Topic: Political Parties
Don't Waste Your Vote! This article explores the definition of what a vote is and how it can be wasted.by Jahfre Fire Eater
(libertarian)
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Don't waste your vote! That is the advice and criticism people offer when they think one may not vote for their candidate come November. Usually this kind of criticism arises during presidential election cycles but it can also happen during local races. I know Democrats say similar things to Independent and Green Party voters but my experience stems from my voting for Libertarian candidates while interacting with Republican demagogues. They say things like, 'Libertarians have some decent ideas', 'I am libertarian-leaning myself but they are just too inflexible and impractical to ever gain more than a 3% following', 'A vote for a Libertarian is simply a vote for the Democrats', 'Protest in other ways but DON'T WASTE YOUR VOTE!'
If you haven't heard these kinds of comments you haven't been a libertarian for long or else you really need to get out more. :-)
When I hear one of these criticisms I know the others are there too, just waiting to tumble out with the expectation that if said in the right order, or manner, they amount to a convincing argument that will cause me to say, "You know, you're right, I've been a fool, now that you put it that way I'll never waste my vote again. Thank you for your words of great wisdom. You should tell everyone." If they seem reticent I'll spur them on intentionally. I prefer to wait until the horse finishes it's business before I start cleaning the stall. If you start before they are done things can get really messy and no one has any fun. One of my mottos is that if you aren't having fun you're doing it wrong, so I urge them to tell me more. I'll ask, 'Which Libertarian ideas do you think are decent?', 'If you are leaning libertarian, what keeps you from falling over?' 'So you think I'd be more practical if I voted for Democrats when they represent everything I oppose? Please tell me how you rationalize that.' Once you ask these people a question their ego kicks in and they're hooked. Have fun with it. Be sure at some point to ask them to explain what they mean when they say the word 'vote'. These answers are usually along the lines of, a right, a civic duty, a protection of liberty, etc. Their answers don't vary much.
Once they have exhausted their ammunition, it is time to bury their position once and for all. Here is my take on their arguments: 1. Libertarians have some decent ideas. Guess what? They didn't invent them; most of libertarian's ideas stem from the US Constitution. Hand them a copy of the constitution and ask them to point out all the decent ideas and cross out all the ideas they think are impractical or too inflexible. 2. I'm libertarian-leaning myself. This is purely an attempt at manipulation by forging some bond of commonality with you that they do not value - unless it works. (Has it EVER worked? I doubt it.) 3. Libertarian ideas are inflexible and impractical? How can one presume to know how practical my choice is when they don't understand my intent? They do this because they think if you have different intentions than they do, you are impractical. Their presumption is that your intentions as an individual do not matter. One Denver talk radio GOP dogmatist has distilled this down to the phrase, "Party trumps person". They are herd animals who cannot grasp any rationale for acting out of unison with their herd. In my experience, any conversation with this kind of person must be undertaken for sheer entertainment purposes...like bouncing a ball against a wall. If you intend to knock down the wall you're wasting your time but if you enjoy the mindlessly repetitive action, have at it. It's your time.
I like to start cleaning up this kind of mess is by talking about what a vote is not. First, a vote is not a right. Per our Constitution, States elect presidents. How States choose to implement this responsibility is left to them. There is no such thing as an individual's right to vote for a President. This is why the notion of a 'popular vote' as reported by the mass media is nothing more than pandering to the ignorant. If we ever dissolved the United States and re-constituted our geography as a homogenous entity without the notion of States, a popular vote could be a relevant option for electing officials. Under our current Constitution, the notion of a 'popoular vote' is an irrelevant fantasy. In such a fantasy, the people in a dozen or so cities would elect our leaders and the rest of the population would have no voice. Popular elections are nothing more than tyranny by the majority. They are fine on a local community basis but when the voters begin to have influence outside the community where they live, democracy becomes a divisive and oppressive force.
Is your vote a civic duty? Maybe. I'm not going there. If it is a civic duty there isn't any impetus to cast your vote for or against any particular candidate. This is a moot point with regard to wasting a vote. The alternative would be a Canadian-style system where every person must, by law, participate in elections. No libertarian who understands the power and value of the free market could ever support that kind of system. Since our Constitution leaves the voting process up to the individual states, this couldn't be done here without first dissolving our nation and starting from scratch.
Getting down to brass tacks, what is a vote? It is information and nothing more. The nature of that information changes depending on what part of the election cycle we're talking about. Since most people think of a vote in the context of the Presidential election every four years, I'll start there. If the only time you vote is in this event, the information contained in your vote is the least useful that it can be. This is what leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties want. The way they use the party tools encourages people to participate only in this least effective manner. This consolidates their power over us by turning the information contained in the votes into either a binary value (for or against) or into a tally mark, an increment. Those are your only choices in November. This is the basis for the statement that a vote for a Libertarian is a vote for a Democrat, from the dogmatic Republican's perspective. In the context of the Presidential election, the election process is your State's mechanism for collecting your information. From the State's perspective 'the vote' is a tool they allow eligible citizens to use. It is not a right; it is a tool that enables your State to participate in its constitutionally defined role in electing our President.
Third party voters provide more information in their Presidential vote than someone who votes against candidates they fear or dislike. The information in a third party vote is a tally mark. It can be used to keep track of how many people want to participate in government but who have no interest in supporting a winner for the sake of winning. In our current political environment, where the same type of people are leading both parties, the elections are inevitably close. A shrewd candidate will recognize that attracting just a small number of voters from any third party or a combination of them, will put them over the top. This is why campaigns tend to pander to centrist sentiments rather than attempting to increase participation by the apathetic who are more closely aligned with the traditional party principles. It is simply easier to lure a portion of active voters to their side than it is to mobilize disgruntled non-participants. They want your tally mark in their column. This is why liberals like George Bush and Rudy Giuliani now seem like reasonable choices as Republican leaders. The traditional distinctions between liberal and conservative have been blurred to obscurity.
People who vote Republican out of fear, those who vote against the Democrats but don't necessarily like the Republicans either, provide the very least information in their vote. They are typically people who do not participate in the party. They never attend a GOP activity in their neighborhood. They went to public schools and haven't read a book in years unless it was religious or pure entertainment. They do not practice self-education. They do not know who their county GOP chairperson is. They have never participated in the primary or caucus to help nominate a candidate for their party. They just wait until the general election and vote against Democrats. Candidates don't think about these people. They are statistically dependable with no effort or expense on the part of the party or the candidates. Sure, when a candidate is campaigning locally they will offer sound bites meant to reassure these voters that they are in good hands but no effort is expended in getting these folks to become active in the party. Depending on where you live, this type of Republican voter represents from 80%-90% of all registered Republicans. This is the pool we are tapping in our efforts to win the nomination for Ron Paul and the results so far are staggeringly successful beyond my wildest hopes. The disgruntled, formerly apathetic conservative has been waiting for someone to ask them to dance and Ron Paul is playing their tune. Putting the two together is a bit like convincing fish to swim.
Those who provide the most information with their vote are those who participate early and often in local party activity. They attend monthly meetings, help in local fund raising events, know who their precinct chairperson is, know who their county GOP chairperson is and most importantly of all, they participate in the nomination process for Presidential candidates. This process is the most important function of a party and it is the best reason for registering with any party in the first place. Even people who never intend to cast a vote for a Democrat or a Republican in the general election should be registered with one of these parties so that they can influence the candidate selection process and the adoption of by-laws that govern the process. Sitting on the outside and complaining that people who are participating are not representing your values is ineffective, ego-centric whining. After all, why should Republicans feel obligated to represent you if you don't show up? If this is your base position, how is that working out for you so far?
Finally, how can a vote be wasted? I see several obvious ways; I'm sure there are more. 1. By not using it at all. 2. By using it to vote against something. Those who count the votes don't care how you feel - they only count the tally marks. 3. By voting in support of something you disagree with. This is a slight variation on voting against something. 4. By not using it to influence a real outcome such as saying you are a libertarian but not having the sense to participate in the GOP primary to get Ron Paul nominated. That is a real waste of a vote.
Is voting for a third party candidate wasting your vote? I can't tell. If you cast your vote in hopes of turing a third party into a viable national party, yes, definitely. You are ignoring reality. If you cast your vote because no other candidates represent you then no, your vote isn't wasted. If you cast your vote to add your tally mark to the pool so in the next election cycle some candidate may attempt to lure you to their side then no, your vote isn't wasted. If you register with a third party you are proactively wasting your vote even before you cast it.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 33 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Jahfre Fire Eater only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Jahfre Fire Eater is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
That's right, don't waste your vote. A vote for Osama bin Laden would not be any worse than one for the garbage in Washington, D.C..
There's not one thing about this that is funny. It's a total disgrace. Not only are we so un-Christian that we're murdering women and children in order to control their natural resources, we're now claiming our neighbor's landmarks as our own. Sick greedy, American trash from the right side of the tracks! It's just so expected, Disney, the family value corporation. ----------------------------------------------- WASHINGTON (AP) — Oh, Canada! The USA is closer than ever. The Bush administration appears to have annexed a major Canadian landmark as part of a slick new campaign to promote U.S. tourism and welcome foreign visitors to America.
In showing the natural wonder, Disney's filmmakers, however, chose the Horseshoe Falls, the only one of Niagara's three waterfalls to lie almost entirely on the Canadian side of the border separating western New York state from southern Ontario province.
Making matters worse, a visitor to the U.S. would not even be able to get the same view of the falls in the video because the scene was shot from a vantage point in Canada, according to Paul Gromosiak, a Niagara Falls, N.Y., historian and author.
Also, he said the video leaves out the two cascades that actually are on U.S. territory, the American Falls and Bridal Veil Falls.
"This is not the United States, this is 100 percent Canada, shot from the Canadian side," Gromosiak said after reviewing the video at the request of The Associated Press. "This is an insult."
Although brief, the appearance of the Horseshoe Falls in a U.S. tourism promotion effort is likely to also vex Canadians, who long have fought to distinguish themselves from their larger and more powerful neighbor to the South. AP/Yahoo News 10/29/07
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-10-29 04:54:57
You neglected to mention the most important form of wasted vote of all...voting for one of the two major party candidates when both are largely statist candidates simply because the third party candidates "can't win." This has been the case for quite nearly all presidential election cycles in the past 50-100 years, yet for some reason you ignore it.
Okay, if all votes are wasted; let's just go with the barbarian plan. You kill me or I kill you; winner takes all. That wouldn't be any worse than voting for this type of scum.
On March 25, 1942, U.S. Assistant Attorney General Thurman Arnold announced that William Stamps Farish (grandfather of the President's money manager) had pled "no contest" to charges of criminal conspiracy with the Nazis. Farish was the principal manager of a worldwide cartel between Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey and the I.G. Farben concern. The merged enterprise had opened the Auschwitz slave labor camp on June 14, 1940, to produce artificial rubber and gasoline from coal. The Hitler government supplied political opponents and Jews as the slaves, who were worked to near death and then murdered.
Arnold disclosed that Standard Oil of N.J. (later known as Exxon), of which Farish was president and chief executive, had agreed to stop hiding from the United States patents for artificial rubber which the company had provided to the Nazis.
A Senate investigating committee under Senator (later U.S. President) Harry Truman of Missouri had called Arnold to testify at hearings on U.S. corporations' collaboration with the Nazis. The Senators expressed outrage at the cynical way Farish was continuing an alliance with the Hitler regime that had begun back in 1933, when Farish became chief of Jersey Standard. Didn't he know there was a war?
Posted By: Mrs. Fire Eater
Date: 2007-10-31 10:51:29
Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is not statist. The point of this article is to discuss how to best leverage your voting power in the current climate. If there was no Republican candidate representing Libertarian values, then it would cease to be an effective tool. But with Ron Paul in the race... well, why would you dig a trench with a bent awl when you can use a bucket loader?
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
