Friday, October 31st, 2008 | Author:

Ron Paul has repeatedly pointed out that there is virtually no difference between today’s republicans and democrats. They both want to tax us to death, police the world, and tell us how to live our lives. Voting for either McCain or Obama is a vote to endorse central government control of our every move. The only vote that might make them sit up and take notice is a vote for “neither of the above.”

Whether you write-in Ron Paul, as I’m going to do, or vote for a third-party candidate, I urge you not to vote for the status quo. Responsibility for all the evil that George Bush has done is equally shared by the democratic congress that let him do it – and will undoubtedly be continued by our next president, whether he’s republican or democrat. I, for one, refuse to share responsibility for the next power-hungry regime to rule Washington. It’s time to stop voting for “the lesser of two evils” and vote for real change.

Another option is to not vote at all. Here’s a list of articles that support this position.

Here are links to the third-party candidates who could mathematically win. I encourage you to find someone among these that you can support with a clear conscience.

Adam Kokesh, a vocal member of Iraq Veterans Against the War, has posted a video that gives a few more good reasons not to vote for McCain or Obama. Watch and listen.

Share
Category: Iraq, politics, war
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
8 Responses
  1. Hercules Mulligan says:

    You’re right. And I think I’m going to write in Ron Paul, too. I’m not going to put Obama or McCain on my conscience.

    For some reason, though, YouTube is telling me that the video is no longer available. I wonder why.

  2. Rebz says:

    Hi- first time reader here. I was just wondering about your opinion on what I have often heard about voting for a third party- that it is a wasted vote. Thoughts?

  3. akaGaGa says:

    Welcome, Rebz! “Wasting” your vote on a third-party candidate has always been one of the complaints, and at one time I went along with it. What finally turned me away from that, and from “choosing the lesser of two evils” was making the choice more black and white in my mind than is often apparent, so here’s my scenario.

    If the following were your choices for president, who would you vote for, even if you knew that the republican or democrat would win?

    republican – Joseph Stalin
    democrat – Adolph Hitler
    libertarian – George Washington

    Instinctively, I think, we want to vote for a man of character and honesty, but they’re few and far between these days. I happen to believe that Ron Paul is one of those few. He’s held and voted the same positions for 30 years or more. He’s known as “Dr. No” in the House, because he’s often the lone “no” vote on congressional spending sprees or laws that violate the constitution.

    I’ve also come to believe that voting for the “lesser of two evils” 1) makes them feel that they have a mandate to do what they want, and encourages them to do more of it, and 2)makes me responsible for what they do.

    I don’t want to be responsible for the coming actions of McCain or Obama, anymore than I would want to be responsible for Stalin or Hitler.

    I hope that answers your question, and I’d be delighted to hear your thoughts on the election. It’s a tough one this year, no doubt about it.

  4. Mrs Mecomber says:

    I’m torn between writing in Ron Paul or voting for Baldwin. I’d heard that Paul endorsed Baldwin and the right candidate.

    By the way, with the new electronic voting machines comeing, does this mean we can’t write in candidates any more? How can you do it with those things?!

  5. akaGaGa says:

    Paul did endorse Baldwin, and if I thought he had a chance of winning, he would probably be my choice. But I don’t agree with his whole platform, AND … I want to let Ron Paul know that we’re looking ahead to 2012. :)

    Also, although I haven’t been able to find it online, and haven’t heard back from the Board of Elections yet, my husband heard that write-ins in NY are counted, as long as the appropriate petitions are filed – and that Ron Paul’s petition was filed.

    This is the latest I heard on the new voting machines: We will be using them next year, but in a much simpler fashion than this year’s version. We will get a paper ballet, check the X (or write-in the name?) and then stuff it in the machine. All that other stuff on the video with the buttons and everything supposedly is only for handicapped people. Talk about making their lives easier!

  6. Brainbiter says:

    In Indiana, the Libertarian party is usually the only third party able to get a presidential candidate on the ballot. I mostly don’t agree with them, but I support holding the Republicans’ and Democrats’ feet to the fire: in Indiana, every politician knows in the back of their mind that if they go too far, the Libertarians will make trouble for them. It’s more important for politicians to believe in voting than for me to.

    To rebz, I believe that a wasted vote is one which has no effect. Even if you believe that one vote out of 122 million is statistically significant, you still have to consider what is the effect of electing the “correct” politicians.

    What about all those people who worked hard to get a Republican majority in both houses of Congress at the same time as a Republican president: Was abortion outlawed? Was government spending reduced? Were a majority of voters convinced that Republicans were the best governing party? No, no, and no. Those were wasted votes.

  7. akaGaGa says:

    Since I could first vote in 1972, I’ve been registered as an independent, and I see no reason why that will ever change. My allegiance is, and God willing always will be, to Christ, not to a political party. Given that, I do support some of the libertarian positions, but suspect that given the power of a republican or a democrat, most of them would abandon their principles in short order – Ron Paul being the exception.