Tuvia Bielski
Contributing Member
I am writing this because I am deeply concerned about all the liberty minded people I hear claiming that they will not vote, vote third party, or write-in their own candidate. I think such a stance is an emotional reaction, not a rational one.
I, for one will be plugging my nose and voting for Romney. He is the definition of a RINO, but I would submit he is a far better alternative than Obama. I think that a vote for Romney is the only logical choice that one can make at this point. I am writing this because of how gravely important the 2012 presidential election will be.
There are only 5 choices (really 4) that you can make in the 2012 election:
1) Vote for Obama
2) Vote for Romney
3a) Vote for 3rd party on the ticket
3b) Write in the candidate of your choice
4) Don't vote
Let's look at the choices in reverse order.
4) From a logic point of view, not voting is equivalent to voting for the winner. Why is this true? Let's look at a decision/truth table, where we consider the alternate where you had voted.
Voted for winner Voted for loser
--------------- --------------
Winner still wins Vote could have changed outcome
If you had voted and voted for the winner, the outcome is unchanged; your vote was not consequential. Not having voted did not change the outcome. However, if you had voted for the loser, there is the possibility that that vote could have changed the outcome to the loser having won. Close races are common these days.
Of course your vote is very small from a percentage point of view. This is just the nature of democracy. There is, however, a finite probability that you could have changed the outcome. If you AND ALL THE OTHERS WHO DID NOT VOTE had actually voted this could certainly cause the outcome to change.
So, the choice between voting and not voting affects the outcome and it is a tacit vote for whomever the winner ends up being. If Obama wins, your action contributed to his victory, whether that was your understanding or not.
"If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice." -Rush (The band not the talk show host)
You say, “But the voting is rigged!” Again, similarly to the truth table above, if the voting is rigged, choosing to vote did not changed the outcome. If the voting isn’t rigged, you willing just gave up your vote which could have altered the outcome. There is no cost to voting other than your time, but the outcome of not voting may end up harming the country in immeasurable ways.
3a and 3b) are effectively the same choice with a minor difference.
If you write in a candidate, in most states your vote will not be counted. And it certainly won't be reported in the media. Given our electoral system it will have NO effect on the outcome. Its effect on reality is equivalent to not voting (see above). The only people who will be aware of your vote are: you; the people you tell; and possibly a couple of vote counters (and then not even them if it is an electronic system.)
If you vote for a 3rd party who happens to be on the ballet, the effect of your vote will essentially be equivalent to a write-in except that you might see a tally in the media. I cannot see much, if any, value in this. Again, it will not affect the outcome. One might say it helps get the message out about the alternative candidate and his/her platform, but this would be a minimal positive effect. One could also say it might have a marginally negative effect, in that the 3rd party could continue to be drilled into people's minds as "losers".
Alternatively, you say, that it will make you feel good about yourself having done the right thing. I can not argue with your doing something that would make your life happier, but I would contest that a thing can be the right thing if it has a negative effect or no effect. An action (or lack there of) that results in a negative outcome is not a good choice and should not make you feel good.
Whatever statement that you think you are making by voting 3rd party or writing in a candidate is no statement at all. Your vote will be forever lost in the ether.
The only choice you have in reality are 1) Obama and 2) Romney. All the other choices flow into and determine which of these two outcome will actually happen.
I think most of us are very unhappy that Romney is the (presumptive) Republican candidate. Some wanted Ron Paul, others wanted someone else. Unfortunately, this is what we are left with. Romney is on the opposite side of many issues of what is considered to be conservative, and many of us gag over this. He has not stated that he will unconditionally move to repeal Obamacare for one. It appears as though he would want to replace it with something else. I believe, though, that he would most likely repeal Obamacare if that bill crossed his desk. If Republicans keep the house at least, Romney will not even get the opportunity to vote on a replacement bill. If Obama is elected there is zero chance it will be repealed and since it starts going into effect next year and would be operating for his whole term, there is a vanishingly small chance it will ever be eliminated. It must be repealed now or we will be living with it forever.
Romney also has other bad aspects and views, but they pale in comparison to those held by Obama. Romney is clearly a solid RINO. I would submit that we have survived other RINOs before. Of course, we really needed to elect someone who would turn the U.S. around NOW, but this option is gone. What we have left is Obama who is pushing down on the gas pedal as we head for the cliff. Romney would let certain aspects of our country keep moving toward the cliff (socialized medicine), but I think he would do an about face in other areas (business climate). There is a chance that we could recover from Romney's stupidity, but giving Obama another term will be the last nail in the coffin for the U.S. so to speak.
People talk about the choice of voting between Romney and Obama as being the choice between the lesser of two evils. No doubt, Romney will make some bad, if not terrible decisions, but putting these two people in the same camp is frankly, absurd. Have you not been paying attention to everything Obama has: done, said, promised, and hidden? It is more correctly the choice between error and evil.
Many state that Romney is just as bad as Obama. I see no evidence to support this conclusion at all. As I have stated before, I dislike that Romney is a RINO, but I will take that over a MARXIST every single time. By most measures, Romney has lived an upstanding life. Effectively there is no dirt on him at all other than what the MSM is trying to fabricate, mostly surrounding BAIN Capital. I hate to say it, but the thing that Romney is the most hated for is completely legal and frankly completely ethical. In a society where property rights are upheld, the buying and selling of companies (property) is permitted. The people that lost their jobs did not own those jobs, the companies did. Those jobs would have been lost regardless because the companies BAIN capital invested in were failing or inefficient. If anything, those companies were saved, saving at least some of the jobs where all would have been lost. The real reason for jobs being outsourced is due to the onerous regulatory environment created by progressives and environmentalists, and particularly by the likes of Obama. Romney being demonstrably pro-business would be a positive aspect to him being electing him. Contrast that to what Obama has just said:
'If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.'
There is only one reason that I have found that might be valid for not voting for Romney, and it is dubious at best. The story goes that if Obama is elected again things will get so bad that people will wake up and move quickly in the opposite direction. The alternative is a slow grind downwards for the U.S. If people didn’t wake up during the first term of Obama I don’t see how they will ever wake up. There are other variations on strategies for why letting Obama have another term is a good thing, all equally flimsy.
Like a tug-o-war, we have gotten to the point where we are slowly, over decades, by the progressives being deliberate to gain ground every year. In that sense they have been extremely successful. Frankly I think they are smarter than us in that respect. Conservatives have been too willing to capitulate on issues losing ground instead of standing their ground or attempting to gain some ground. They are deathly afraid of being seen as partisan. Libertarians are worse in many respects. Although their goal of returning the country to strict principles of liberty is noble, they have no sense of strategy. If they can’t pull the country back to where it should be in one fell swoop they let go of the rope and want to go home.
If Romney is elected the United States will not be restored in the next 4 years, but we can stop the country from being pulled across the line into whatever god-awful Marxist utopian hell Obama has envisioned. This race will be close and unless we pull together we risk another 4 years of the worst president the U.S. has ever suffered under.
I, for one will be plugging my nose and voting for Romney. He is the definition of a RINO, but I would submit he is a far better alternative than Obama. I think that a vote for Romney is the only logical choice that one can make at this point. I am writing this because of how gravely important the 2012 presidential election will be.
There are only 5 choices (really 4) that you can make in the 2012 election:
1) Vote for Obama
2) Vote for Romney
3a) Vote for 3rd party on the ticket
3b) Write in the candidate of your choice
4) Don't vote
Let's look at the choices in reverse order.
4) From a logic point of view, not voting is equivalent to voting for the winner. Why is this true? Let's look at a decision/truth table, where we consider the alternate where you had voted.
Voted for winner Voted for loser
--------------- --------------
Winner still wins Vote could have changed outcome
If you had voted and voted for the winner, the outcome is unchanged; your vote was not consequential. Not having voted did not change the outcome. However, if you had voted for the loser, there is the possibility that that vote could have changed the outcome to the loser having won. Close races are common these days.
Of course your vote is very small from a percentage point of view. This is just the nature of democracy. There is, however, a finite probability that you could have changed the outcome. If you AND ALL THE OTHERS WHO DID NOT VOTE had actually voted this could certainly cause the outcome to change.
So, the choice between voting and not voting affects the outcome and it is a tacit vote for whomever the winner ends up being. If Obama wins, your action contributed to his victory, whether that was your understanding or not.
"If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice." -Rush (The band not the talk show host)
You say, “But the voting is rigged!” Again, similarly to the truth table above, if the voting is rigged, choosing to vote did not changed the outcome. If the voting isn’t rigged, you willing just gave up your vote which could have altered the outcome. There is no cost to voting other than your time, but the outcome of not voting may end up harming the country in immeasurable ways.
3a and 3b) are effectively the same choice with a minor difference.
If you write in a candidate, in most states your vote will not be counted. And it certainly won't be reported in the media. Given our electoral system it will have NO effect on the outcome. Its effect on reality is equivalent to not voting (see above). The only people who will be aware of your vote are: you; the people you tell; and possibly a couple of vote counters (and then not even them if it is an electronic system.)
If you vote for a 3rd party who happens to be on the ballet, the effect of your vote will essentially be equivalent to a write-in except that you might see a tally in the media. I cannot see much, if any, value in this. Again, it will not affect the outcome. One might say it helps get the message out about the alternative candidate and his/her platform, but this would be a minimal positive effect. One could also say it might have a marginally negative effect, in that the 3rd party could continue to be drilled into people's minds as "losers".
Alternatively, you say, that it will make you feel good about yourself having done the right thing. I can not argue with your doing something that would make your life happier, but I would contest that a thing can be the right thing if it has a negative effect or no effect. An action (or lack there of) that results in a negative outcome is not a good choice and should not make you feel good.
Whatever statement that you think you are making by voting 3rd party or writing in a candidate is no statement at all. Your vote will be forever lost in the ether.
The only choice you have in reality are 1) Obama and 2) Romney. All the other choices flow into and determine which of these two outcome will actually happen.
I think most of us are very unhappy that Romney is the (presumptive) Republican candidate. Some wanted Ron Paul, others wanted someone else. Unfortunately, this is what we are left with. Romney is on the opposite side of many issues of what is considered to be conservative, and many of us gag over this. He has not stated that he will unconditionally move to repeal Obamacare for one. It appears as though he would want to replace it with something else. I believe, though, that he would most likely repeal Obamacare if that bill crossed his desk. If Republicans keep the house at least, Romney will not even get the opportunity to vote on a replacement bill. If Obama is elected there is zero chance it will be repealed and since it starts going into effect next year and would be operating for his whole term, there is a vanishingly small chance it will ever be eliminated. It must be repealed now or we will be living with it forever.
Romney also has other bad aspects and views, but they pale in comparison to those held by Obama. Romney is clearly a solid RINO. I would submit that we have survived other RINOs before. Of course, we really needed to elect someone who would turn the U.S. around NOW, but this option is gone. What we have left is Obama who is pushing down on the gas pedal as we head for the cliff. Romney would let certain aspects of our country keep moving toward the cliff (socialized medicine), but I think he would do an about face in other areas (business climate). There is a chance that we could recover from Romney's stupidity, but giving Obama another term will be the last nail in the coffin for the U.S. so to speak.
People talk about the choice of voting between Romney and Obama as being the choice between the lesser of two evils. No doubt, Romney will make some bad, if not terrible decisions, but putting these two people in the same camp is frankly, absurd. Have you not been paying attention to everything Obama has: done, said, promised, and hidden? It is more correctly the choice between error and evil.
Many state that Romney is just as bad as Obama. I see no evidence to support this conclusion at all. As I have stated before, I dislike that Romney is a RINO, but I will take that over a MARXIST every single time. By most measures, Romney has lived an upstanding life. Effectively there is no dirt on him at all other than what the MSM is trying to fabricate, mostly surrounding BAIN Capital. I hate to say it, but the thing that Romney is the most hated for is completely legal and frankly completely ethical. In a society where property rights are upheld, the buying and selling of companies (property) is permitted. The people that lost their jobs did not own those jobs, the companies did. Those jobs would have been lost regardless because the companies BAIN capital invested in were failing or inefficient. If anything, those companies were saved, saving at least some of the jobs where all would have been lost. The real reason for jobs being outsourced is due to the onerous regulatory environment created by progressives and environmentalists, and particularly by the likes of Obama. Romney being demonstrably pro-business would be a positive aspect to him being electing him. Contrast that to what Obama has just said:
'If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.'
There is only one reason that I have found that might be valid for not voting for Romney, and it is dubious at best. The story goes that if Obama is elected again things will get so bad that people will wake up and move quickly in the opposite direction. The alternative is a slow grind downwards for the U.S. If people didn’t wake up during the first term of Obama I don’t see how they will ever wake up. There are other variations on strategies for why letting Obama have another term is a good thing, all equally flimsy.
Like a tug-o-war, we have gotten to the point where we are slowly, over decades, by the progressives being deliberate to gain ground every year. In that sense they have been extremely successful. Frankly I think they are smarter than us in that respect. Conservatives have been too willing to capitulate on issues losing ground instead of standing their ground or attempting to gain some ground. They are deathly afraid of being seen as partisan. Libertarians are worse in many respects. Although their goal of returning the country to strict principles of liberty is noble, they have no sense of strategy. If they can’t pull the country back to where it should be in one fell swoop they let go of the rope and want to go home.
If Romney is elected the United States will not be restored in the next 4 years, but we can stop the country from being pulled across the line into whatever god-awful Marxist utopian hell Obama has envisioned. This race will be close and unless we pull together we risk another 4 years of the worst president the U.S. has ever suffered under.
