Topic: Campaign for Liberty
The Bullet, The Baby, The Puppy and The Wasted Vote A different take on the "don't waste your vote" phenomenon.by John Armstrong
(libertarian)
Monday, October 13, 2008
How many times have you heard you will be "wasting your vote" by casting it for someone not named John McCain or Barack Obama this November? You don't have to answer that.
If a wasted vote means that your vote won't be going towards the eventual winner, then the assertion is valid. But under that definition, around half of the nation will waste their votes.
If a wasted vote means that your vote won't be counted, that could be factually correct as well. In my home state of Tennessee, votes for write in candidates aren't even tallied. So a vote for Ron Paul means that your vote is wasted, at least by the previous definition.
Through process of elimination, the only thing a wasted vote could really mean is a vote for someone other than McCain or Obama--regardless of the outcome of the election.
I've decided to no longer attack the two party system. Attacks only strengthen the illusion that we have a two party system. Instead, I'll give you a metaphor meant to inspire you to waste your vote as well as giving you an answer when your friends ask, "Why are you wasting your vote."
Imagine, if you will, a world where bullets are very scarce. In fact, bullets are so scarce that there are some parts of the world where bullets don't exist at all. You happen to be lucky enough to live in a part of the world that has bullets. But not many. Because of the scarcity of the bullets, you can only get one by filling out the proper government paperwork and meeting certain age and legal requirements. In this world, you receive exactly one bullet, and only one bullet, every four years. And it can only be used on one day; let's call that day the second Tuesday of November.
You are told your entire life that it is a great honor to receive a bullet, and the worst thing possible you can do with a bullet is to waste it since it is so precious.
On that fateful November Tuesday, you go to the government approved shooting range. And once you step inside, it seems that there are really only two things you can shoot:
A Puppy Dog
and
A Baby.
Many people seem to relish the opportunity to use their bullets, and they never stop to think about what they are actually shooting simply because it is such an honor to have a bullet to shoot.
Others carefully contemplate the decision. They aren't really excited about either choice, but they can't stand the thought of having their bullet go to waste. After much thought everyone not associated with PETA shoots the puppy dog. These people choose their target for the same reason: it represents to them the lesser of two evils.
And now it's your turn to exercise the great privilege of firing that bullet. You know what everyone else is doing. Some are waving posters that say "Shoot the Baby"; others will order bumper stickers that night which read "Don't Blame Me; I Shot the Puppy Dog." Others just pulled the trigger, and never said anything else about it. It's a secret they will carry with them until the go the way of the puppy or baby they met that day.
What about you? Which would you choose?
If you chose "none of the above" and fired your bullet into the sky, would you really be wasting a bullet?
You are welcome to vote however you'd like, but I ask you to consider this: instead of voting for the lesser of two evils this November, will you consider "wasting your vote" and in so doing make the right decision?
I'll leave you with this. The job the President of the United States swears to when taking office is this:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
In case you were wondering, there's nothing in the original Constitution nor in any Amendment (the only legal way the Constitution can be changed to grant the government more power) which would allow our government to spend over $700 billion dollars bailing out companies that made poor investment decisions. McCain and Obama both voted for that as well as a slew of other non-Constitutional bills during their time in the Senate. Will you vote for someone who is running on a platform that wouldn't make him a liar from day one if he were to keep his campaign promises?
So the next time someone says, "I just don't know why you'd waste your vote." You can simply reply, "I don't know how you could kill puppy dogs or babies." Until enough people read this article from the link you'll forward, saying something like that probably won't make sense to them. So you could just say, "Do you want to understand why I'd waste my vote? I'll be glad to help you understand if you do. But if you don't want to understand, I won't force it down your throat the way society forces this "wasted vote" thing down mine."
Have fun wasting your votes this November. I know I will.
Your fellow American,
John Armstrong
strongarmedjohn@yahoo.com
Unlike the NFL, the author gives direct consent to rebroadcast, retransmit, republish, social bookmark, plagiarize, give accounts of, or do whatever you'd like with this article to aid in the Restoration of our Republic.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 17 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of John Armstrong only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. John Armstrong 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.
A new twist on an old song - to me anyway. I think a lot of people try to guess who they think will win and vote for that candidate, so they can say they voted for the winner. It really is sick to see all those wasted votes going to a choice between two candidates who have so little difference between them as to be the same. Good analogy.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2008-10-18 08:36:41
Hi John,
I like the way you write and express you ideas but I found this article to be a misguided reinforcement of many of the problems that have created the very characteristics of the two-party system that you and so many others, including myself, find abhorrent.
I agree that if you cast a vote in such a way that it ends up not being counted, it was certainly a wasted vote. However, that scenario is only a subset of the possibilities for "wasting a vote."
In general, a vote is wasted if the consequence of voting does not align with ones goals for voting. What I have found over the past year of nearly constant grass roots activism is that only a tiny portion of the people I meet have any clue what their vote is or how to use it most effectively. The media encourages this because their talking heads don't tend to know any better than the average voter how our system of government works.
Specifically, no one person can determine if another person's vote was wasted unless they know what that person's goal for voting was.
The most naive and by far largest group of voters are those who think voting for the winner is the only way to NOT waste a vote. They they tend to view the Presidential election every 4 years as their most important ballot opportunity. In fact, the Presidential election is the least important vote any citizen has. We're already limited to tweedle-dee or tweedle-dum at that point, as far as who can possibly win.
The most effective places to use one's vote are those closest to home and in party primary elections. Who runs the school board? Who are your city and county officials? What direction are they taking your community. Who are the candidates for local office? Who are the candidates for Governor, Sheriff or District Attorney?
Those local contests are where the direction of the political parties are set, where candidates are groomed and where the pipeline of federal candidates is filled from. Focusing on the Presidential election distracts Americans from participating in the process where those eventual national leaders are cultivated. This dumbing down of the general population makes them far easier to manipulate.
The fact that our socialized education system has created a society spanning several generations who only focus on the presidential election and leave all those more important elections in the hands of a few is the reason we are now in a lesser of two evils situation every time we select a new President.
Since you based your parable on this false, dangerous and all too common premise, that who one casts a vote for once every 4 years constitutes the value of one's vote, I found your article to more likely to lead folks away from acting with knowledge and purpose in the American political process that to foster a greater understanding and therefore greater effectiveness from their collective actions.
True—the necessity of engaging in local elections that occur on and between the 4 year charade is just as important, if not more.
I don't think the author was trying to emphasize that the presidential circus is the only election that counts. Perhaps this was more through the perspective of those who view it as the holy grail of elections, and that why they seem to think that the Presidency is the one and only outlet of power/influence in government (which, may eventually be the case, given the fact that Congress has essentially handed its responsibilites/duties over to the executive branch, time and time again).
Relatively speaking, no one cares who you vote for when it comes to the local board of education. You can write in your dog's name for county tax commissioner and no one will raise an eyebrow. The options for local office are as endless as there are willing contenders. Democracy flourishes at the local level to the extent that there are participating, voting citizens. AND, given the low voter turnout for my area, this is an open-door for budding politicians. Hell—around here, if you could get five of your family members to vote for you during the primaries, you might just land yourself as the only candidate for the public works commissioner.
BUT, when it comes to the presidency, you suddenly have only two choices—drooling puppy dog, or drooling baby. "Don't blow it, now! This is really, really important"
I think John is right in not fueling that illusion of a two-party race for the presidency (the position of president is actually quite powerless, compared to the powers delegated to the Congress). I don't take the McCain or Obama campaigns seriously, I refuse to afford them my audience, and I missed the grand finale debate before the election. No love lost, there.
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.
