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

Von Fugal von at fugal.net
Thu Jun 19 10:30:05 MDT 2008

<quote name="Levi Pearson" date="Thu, 19 Jun 2008 at 10:18 -0600">
> "Joshua Lutes" <huzzak at gmail.com> writes:
> > I always figured that you voted for the person you most agreed with
> > regardless of whether or not he was viable.  Because one vote will make a
> > difference in only the rarest of occasions (and then in only a very limited
> > geographic region) a vote is more a marker of agreement than anything else.
> > It means that you like the ideas espoused by this man or this party.  If the
> > third party gets enough votes their attracting ideas are stolen by the other
> > parties so that they can maintain their dominance.  Voting for something I
> > disagree with seems like a stupid way to influence the government, since
> > even if it succeeds I'm not going to get what I want.
> >
> > Anyway, the two parties are indistinguishable in practice, so it doesn't
> > even matter which of the two win.  Better to use your vote to indicate your
> > opinion since it really isn't good for anything else.
> This is a reasonable viewpoint, and I've voted this way in the past.
> However, if you have a strong opinion on which of the two viable
> candidates you'd prefer, and the race looks relatively even, you're
> better off voting for that one than the third party you'd really like.
> I'd like for things to be different, so you can express both support
> for a third party *and* your preference between the viable candidates,
> but our voting system just doesn't work that way.
> This isn't so much the case with Ron Paul, though, because he wasn't
> running under a third party platform.  He was running as a Republican,
> and he lost at the party primary level.  If he was running as a third
> party, I might actually consider voting for him, especially if I knew
> he had no chance of being elected.  I don't *want* him to be elected.
> But in Utah, the Republican candidate will be elected, so I might as
> well throw my vote in towards political diversity, for whatever little
> good it will do.

You said yourself they are no different, yet here you state you are
going to vote for someone who clearly has no chance of winning for the
sake of diversity when there really is no difference at all!! Yet when I
vote for someone who will clearly lose I'm "obstinately irrational?"
Even though my choice offers _real_ diversity? I said I don't expect
anyone else to vote for Ron Paul. I said if I DID agree with one of the
major candidates I would consider voting for him. I DON'T. Vote for who
you like, if you like McCain the vote for him by all means. Don't vote
for him merely because you don't like Obama! That is ALL I am trying to

Von Fugal
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://plug.org/pipermail/plug/attachments/20080619/2c024c4a/attachment.bin 

More information about the PLUG mailing list