OT - Gas to hit 4.00 - Vote for Ron Paul - dropping out?

Levi Pearson levi at cold.org
Thu Jun 19 10:10:40 MDT 2008

Von Fugal <von at fugal.net> writes:

> You're right, it is too late for voting reform. It's NOT to late to vote
> with purpose. The 'viable' candidates will always be determined largely
> through incumbent powerhouses. So if you always vote for a 'viable' then
> you always get more, bigger, and worse government eroding our liberties,
> because those in power want nothing more than more power.
> Here's the circle. You act a certain way _because_ the world is a
> certain way _because_ people act that very way you're choosing to act
> _because_ the world is that certain way _because_ people act that way.
> Circular enough for ya??

The whole rest of your email was pointless, because you're still stuck
on this idea that voting means something aside from choosing who gets
elected.  I can't argue with you as long as you hold that illogical
idea in your head.  Change doesn't happen at election time, election
happens at election time, and only the viable candidates (judging by
public opinion in general, *not* taking strategic voting practices
into account) have any chance of being elected.

Again, nobody's mind is going to change because of how *you* vote.
And if nobody's mind changes, then there will be no change.

Ron Paul went about things the right way.  He decided to run in the
context of a major party, since it's a lot easier to get elected
there.  He ran a strong grass-roots campaign, hoping that he'd be able
to change minds at the outset and start winning from the local levels
on up.  It just didn't work out for him, because he didn't have that
much popular support.  By the time primary elections came around,
people's minds were pretty much made up about him, and it was pretty
clear he didn't have enough support to win.

At that point, of course the way in which the primary voters chose to
vote was entirely up to them, but it was in *no way* wrong or
unethical for people who would have liked to see him elected choose to
vote for someone else because they wanted to have direct influence on
which of the viable candidates won.  Your insistence that who you vote
for matters here beyond choosing which of the viable candidates wins
is just obstinate irrationalism.

Once again, to make myself perfectly clear, viability is determined
*before* the election by polling people to determine who they want to
win.  If your preferred candidate doesn't have a snowball's chance in
the oven to win based on the polls, then there's no point in voting
for them, because the election's outcome isn't going to be *that*
different from the polls and it's clear that popular opinion isn't in
line with yours.

I hope you understand my point now, and stop claiming I'm making a
circular argument.


More information about the PLUG mailing list