Here's a quick thought I'd like you to consider, which will double as my question of the day. If you're a Republican living in California or a Democrat living in Texas, you know how your state is going to go in this upcoming presidential election -- here's a situation where your vote really doesn't help your party's candidate after all -- so why vote? I put it to you that if you actually want to make a difference in this election, you'd be best served voting for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson.

Look, we all know Obama is not going to win Texas, or South Carolina or Idaho for that matter. We all know Romney has no chance in New York and Illinois, nor in his home state of Michigan or his governorship state of Massachusetts. None of these states are being contested at this point; that die is cast. So if you don't care for the status quo, if you wish to oppose the person who you know is going to win the state in which you live, make a statement against the state of the system itself with a vote for somebody other than one of the cookie-cutter conventional candidates. I would go so far, even, as to suggest that if you're a Democrat living in deep blue Rhode Island or Hawaii or Washington, or a Republican living in a solidly 'red' state like Utah or Missouri or Indiana, your preferred candidate's chances of winning your state won't be dented if a few tens-of-thousands of you here and there vote for a third party candidate. But what will be dented, then, is the confidence that the Republicrat duopoly have that their hold on the populace is such that they can carry on their hyperpartisan squawking instead of really seeking for solutions.



wertperch says re October 2, 2012: This is in fact how the Social Democrats in the Uk eventually came to be taken seriously.
And to my dear friend Jet-Poop's comments below, I would counter, firstly, that the prospect of Texas 'turning blue' in a decade is of no moment to the current election; as of today and right now, the Democrat simply has no hope whatsoever of winning Texas, and isn't aiming to do so. If every Dem in the state voted Lib in this election, it wouldn't make Texas one whit less blue in the future. And secondly, I would propose that there is far more variety in Libertarian thought than the caricature presented; the fundamental notion of Libertarianism is that our government ought not do more than is needed, and many consider the prevention of violent crime to be such a necessary function -- with a police force given only enough power to accomplish this. For, you might notice, when we have a large and powerful policing power, we often find the police to be the lawless ones, corruptible, violent. How many deaths in custody, how many innocent 'suspects' handcuffed or pepper sprayed or strip-searched in front of their families, is too many? I would defend those I love from a state capable of such things, as well as the million other corruptions introduced by petty bureaucracies in every other field into which it reaches.

But I will concede that, purely from the perspective of the typical ideological spectrum, it probably makes a lot more sense for an Oregon Republican to vote Libertarian than for an Alabama Democrat to do so.


In node auditing news:

etouffee is done

Jet-Poop -- on page 25 of 27. Almost there!!
iceowl -- on page 2 of 10.
teleny -- on page 2 of 10.

Blessings, all!!

Hiya, Democrat living in Texas here.

Texas has been trending purple for the past few years. It's still a red state, but projections say it could turn blue in a decade or two. And I'd rather try to help that along by casting my ballots for Democratic candidates. Because, frankly, protest votes are stupid.

Also, you couldn't pay me to vote for Gary Johnson. The only good Libertarian is a Libertarian who's been beaten to death while screaming for help from police who refuse to help him because he's not paid up on his Police Fees, and then strung up from the town square as a lesson for people not to be douchebag Libertarians.

Log in or register to write something here or to contact authors.