So during an interview on CNN, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus called Gary Johnson a “non-factor” in the upcoming Presidential election and also stated that voters would be smart enough not to “throw their vote away” by voting for a 3rd party candidate. This man’s extreme arrogance is just further proof of how the Republican Party really feels about Libertarians. A non-factor Mr. Priebus? We shall see about that. You just lit a fire under this Colorado voter.
To watch the interview click here.
I previously addressed the Gary Johnson issue and the “throwing your vote away” concept in my article titled Meet Gary Johnson: The Libertarian for President Polling at 7% in Colorado.
In Liberty,
Mike
Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G
Follow me on Twitter.
That’s the mainstream spin on voting for a third party, that you are throwing your vote away in doing so. The other side of that coin is that Americans must choose between the lesser of two evils so as to not throw their vote away.
In reality, if one votes for the lesser of two evils, they are, in fact, voting for evil. That is, they are giving their seal of approval, their imprimatur, if you will, to evil. What if, say, the choice is between Hitler and Stalin, or between Mao and Pol Pot? Is it morally permissible under those circumstances to vote for either of them? The point is if you vote for someone merely so as “not to throw your vote away”, but you vote for someone of whom you do not approve, that in and of itself is precisely what one is doing, throwing one’s vote away. Is it any wonder that things continue to get worse and worse?
Ultimately, Americans who adhere to this logic give their seal of approval to the system, the process, whereby the majority get to coerce the minority until the next election. And the realistic outcome, as opposed to the winning candidate, has long since been decided. Their participation simply enables this system to keep right on going.
Brooks is right, of course. And let’s just keep in mind that the chairman is just doing his job: promoting a wide-spread False Dilemma to cement control of the electoral process from his side of the Duopoly. The DNC chair does the same thing, I am sure. That makes it unanimous, I guess.
In a twisted way, he’s telling the Real Truth. A third party candidate is not a factor in whether TPTB which selected both parties’ candidates will be get its way. TPTB’s preferred outcome is a train on a track. Neither Johnson nor anyone else can stop that now.
So what does that mean? It means we retask the job our vote is intended to do. I agree with Michael that casting a vote for a third party candidate is the way to go, but to do it with intention and purpose we have to adjust our goal to give it a new meaning, each one of us, personally.
Clearly, your third party vote can be a sincere support to a particular non-aligned candidate whose politics you support. But it can be other things too. Your vote can become a public declaration of “no confidence” in the parties, the duopoly and by extension the government they control. It can become a “spanner in the works” if you cast it with the intention of destabilizing the system. It can be a simple reassertion of ownership, “look, it’s my vote and you cannot have it.” A third party vote can be an “encouragement” to those thinking of running on a non-aligned platform in your district in 2014. After all, one third of the House is up for re-election then, and whether your district shows a huge third-party polling or a small one might determine whether someone steps up. Think of it: whether you and your neighbors have an opportunity to undercut the duopoly in 2014 might depend on how you vote next month. Though unknowable, that’s a way more significant use of your personal right than throwing it on the DNC/RNC potlatch.
So, are our third party votes going to keep a puppet out of the White House come January? No. But if you make your action about another goal, and then do it, you can declare personal victory, irrespective of the returns.
Penultimately, as near as I can tell, and I am happy to be corrected, the Duopoly only has control if you, A.) vote for one of its puppets; or, B.) don’t vote at all. The Duopoly can only be knocked out if every two years an ever-increasing number of third (fourth and fifth) party votes are cast so its candidates’ lock on a plurality is denied. Then you have run offs, and a chance to vote for a winner that’s not one of “them.”
Lastly, “off the chart” third party returns might have the unexpected consequence of forcing the Duopoly to resort to obvious voter fraud (should I say, “more obvious than usual?”), causing them to break the spell they have over the population and arouse a response. As a personal aside: I don’t know about you but my wife and I received, unsought, a third computer-printed absentee ballot last week. For the first time in five years at this address, we got one for a former resident that lived here when he died more than 20 years ago. Anyone else? Just wondering.
Peace Out.