At any rate, I’m back with two thoughts for anyone who reads this far down the comments – take them or leave them, of course:
1. For anyone who is clearly NOT IN A SWING STATE (I’m in New York and no matter who I vote for it is well known that liberal NY City will deliver all of the electoral college votes for my state to B.O.) – since in a clearly non-swing state (dark blue or bright red) we can vote for anyone and it simply does not affect the election in the slightest, why not consider a more conservative third party vote or writing in a candidate? Just a thought. This would send a message to the GOP (who refused to listen to us!!! - the majority was against Romney in the primaries, that is if you put all of the conservative votes together: Newt, Santorum, Paul, etc.).
2. Similarly, for anyone WHO HAS CLEARLY DECIDED THEY ARE SIMPLY NOT GOING TO VOTE for President this year, in this case, a vote for a third party candidate or a write in candidate would not change anything in the slightest (and you should definitely go to the polls to vote for your Senator, Congressman, and local officials where your vote counts more and can help save our endangered country).
I mention these two situations because I think many of us fall into the first category and some FReepers have openly expressed the second.
Instead of creating another post, for anyone who is interested in knowing why anyone in the world would vote for Virgil Goode who clearly has no chance to win, here is a link (4 minute video and a brief article) that captures the thoughts (more or less) of some of us: http://www.sunlituplands.org/2012/08/a-plague-on-both-their-houses-virgil.html
God bless you, my FRiends!
No thanks. I try to keep my head retardation-free.
Actually, the way delegate allocation is, it quite possibly could. Let's take Virginia for example. Let's say it is very close with Obama winning by 4 and Goode gets 5% of the vote. If Virginia goes winner take all, even a small single digit take by Goode could give Obama those delegates. The closer the race, the more third party candidates can change the outcome (talk to Nader and Gore about Florida).
No it wouldn't. There are those who say this every election and it doesn't. A few months back someone was posting some archive.org links form here form 99 and there was a whole contingent saying the same thing about voting for Pat Buchanan. Then in 2004 you had some saying the same thing about Michael Badnarik. In 2008 you had some saying the same thing about Chuck Baldwin. The game doesn't work that way. The party is a business and doesn't respond to single digit fringe calls for 'punishing' the party. They go where the largest impact of voters and money are. Playing the 'punish the GOP by voting third party' is the proverbial definition of insanity.
You want to change the party, you have to get in the party corp. Become precinct chairs and join local delegations, take over your local and state GOP, etc. Get in force during the primary behind a single candidate, don't just split up among a half-dozen sniping at each other. Get in the actual business of the party, not just the same-old single digit percent third party voters that are always around.
And a link for you.
I prefer to deal with rational human beings who understands numbers and mathematics.
God Bless you too!
I am just so distressed that we are now faced with a 3rd party of not only Virgil Goode, but also Gary Johnson. If it was at all possible in this state of affairs that a 3rd party could actually win, I would be all for it. And if the stakes weren’t so high meaning any vote taken away from the only one that could actually win over this terrible president, I really, really am worrying now!
I do see these 3rd parties are going to take any possibility of getting the usurper out away. I’m just devastated!
I can't argue with you on that point, but that's only because you're right. Well said.
First off, I don't know where I got the idea that you and I are in the same state, unless it's this cold that's fogging up my head. I'm in Virginia. With all due respect, you say you're voting your principles and your morals, but here you imply it's because you're in a non-swing state. Is it really standing by your principles when you have nothing to lose?
Virginia IS a swing state, but I still wasn't going to vote for Romney. Like I said, the last few weeks changed my mind. I really fear the Muslims will hit us with a nuke if Obama is re-elected. Obama is an infection, and if he isn't a practicing Muslim, then he's a Muslim-sucking sympathizer/lover, so he might as well be one. He despises Christians, he recognizes no God but himself, and we are all in mortal danger because of him. No one is leading us. There are dead raped people and terrorist flags flying over our embassies, and he doesn't give a damn. His reaction upon finding out was to go to bed, and say later that the Muslims are the ones who have really suffered. THE MUSLIMS.
Support for Israel is a non-negotiable issue for me, so I can't help but wonder if my decision to vote for Romney could be God waking me up. Note I said vote for Romney, not support him; I'm under no illusions about Romney. I just want Obama out. As for Virgil Goode, I just googled and found out that he is for cutting off all aid to Israel. If I was someone who planned to vote for him, that would nix it for me.
See this article, down toward the bottom of the page under Foreign Policy.
http://www.isidewith.com/goode-vs-santorum-on-the-issues
“it’s not every afternoon that I am called “dumb,” “insane,” “proud,” “holier than thou,” and even called a “troll” – by my fellow FReepers to boot!”
Doing the right thing isn’t always popular right? :)