Is a vote for Ron Paul a "wasted" much in the same way it was for Nader and Perot?

Question

He is not going to win. What do those of you who are voting for him hope to accomplish?

Answer 1

Maybe to send a message, I think he would do better to just get on the Libertarian ticket rather than try and split the republican vote.

Answer 2

You are wrong and off-base 3 times. Here's why:



1. He's running as a Republican. Nader and Perot ran as 3rd party candidates.

2. Ron Paul is the only one with traditional conservative policies, and he practices what he preaches.

3. By voting for him we hope to accomplish putting him in the White House and getting our country back from corporate thugs like Darth Cheney.

4. How do you know he's not going to win? Should we just vote for who IS going to win? Why hold an election in the first place? Let's just give Bush the crown and forget about it.

Answer 3

An unprincipled vote is the only wasted vote.

What is voting? It’s a chance to tell the country — and perhaps even the world — what your vision of government and society really is.

But how do most of us vote? Do the majority of those who believe Ron Paul or Ralph Nader is the best candidate, most in tune with our own feelings, actually vote for them? No. Instead, most of us vote the “lesser of two evils” — a defensive vote, rather than an offensive one.

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

So what happens after you vote the defensive vote? Well, then you have sold out your personal beliefs. You have become a political prostitute. You aren’t standing up for what you believe in by voting “the lesser of two evils.”

I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of being a political hooker. If you think the run of the mill neoconservative Republican or the socialist Democrat really does best mirror your beliefs, by all means, vote for that candidate. But if you don’t, and you still vote for them, you’re helping to preserve the status quo you probably despise.

So What’s the Point of Voting?

We as individuals don’t vote to select the winner.

As a practical matter, we vote to tell everyone else which choice best represents the direction which we want the country to go. When you vote, you gain a certain power that a non-voter doesn’t have; the power to change America.

Hence voting lesser evil sends the wrong message; it’s sending a message of compromise. In effect, a defensive vote says “I will settle for a good America, not the best America possible.” I urge you not to settle.

Remember, if you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always gotten. In other words, if you want change, then create change.

Even if once in your life you missed the chance to cast that mythical deciding ballot, the harm from selecting the wrong person in one election is more than offset by a lifetime of giving voter support to the lesser of two evils rather than standing up for what you believe.

The history of third parties in America is that they serve as the vanguard for new ideas. It is these ideas that make the world go round. If a Third Party, or a controversial candidate from the republican side, begins to draw votes, one or both of the two big parties steal their ideas.

Socialists Can Teach Us Something

The most successful third party in the 20th Century was the Socialist Party. While never winning any significant elections, their small but growing vote totals were a threat to the Democrats. Thus the Democrats, and then later the Republicans, adopted piecemeal every major tenet of the 1916 Socialist Party platform.

Libertarians are the opposite of the Socialists, but they find their success instructive. The radical ideas about liberty that began in 1971 are now being seriously debated or, in some cases, implemented by the other parties. An increasing number of Libertarian votes is indeed noted by the politicians as well as the media.

So rather than waste your vote on Democrats or an "electable" Republican, cast a meaningful ballot that clearly says what you believe.

After watching both Democrats and Republicans make promises that frequently become lies, two conclusions should become evident: (1) The lesser of two evils is still evil, and (2) the only way to waste your vote is not to use it for a candidate that sends the message you want to send to America. In all honesty, It doesnt matter which evil you vote for if evil still wins.

Answer 4

Well, that's a judgement call--and if I were a Republican (I'm not), I'd wait to decide.

At this point it doesn't look like he has a chance. But the GOP race is extremely volatile. McCain's campaign seems to be coming apart. The "conservative base" isn't enthusiastic about eithr Romney or Guliani. Thompson isn't a formal candidate yet. That's a situation that is ideal for a "dark horse" candidate to step forward--that's how Jimmy Carter got the Democratic nomination in 1976: the "establishment" candidates simply didn't step forward in a way that grabbed the voters, and that left the door open.

Answer 5

That's an absolutely absurd statement to suggest that Ron Paul isn't going to win. The Republican Party has to nominate a candidate who can win in November, unless they want to watch Hillary Clinton enter the White House. It is a well-known fact that 70% of the American people oppose the War on Iraq and therefore the GOP cannot nominate a pro-war candidate unless they want to lose to Hillary.

I hope that all the people who oppose Ron Paul have the stomach to watch as Hillary pulls out of Iraq, only to stick us in an even more pointless Civil War in the Sudan to help the group of war criminals that are currently losing. I hope that the opponents of Ron Paul have the stomach to watch Hillary Clinton raise taxes and screw up the health care system. I hope that the opponents of Ron Paul have the stomach to watch Hillary Clinton use the Patriot Act to arrest and detain all the Republicans without trial.

It isn't a question of whether Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, or Fraudulent Fred Thompson (the abortion lobbyist and trial lawyer instrumental in passing McCain-Feingold) can beat Hillary Clinton. That would be impossible, as the American people aren't going to vote for another pro-war president. The only option Republicans have left is to support the anti-war Republican or to obstinately refuse and watch Hillary Clinton take over the White House, just as Bill Clinton did when the GOP renominated Bush I (the Rockefeller RINO) instead of nominating Buchanan.

The next president of the United States will either be Hillary Clinton or Ron Paul and I'm sure that every sane person would prefer a free country under Ron Paul to a socialist dictatorship under Queen Hillary.

Answer 6

If anyone is casting their vote for him with an expectation that he has a chance in hell of winning then yes it's a wasted vote. If they are casting their vote for a 3rd party candidate to send a message to the BIG 2 then no I don't see it as a wasted vote. I'm a die hard conservative and on more than one occasion I have voted for 3 party candidates and felt better about than if I hadn't bothered voting.

Personally I'd love to see a NONE OF THE ABOVE box to check off.

Answer 7

There is a key point here, look at who is pushing and pulling on this, or my version of follow the money(benefit)

The dems here and elsewhere are registering repub, so they can skew the primary, they are talking about Ron Paul constantly, an example some here on Y!A will tell you they would vote for him even though they are dems.

On the other hand mention Fred Thompson, you and he will be vilified, it is happening in the MSM now, they are going after him with everything they have and have completely dropped even talking about any of the others.

These two things tell me the Dems are hoping to divide the repub vote and Fred Thompson scares the sh*t out of them.

So guess that makes me hope it is Fred against hitlery, another 8 years with a repub in the WH.

Answer 8

Ron Paul is only carrying a tiny percent of the popular vote right now.

I would say it's a waste of time.

Answer 9

Only if one believes that there is a better candidate. I, personally, don't.

Oddly enough, I voted for one of the other 2 you listed, also.

What do I hope to accomplish? I hope to get my voice heard. I hope to restore our Constitutional democracy. I hope to secure our borders. I hope to abolish the IRS and go to a "flat tax" system. I hope to get the government out of my private affairs. I hope to cut the size of the federal government by 50%. I hope to restore "pay as you go" instead of deficit spending. I hope go back to a "hands-off" foreign policy. I hope to restore "states-rights".

So, if you want to vote for a figure-head endebted to corporate interests, feel free. I am casting my vote for the only candidate who deserves my vote and my respect.

The only wasted vote is the one cast AGAINST a party rather than FOR a candidate. I am tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils. If you prefer soundbytes to substance, by all means, cast your vote for Rudy or McCain. Neither can or will win...

This will be the first time in almost 20 years I will register for the primaries as a Republican. If Paul loses the primaries, however, my vote will grudgingly go to a Democrat.

Answer 10

Under our current system, yes. Americans need to be looking into an alternative to the electoral college to make voting more representative of our choices. In a democracy you should never have to strategize with your vote, you should be able to vote for the candidate you truly want for the job. Check out www.fairvote.org if you are interested...