TheAgitator.com
I Voted…
Tuesday, February 12th, 2008…for Ron Paul this afternoon.
For the last couple of weeks, I had planned to vote for Obama. I’m not an Obama cultist. But of the three people who realistically still have a shot at the White House, he’s the only one I agree with on even a fraction of issues. He’s made some real noise about criminal justice reform, is at least amenable to reforming the drug laws. And though I have some fundamental disagreements with him on the proper role of government, he isn’t a bullshit artist, and seems genuinely amenable to new ideas. He isn’t wed to ideology. And of course, he has promised to end the war.
Then I saw a speech he gave two nights ago. It was one promised new entitlement after another. A $4,000 per year grant to anyone who wants to go to college, provided they promise some “national service” (which of course means colleges will raise tuition by $4,000 per year for everyone). Universal health care. He was stuck in a perpetual negative feedback loop. Federal loans have made college too expensive, made higher ed a seller’s market, and saddled recent grads with too much debt. Obama’s solution is more federal subsidies. A lack of consumer-level decision making has driven up the cost of health care, because there’s no pressure on providers to keep costs down when someone else is paying. Obama’s solution is to have government pay more of the country’s medical bills.
I imagine I’ll vote for Obama if he’s the nominee against McCain in November. I sure as hell couldn’t vote for McCain. But I just couldn’t stomach it with Ron Paul still available as an option. For all his flaws, I still agree with Paul about 70 percent of the time. So when they asked at the polling station for which primary I’d be voting, I actually surprised myself a little when I said, “Republican.”
What a waste of a vote. You should have just wadded up your ballet and thrown it in the can. But hey, at least you participated.
I think the best case for liberty would be an Obama presidency with a Republican majority in Congress. But I don’t see Obama sparking a big backlash against Democrats. In fact, an Obama presidency might be so well received that Democrats would gain an even larger majority of Congress in 2010. Divided government seems to be the best practical scenario for limiting our loss of liberty, so now I’m wondering if it would be better for Hillary Clinton, who might have a more polarizing presidential presence, to win, as this would make it less likely for Democrats to make big gains in 2010.
All that being said, I voted for Obama instead of Paul mainly because pre-caucus polls showed Clinton slightly ahead of Obama in Minnesota, and I thought my support for Obama would be more valuable than essentially symbolic support for Ron Paul.
Bob Barr 2008 write-in campaign!
Federal loans have made college too expensive, made higher ed a seller’s market
Another factor jacking up tuition (demand-side increases) is home equity loans. That should slow the price hikes a bit since the mortgage market is returning to sanity, but you’re right that Obama’s plan is basically winds up being more of a subsidy to colleges than students.
I, too, like Obama the most (or really, dislike him the least) among the top-3 candidates (Obama, Clinton, McCain). However, I am hesitant to support Obama with a Democrat-controlled Congress. Though I really, really dislike McCain, in an Obama vs. McCain situation, I don’t know who I’d vote for.
Though it appears that I am less optimistic about Obama than you. I like him on Iraq and was pleasantly suprised by some of his comments regarding the drug war, but his staunch positions on increased entitlements turns me off. I’m also concerned that he’ll really just be all-talk regarding criminal justice reform, drug war reform, etc. The only things I actually think he’ll push for are issues I disagree with him on. Of course, it’s tough to tell with his lack of record, so he may surprise me.
The first two comments seem premised on the idea that your vote is somehow more effective when it’s cast for a candidate who has a realistic chance of winning than when it’s “thrown away” on a long-shot candidate.
Actually, your vote affects the outcome of an election in only two cases: when your vote creates an exact tie, and when it breaks an exact tie.
The odds of either scenario coming to pass are extremely small, probably smaller than the odds of winning the lottery. Once in a while you read news stories about small-town elections being decided by one vote, but most voters will live out their lives without seeing their vote decide an outcome.
Thus, from the perspective of the individual voter–who controls only his own vote, and not the aggregates that determine outcomes–every vote is wasted. So if you must vote (I don’t), you might as well vote for the candidate you like the most.
I smiled as I voted Republican (as an independent) in our last election. It was the surest way our loser Gov. Murkowski would lose in the primary, and he did. GO Gov Palin!! I’m a tossup for Obama though, I’ll be watching the next debates closely as this thins out.
Your vote is not a waste if you vote your conscious. To vote for someone based on what the lie-box (TV, newspaper, mainstream media sources) says is “the front runner”, “someone’s electability”, etc. is foolish. You are being conditioned to believe that these are your choices, don’t think, shut up, and just fill in a circle. This whole idea of 2 parties is ridiculous, there are many ways to think and feel. It’s divide and conquer, the rules are set up by those in the R and D camps (you get the same result in the end anyway).
Voting for “the guy who is winning” is like bidding on eBay just so you can win the item, even if you don’t need the item, don’t want it, and are paying too much.
You have to understand the process to understand how your vote can impact things. Each state has different rules regarding delegates, percentages bound or unbound, how many rounds a delegate MUST vote for the winner of the state (in general election), etc. Then you have superdelegates, 762 special individuals that can tell us all how it will be, if they are needed.
“Actually, your vote affects the outcome of an election in only two cases: when your vote creates an exact tie, and when it breaks an exact tie.”
What if, in the moment before I vote, my candidate is down by two votes. Is my vote worthless? If I vote for him, it gives whoever is behind me the opportunity to cast a vote that creates an exact tie. Doesn’t that mean my vote affected the outcome?
http://bp1.blogger.com/_yHHyDmKhTIg/R7HOlbX9JzI/AAAAAAAACbE/t3Rnsd86Nmk/s1600-h/!cid_52EDA5B0-D986-4BC8-88EA-BBAE8F0D2B05.jpg
That is a pic of Obama’s campaigne HQ
Barack Obama Won’t Wear a Flag Pin
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=27365_Barack_Obama_Wont_Wear_a_Flag_Pin&only
Don’t know if I have an opinion on that one.
http://charmingjustcharming.blogspot.com/2008/02/wtf-over.html
Guy Does.
I’m not a Paulite, but he remains the only candidate professing true change to the nation. All I hear is how everybody seems to desire change, yet continue keep on keepin on with the same old crap.
Getting some votes now might encourage another to get into some race someplace that will help to roll the ball forward.
There’s nothing like the empty feeling after voting strategically rather than for the person you really want. Even when voting for the lesser of two evils, your vote won’t be seen as a vote cast against the worst option, but an endorsement of the second worst option. Those elected see their votes as a full endorsement of their policies, especially with a 51% share. You aren’t responsible if Clinton or McCain wins because you didn’t vote for Obama. Obama would be responsible for not appealing to you more than Paul. My vote for Paul wasn’t going to win him the nomination, but it may pursuade other candidates to take up his policies in pursuit of my vote in November. Probably not, but it’s about all we can do.
“What a waste of a vote.”
Nonsense! waisting your vote is voting for someone that you don’t want as president ie, the shit sandwich vs. the giant douche.
Ill still pick Ron Paul even if he doesn’t stand a chance, the more individuals who vote for him the less the press and the parties can marginalize his ideals. Clearly he represents voters.
Come on, Radley, you can’t really vote for a Marxist like Obama! The Lp candidate will be nominated in late May, and you’ll probably have a decent choice then.
I felt the same way as I cast my vote for RP…
Buying Precription Drugs writes: “What a waste of a vote.”
I think I hear a sheep baahing…..
I wasn’t aware that casting a ballot for the candidate of your choice was a wasted vote. And to think that we actually let people who think like you participate in elections…now THAT is a waste of a vote!
“He was stuck in a perpetual negative feedback loop.”
Technically, that would be a positive feedback loop–where the situation hits the rail. A negative feedback loop brings things under control.
Your analysis is otherwise spot-on.
I agree with the comments about divided government. If it appears that the democrats will have a majority in the House and Senate then I will bite my tongue and vote republican. Are Iraq and the drug war large enough issues to welcome increased entitlements, more growth of federal government power, universal healthcare, etc? When the republicans had total legislative and executive branch control we suffered, is there any reason to doubt that would be any different with the democrats?
Brian C.,
Yes, that’s the situation where your vote creates an exact tie. That is, without your vote, there would be no tie, but with your vote, there is a tie. Yes, the same can be said of everyone else’s vote in that scenario.
As far as I can tell, Obama’s plan has been more about driving the cost of health care (and thus health insurance) down than anything. The idea that we have this pristine market of health care that needs to be protected against government meddling is obviously false, but I haven’t really seen anything that’s that convincing that UHC will be a per se vast departure from the level of government interference already present in health care, which is to say I don’t see how it will make the situation worse. Mandates, of course, are terrible and are a government redistribution of wealth from the public to insurance companies. Focusing on driving down costs at least seems like a sensible step.
And given the fact that Obama can use every vote in this race for delegates he can get against Hillary, throwing away your vote instead of voting for the one person you could live with really doesn’t strike me as making much sense. I mean you say “with Ron Paul still available as an option,” but he’s clearly not. It’s like going out to a restaurant for dinner, seeing a filet mignon you think looks appetizing on the menu, ordering it, and being told that they’re out, and then settling for, I dunno, a tuna steak. Yeah, Ron Paul’s on the ballot, but you’re not going to get him. If you’re not down with tuna, you’re free to leave the restaurant, but by your own admission it seems like you would have been comfortable with the tuna. I’m sorry to hear that you’d rather go hungry.
And yes, the four thousand for service won’t help, but all things being equal, I’d rather set fire to the money than have it go to funding the Iraq War, which is why it is so important that Obama get the nomination, as he is most likely to win in November among those likely to stop the war.
But then again, I run http://www.libertariansforobama.org, so I might be biased.
Thank you for doing the right thing. If you had kept your choice to the front-runners, it would be between a socialist and a warmonger. Nothing you’ve presented on this site has indicated either trait is attractive to you. As others above have mentioned, your vote is mathematically insignificant, an exercise in futility. But since we are given the rare chance to actually have an insignificant say in our government, we might as well use it to vote for someone whose stated platform is something we agree with, not something which at best can be described as a lesser evil.
Frankly, Radley, your vote for Ron Paul, an ineffective advocate of libertarianism who I would think would have been discredited by his laughable response to the newsletter debacle lowers my respect for you a notch.
Throwing your vote away on Paul is worse than not voting. At least not voting is defensible. Rewarding a terrible advocate of libertarianism who has played to all the worst stereotypes of a libertarian with your vote really makes me disappointed in you.
Unlike Ron Paul, who can’t actually manage to string two sentences together, you’ve actually been an effective advocate of libertarianism through your journalism.
The whole idea of the Ron Paul Revolution - centered solely on the race for the presidency - really reminds me of the nine most terrifying words: “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” Live by your employer’s motto: free minds and free markets. Your work convincing people as to the merits of libertarianism does far more to further the cause of libertarianism than a man beholden to the closet racists at the Von Mises Institute.
This year, I am thinking of becoming a principled non-voter (barring some sort of miracle). In 2004, the first time I voted, I voted for what I thought was the lesser of two evils- George Bush (don’t judge me in hindsight). This was a phase in my life where I hated non-voters. There were two kinds- the indifferent and the principled. My response to both was “don’t complain if you don’t like what happens.” Looking back, all I can ask is that you don’t blame me for voting.
As we usually say here in Brazil: “Santa Patrulha, Batman!”
Kudos for voting your conscience, Radley, instead of doing what far too many lemmings are doing this political season and voting for “the guy that can win”… whomever that’s supposed to be.
I’ll never understand people that believe that casting a vote can ever be a waste of a vote. The whole point of the process is to say “this is who i want” - not “this is who i guess is going to win”.
I’ll have to respectfully disagree with Thorn, as I can easily understand why once you cast a vote that you could feel it’s wasted. While I disagree with Obama on probably 85-90% of his platform, if he is the Democratic nominee, I’ll probably vote for him as I hope he’s serious when saying he wants to bring combat troops home from Iraq.
If he fails, or changes his mind, then I’ll consider my vote wasted.
I’m the mirror image to Radley; I went in planning to vote for Ron Paul and voted for Obama.
Paul’s message has always been more important than his candidacy; he was never going to win. And the message has gotten out as far as it’s going to, and thank goodness, the whole newsletter issue seems to have confined itself (mostly) to the libertarian crowd. I was upset at his involvement with it, but even more upset with his response. And I wrote the campaign, and got a pitiful, basically off-topic reply back from them. So for me, he lost his luster.
Obama, on the other hand - he’s way off on some issues, but I do believe he’s sincere. Yesterday I heard a radio interview where the interviewer asked if he was a “classic liberal,” and he heard “classical liberal.” I was impressed that he knew what meant. He said that he was with regard to civil liberties, but not as much (I’m paraphrasing) economically. Well, we knew that. But on the issues that matter most to me for where we are right now - civil liberties, Iraq - he’s the best of the bunch that could get elected. So I respect the folks who vote for Paul’s ideas, but to me his time has passed. I went, somewhat grudgingly, for the practical choice. Surprised myself.
The only thrown away votes are the non cast and the miss cast. The non cast vote, no matter how noble the reason for it, is one, if not the, worst thing you can do. Wholesale boycotts of elections, for instance, make great headlines, but usually assures the least desirable outcome (for example “His main opponent’s party boycotted the election, assuring the marxist leader an easy 99% of the vote”)
Don’t bore me with statistical posturing or idealism. Not voting is really for the intellectually lazy.
Miss cast votes, well, you saw what happened in Florida a few years back.
Those who think voting for the non mass-market candidate is a waste need to turn off the MSNBC and go see what third and fourth party candidates can do and are doing around the US, hopefully not breaking your neck as you fall from your elevated equine position…
I just want to follow-up my last comment.
Radley, you are, by far, one of my personal heroes. This is the first thing I’ve read of yours that I’ve just wildly disagreed with. And ultimately it didn’t matter. But really, Paul was just terrible.
I certainly voted for Ron Paul. Heck, I’m signed up as a delegate to my state convention to vote for Ron Paul supporters to go to the national convention. Who knows, maybe I’ll be able to go to the national convention. If Paul is still in it, my state has to give him 5 votes. They might as well send me to cast one, right?
I would probably vote for Obama against McCain in the general election, but then I’d vote for inanimate objects against McCain. The way I look at it, if Obama actually manages to get us out of Iraq, it might save us enough money to make up for at least some of the social programs that he’ll institute. With McCain, we’ll definitely get more war (which we can’t afford) and I’d wager we’ll get more social programs too.
In all reality, the republican party doesn’t stand a chance, and only after the coup de grace the democrats perform on our economy will any republican have a chance at winning the white house.
Congratulations: You voted FOR government, and stipulated that you’ll abide by the outcome as the mob tears into your hide.
May your chains rest lightly upon you, and all that….
Radley,
As someone who is still wrestling with what to do with my (purely symbolic) vote in the NC primary, and is wavering between Paul and Obama for the reasons articulated by you and others on this thread, I appreciate you sharing your decision and your reasoning behind it.
Even though I am currently leaning in the opposite direction myself.
Hey, thanks. I valued the reasoning, and of course the vote. Caucus wise, your vote was not wasted, if you were ardently anti-McCain, RP folks will likely end up supporting the pro-life, tax reforming, and subtly warmongerish (pander) huck rather than the not at all conservative, pro-choice because it’s a convenient block to pander overt warmonger McCain. But likely in the general, Obama is the lesser of a ardent well meaning socialist vs totalitarian religionist or angry warmonger in terms of evil.
Sad the Republicans are generally so misinformed– by our excuse for a news media, we could have had better nominees, and Ron could have had a more amenable immigration stance for Libertarians.
The two main parties usually offer us a choice between the lesser or two evils. I refuse to vote for either of them. In November I’ll either write in Ron Paul or vote 3rd party.
My husband & I were registered libertarians for many years. After the Badnarik debacle, we were so embarrassed by their wickedly poor judgement, not supporting Aaron Russo among other issues, we finally changed our affliation to republican so we could vote Ron Paul. He’s done more for libertarianism than the party or Cato ever will w/ their smugness. Especially Cato, they’re just part of the Establishment now anyway.
At least I didn’t feel like I needed to shower after I left the voting booth. We voted for the candidate who most represented our views, not who was most popular! We canvassed for RP here in CT and met dozens of people who said they really liked him but didn’t think he was electable and didn’t want to waste their vote. Imagine if all these hundreds if not thousands of people voted their conscience- RP would actually have a realistic shot at the white house right now!
“Work for something because it is good, not because it stands a chance to succeed.” -V.H.
Ron Paul represents what a real America should be. We claim that we are free, and then we turn around to check and make sure that the way we proclaim our freedom is legal. We know that Ron has a very, very, very slim chance of winning this election, but that doesn’t matter. He started a movement that will far outlast his life. When you find something that is worth fighting for, you have to work for it no matter what, even if it might fail.
Thanks-
[...] #5: “[O]f the three people who realistically still have a shot at the White House, he’s the only one I agree with on even a fraction of issues. He’s made some real noise about criminal justice reform, is at least amenable to reforming the drug laws. And though I have some fundamental disagreements with him on the proper role of government, he isn’t a bullshit artist, and seems genuinely amenable to new ideas. He isn’t wed to ideology. And of course, he has promised to end the war.” [...]