simply reiterate and leave it at that:

The notion that a nearly 20% chunk of votes would or could be ignored is absurd.

The idea that the causes of such a huge discrepancy would or could be ignored is ludicrous.

I don't care who is running, or how biased the media is. If you think otherwise, you are deep into Never Never Land.

 

[WesSeid]

The grand total of Gary Johnson on-ballot votes *and* Ron Paul write-in votes *combined* is going to be so miniscule - so vanishingly small, in fact - that the media won't even bother reporting *either* of them. Given this fact,

I don't know about anyone else, but my local news always at least runs a ticker for all candidates on election nights. I always watch how the third parties and independents do. That's more than the news will do for write-in votes.

The notion that a nearly 20% chunk of votes would or could be ignored is absurd.

The idea that the causes of such a huge discrepancy would or could be ignored is ludicrous.

I don't care who is running, or how biased the media is. If you think otherwise, you are deep into Never Never Land.

You just told me Johnson + write-in votes combined is going to be vanishingly small that the media won't bother reporting either of them.
So far, you've been talking about a Paul write-in instead of voting for Johnson. Do you want people to write-in Paul and then hope lots of other people abstain to have them counted together, or what? What's the plan to get 20%?

 

[Occam's Banana]

I don't know about anyone else, but my local news always at least runs a ticker for all candidates on election nights. I always watch how the third parties and independents do. That's more than the news will do for write-in votes.

I'll bet that those are *local* and not *national* totals. The national outlets won't make a peep about anyone's totals but Romney or Obama - because the (national) totals for everyone else will be so small as to make no difference. (I will be absolutely thrilled if I turn out to be wrong about this - but I don't think I will be.)

You just told me Johnson + write-in votes combined is going to be vanishingly small that the media won't bother reporting either of them.
So far, you've been talking about a Paul write-in instead of voting for Johnson. Do you want people to write-in Paul and then hope lots of other people abstain to have them counted together, or what? What's the plan to get 20%?

There *is* no plan to get to 20%. Certainly not this year (and never for 3rd parties, so long as we have plurality voting rather than proportional voting).

I have not been attempting to argue that Johnson or Paul (or both combined) will or even could get 20%. That's just not going to happen. They won't get anywhere near it.

Cdawg45 claimed that *IF* on-ballot Johnson got "Perot-level" support (about %20), voters would take notice. He was correct about that. The media would report it, and voters would notice.

But he *also* claimed that 95% of voters would never know or hear anything about it *IF* Ron Paul got "Perot-level" support via write-ins. And that's just nonsense.

I don't care how biased the media is, there is just no way in hell they could possibly hide a 20% hole in the national vote totals for US President. Period.

 

[WesSeid]

I have not been attempting to argue that Johnson or Paul (or both combined) will or even could get 20%. That's just not going to happen. They won't get anywhere near it.

I wish it was clear to me earlier because I wouldn't have posted about why one scenario is better than the other since you don't think either scenario will happen anyway so what's the difference.

Guess I'll stick with my current plan of voting for GJ since I currently think it's better than a write-in, and if it doesn't amount to anything it was at least worth a try.

 

[rpwi]

People need to stop assuming Gary Johnson is Ron Paul 2.0...and to VERY carefully examine his policy positions.

This is a good education primer on Johnson:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Gary_Johnson#Military_and_foreign_policy

The bottom line is that Johnson is a VERY different candidate than Ron Paul. He lacks a core liberty philosophy which is why his foreign policy and monetary positions are such a mess. Politicians who lack strong core philosophies are easily dominated by intelligent and focused special interest.

 

[rpwi]

I don't understand the sore loser argument against voting for Ron nor that this would prevent Ron from running as an independent. Do people not remember that Gary Johnson also ran in the Republican primary?

While yes, several states have sore loser laws, they are blatantly unconstitutional and would be easy to challenge to court. The court system would expedite the case to meet election deadlines so that wouldn't be a problem.

The issue with the sore loser laws is that they conflate private party elections with federal presidential elections. If they were valid...it would be very easy to game the system. Democrats could create a no-romney party. Nominate Romney and a token opposition figure onto the ballet. Than they could fix it so Romney loses (easy to control because private parties operate by their own rules). Logically then Romney would be denied ballot access in the general if sore loser laws were applicable.

Examples of exceptions to the sore loser laws include:

... Lyndon LaRouche (who ran in Democratic primaries and then as an independent in 1984, 1988 and 1992) and David Duke (who ran in Democratic presidential primaries in 1988 and then ran in November 1988 as the Populist Party nominee).

http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/0...t-generally-apply-to-presidential-candidates/

I fear somebody high-up in the Ron Paul campaign (**cough Jesse Benton cough**) gave VERY poor advice to Ron that sore loser laws were a legit barriers to a third party/independent run, which is why Ron isn't running.

 

[torchbearer]

Federal funding for a future Libertarian Presidential Candidate.

the tax is voluntary. you have to check it and pay it voluntarily if you choose. a moral tax.

 

[hrdman2luv]

People need to stop assuming Gary Johnson is Ron Paul 2.0...and to VERY carefully examine his policy positions.

This is a good education primer on Johnson:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Gary_Johnson#Military_and_foreign_policy

The bottom line is that Johnson is a VERY different candidate than Ron Paul. He lacks a core liberty philosophy which is why his foreign policy and monetary positions are such a mess. Politicians who lack strong core philosophies are easily dominated by intelligent and focused special interest.

There will never be another Ron Paul. But Johnson isn't pro-war. Which is big plus for me.

 

[TCE]

the tax is voluntary. you have to check it and pay it voluntarily if you choose. a moral tax.

It's not a tax, it is if you want $3.00 out of your federal income tax to go toward federal funding for the Presidency every four years. It is worded so poorly, however, that most people misconstrue it as an additional $3.00 tax. http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/checkoff.shtml#anchor1387639

@Ocean's Banana: Again, for MOST of us, Write-in votes will be tossed away and never even counted because they won't meet the guidelines for counting in our respective states. Thus, if most of us write-in Ron, the vote is thrown away and doesn't count in any voting discrepancy of any kind. Gary's votes will be counted in my state.

 

[torchbearer]

It's not a tax, it is if you want $3.00 out of your federal income tax to go toward federal funding for the Presidency every four years. It is worded so poorly, however, that most people misconstrue it as an additional $3.00 tax. http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/checkoff.shtml#anchor1387639

@Ocean's Banana: Again, for MOST of us, Write-in votes will be tossed away and never even counted because they won't meet the guidelines for counting in our respective states. Thus, if most of us write-in Ron, the vote is thrown away and doesn't count in any voting discrepancy of any kind. Gary's votes will be counted in my state.

it must be worded very poorly. taxcut adds the money to your total if you check it.

 

[TCE]

it must be worded very poorly. taxcut adds the money to your total if you check it.

That's really weird. From the FEC site: "Does Checking "Yes" Increase My Tax?

Checking the "yes" box does not increase the amount of tax you owe, nor does it decrease any refund to which you are entitled."

 

[torchbearer]

That's really weird. From the FEC site: "Does Checking "Yes" Increase My Tax?

Checking the "yes" box does not increase the amount of tax you owe, nor does it decrease any refund to which you are entitled."

weird. so the tax payer has the congressional power of earmarking?
gives me ideas for the entire tax return to make it moral.
go down a list of proposed budget items, check the ones you want to pay for.