Saturday, September 29, 2012


"Do you want Barack Obama to be reelected? Then don't vote for Ron Paul," Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan said during a campaign speech in Lima, Ohio, on Monday, when asked why voters should not vote for Ron Paul.

The Republican vice presidential candidate responded that a vote for Paul, who ran for the 2012 GOP nomination, would effectively split the vote in a way that helps Obama.

Is this true?

Ryan is correct that third-party presidential candidates have played decisive roles in the past, not for their own campaigns but for the campaigns of Republicans and Democrats.

However, third-party candidates did not swing the previous two elections-the winners in 2004 and in 2008 still would have won even if their opponents had collected the sum of all third-party candidates' popular votes.

In the prior three elections (2000, 1996 and 1992), the third party votes would have been enough (the 2000 election is tricky because the candidate who won the popular vote ended up losing the race overall).

In 1996, Bill Clinton beat Bob Dole by 8.53% of the popular vote, less than the 10.02% in votes that third-party candidates received. In 1992, the 19.51% in votes received by third-party candidates could have propelled George H.W. Bush to a win over Bill Clinton, since the Clinton margin of victory was only 5.56% of the popular vote.

Ironically, 1988 is the last time Ron Paul officially ran on a presidential ticket, and the election is notable for being one of those exceptions in which the third-party candidates could not have mathematically made a difference.

Ryan's worries about a drastic swing election, suffice it to say, are unwarranted beyond belief. This is simply more of the governmental strategy of making you so afraid of something that you'll fail to follow your conscience.

Does anyone really believe that four more years of Obama will be that much different than four years of Romney? Are Americans really that blind?

Are third-party voters betraying the Republican Party, or are these voters so disenfranchised by the the Republican Party's betrayal of Constitutional ideals?

Even if Ron Paul were to swing the election, is it possible that conservatives and libertarians feel that the message sentt by their symbolic votes of displeasure is more important than the Republican party winning a race to the White House?

For me, it is.


    Well, this chick certainly agrees with you: "If You Don't Vote for Mitt Romney, You Are Helping Obama".

    And I agree with also - but then you already knew that; I’m just a part of the choir.

    Did you happen to see that comment that SigToo left on one of my recent blog bits? He wrote: “I can't wait to see my 1 Massachusetts vote for Ron Paul flash across the TV screen on election night.”

    It made me laugh, but also made me feel kinda proud to know that although my blog has few readers, those few readers it does have know the gig, think for themselves, can’t be brainwashed, and don’t have their brains buried with Jimmy Hoffa.

    And, by the way, you following that story? I sure hope they don’t find Hoffa buried in that person’s yard, because I have always liked thinking that he was getting danced upon every time a New York Giant scored a touchdown.

    ~ D-FensDogg
    ‘Loyal American Underground’

  2. Stephen-

    A couple of centuries ago, we had people living in this country who were willing to risk their lives against the most powerful army in the world and die for their principles. Were it not for the French intervening (yes, I know we all kid the French), we would most likely be part of the UK-that's how outmanned and outgunned the colonists were.

    In 2012, people are so worried about being popular, politically correct and, worst of all, backing the winner, that they will vote for one of these two lame f#@ks rather than use their vote to make a statement.

    If I really believed that the 51% of Americans who voted for the Kenya boy four years ago voted for him because they made a careful study of where he stood on issues and what he had done in his prior political career, it would bother me less.

    Obama was elected because his bumper stickers had a catchy slogan.


    And with "Forward," I think he's poised to do it again.

    Because it is not that Americans are stupid.

    We're lazy.

    So we can memorize "forward" and still have time for football, baseball, "American Idol," and "Survivor."

    If we were to actually make a careful study of all of the candidates, that might involve something hard.

    Like reading.

    Here's my bumper sticker-

    "America-we get the leadership we have earned"

  3. Is Ron Paul going to be on any election slate? The only other candidate that I've heard anything about here in CA is the Libertarian candidate and that's only because they bought radio time.

    Tossing It Out

  4. Lee-

    Ron Paul will not be on the ballot-he's not running as an independent or third-party candidate.

    The flack I have been getting about "a vote for a third party is a vote for Obama" is what prompted this tirade, and I am still not sure whether I'd vote the Constitution candidate (Virgil Goode), the Libertarian candidate (Gary Johnson) or write-in Ron Paul (to send a message of dissatisfaction to the Republican party for the lack of serious candidates for the last twenty years).

    I feel that a vote for someone I'd rather not be president (a "lesser of two evils" vote) is a wasted vote.

    I do not believe Romney will offer any improvement over Obama, except for maybe maintaining the conservative to liberal balance on the Supreme Court.