Voting Fourth Party
by Sandra Hamilton

Most of the people that I know are not happy with the political choices they have for President this year. I hear lots of talk about voting against one guy or the other, but not so much talk about voting FOR anyone. There is one man, however, that a great many people wish they could vote for and that is Ron Paul. His supporters have their news page set to pick up all stories about him, they go to rallies thousands of miles away to support a man who is not even in the running anymore, and his support is not waning, in fact, it is growing.

Recently, Ron Paul held a news conference and suggested that people vote for a third-party candidate. Notably absent from his side, was the third-party candidate Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate. Despite the snub, Ron Paul still stood up for Barr and others in an effort to stop the insanity. If you want change, then you have to change the way you vote. Repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.

I spent the day reading articles about Ron Paul’s historic speech. I found it strange that the pundits, who once ignored Ron Paul completely, suddenly were terribly interested in his opinions. It seems that as soon as Ron Paul says something that might affect the anointed ones, they must report. Would Ron Paul’s words make his supporters more or less likely to vote for McCain? Obama? Who will this affect more?

Meanwhile, the comments from Ron Paul supporters were all about which third-party member to vote for, who should they support now? Reading between the lines it appears that his supporters are still loyal, only now they are not sure how to remain loyal.

If we are to accept that voting for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil (and I do accept that premise), then why throw your vote around willy-nilly? Voting for a third-party candidate simply because they are a third-party candidate makes no sense. You still have to use your mind in this election. You still have to choose a candidate to vote FOR.

At this point in this article I had intended to tell people that wish to vote for Ron Paul to do so by writing his name in on the ballot. I have bad news. Research revealed that in most states, a candidate must jump through a bunch of legal hoops to have their names counted as a write-in. The supposed argument is that you are never actually voting for a candidate, just a slate of electors who will go to the Electoral College to vote for your candidate and if those electors are not registered ahead of time, then in fact, you are not voting for anyone.

However, some states have managed to do away with all that nonsense. This is a nice page that breaks down the rules state by state, but as rules are constantly changing, I ask that you please check the rules for your state and not rely on the information in that link. My question is, if some states can allow you to vote for whomever you wish why can’t they all? What is so difficult about allowing the American people to pick the person they want to be President? Why is this so dangerous?

Every year we get these huge get-out-the-vote drives that are designed to legitimize a system and to make you think you have a choice. If you knew you did not have a choice you might balk a little. So they pretend to give you a choice between a statist and another statist and do everything in their power to prevent you from hearing the non-statist point of view and if you dare to learn of it on your own, they will stop you from being able to vote for your particular candidate. They are good at it.

This year I find myself with a huge dilemma. I typically vote Libertarian, but this year I cannot. I do not like the candidate. I choose not to support that candidate. I also do not like the other third-party candidates. If I vote against a guy, then I am telling the guy I voted for that I like him. That would be false and I do not want to send that message. If I similarly vote Libertarian no matter who the candidate is, then I am telling the Libertarian Party that I do not care who they choose, but I do care. I do not want this year’s candidate to be President. I initially thought I would just write-in Ron Paul and feel good about myself. It turns out, much to my chagrin, that my state has one of those laws that will not count write in candidates unless the candidate filed certain papers and has not already lost a primary. (They call it the sore loser law. But if the people later discover they like the loser better than the winner, where is the harm in letting them choose?) So if I vote for Ron Paul, it will be counted as a "write-in" but not as a vote for Paul.

I have gone over this multiple times. Do I support the Libertarian Party even though I do not support the candidate? That goes against my principles. Do I choose any other third party to send a message? Again, that goes against my principles. I choose not to vote against people but to vote for them. Therefore, I am left with the decision to write in the name Ron Paul. I think he would make a great President. I know my vote will not count as a vote for Dr. Paul, but it will be counted in the generic category of "write-ins." When they show the total of people in my state who do not like the choices they were given I will be among them. And that is the message I truly want to send with my vote. I do not accept your chosen few. I am an American and as so I believe I have the right to vote for whom I choose.

Perhaps if enough people also wrote-in their vote, these draconian write-in laws will be removed. In Delaware, for example, (correct me if I am wrong) if you write in a candidate, that vote will count, period. I think we all have that right.

I thought about not voting at all because I do not want to legitimize the system, but those non-votes are simply seen as apathy. I am not apathetic. I am passionate: Extremely passionate for liberty.

So this election, I will be making a statement. I will vote for the man I believe to be the best candidate, I will do my best to expose a corrupt system that prevents most of us from making a real choice, and I will sleep well. If you feel the same way, I ask you to join me. Even writing in "none of the above" sends a message. I ask you to think about the message you wish to send with your vote. If you want change then change.

Peace.

September 13, 2008

Sandra Hamilton is a retired attorney.

Voting Fourth Party Part 2: A Solution for Ron Paul Supporters
by Sandra Hamilton

I recently wrote an article titled Voting Fourth Party. In it I made a suggestion for people that were not content to pick just any ole third-party candidate. I stated that if they did not like any of the candidates or what they stood for, they could instead write in the name of the person they DID want to be President. (For many of us that would be Dr. Ron Paul.) Alternatively, none of the above is also a good choice.

Sadly, in many states, these write-in votes can not be counted for the candidate of your choice unless that person registers in advance as a write-in candidate. Alternatively, in some states you cannot write in anyone, others prevent you from writing in a candidate who lost in a primary even if they did register, and in a few lucky places all write-ins are counted. Here is a link that will tell you how your state does it. Please verify with your Secretary of State as the information may have changed.

I received a ton of mail on the topic (thank you to all that wrote to me, I learned something from each and every one of you). I am writing this follow-up because I would like to explain my position more fully based on some of the comments I received.

Many people wrote in to say that because their state will not count write-in votes at all, my position was foolish. I will address that concern.

I am suggesting voting as a write-in PRECISELY because it will not be counted. This holds true especially in the states that throw those votes in the trash. By taking this action, we expose the sham that is a supposedly democratic society. We force the state to take a notably undemocratic action: throwing a vote in the trash.

The other alternative is to vote for any third-party candidate willy-nilly. I will not vote for someone I dislike because then all I am doing is sending the message that I approve of that person and their politics. By voting third party, I am not sending the message that I disliked the other candidates. Choosing a third-party candidate is a wise course of action if you do like that person, but if you do not, you will only get more of the above. After all, you voiced your approval.

Another course of action suggested was to not vote at all because to do so is to participate in an illegitimate system. I am not unsympathetic to that argument. However, instead of not voting I choose instead to make a statement – I voted but the State actually stole my vote and threw it in the garbage. Rightly or wrongly, a non-vote is usually seen as apathy and that is not the message I want to send. I do not disagree with that approach, but I am more of an activist. I want to force the state to take an action against me. I want them to show their hand.

Rather than staying home, by voting as a write-in I am saying, I did not like any of your candidates. Imagine if we all did it? Then where would they be? How would they legitimize the theft? How would they claim that the people had a choice?

Imagine if the 49% or more who do not vote all instead wrote in a name. Imagine seeing that McCain got 25% of the vote, Obama received 25% and 49% voted for "other." Wouldn’t that be a stronger message?

The government grabs our children as early as possible and teaches them their version of history; they teach them their version of democracy. They pretend you have a choice so that you will not complain. After all, you voted for a candidate, right? You had your democratic moment. Well, I do not recognize "your money or your life" as a choice. I choose instead to vote the way I want and to make the state take the action of tearing up my vote. Then I can proudly say, I did vote, but the state stopped me because it was too frightened of my ability to choose, so this mess is your fault.

If you agree to play in a rigged game, how can you complain when you are swindled? You chose to participate. Well, this game is as rigged as it gets. I will not play. However, rather than staying home, I choose to make the state show one of its cards. Again, imagine if we all did it? The game would collapse. It needs willing participants to give it the air of legitimacy it needs. Without that, well, the people might see that they really do not have any choice in this supposedly representative Republic and the most basic right, the right to vote, is finally seen as an illusion.

Many states such as Texas, where your write-in vote will be "ignored," (as told to me by the Secretary of State’s office) are really saying: You do not have a choice here; dissenters are unwelcome. We refuse to recognize that anyone is unhappy. This is akin to the way those that march against Bush’s policies are shuffled into a "free speech zone" blocks away so the President never has to see that anyone is unhappy with his policies. We must fight these assaults on our freedom of expression.

Someone has to start saying the Emperor has no clothes. Insanity is repeating the same mistakes expecting different results.

I will end with an email sent to the Secretary of State’s office in Texas. Feel free to copy it if your state also ignores all write-ins unless the person has registered. First, email to make sure you understand their position. If they clarify that the write-in votes will not be counted, will be ignored, or otherwise thrown in the trash unless that person has properly registered, then send them this and cc a bunch of newspaper reporters in your state:

To whom it may concern:

Just so I have this clear. If a person chooses to write in a candidate that did not declare, or register, those votes will be ignored, and that person's right to make any statement in this Presidential election will be taken away from them? Even people who vote for Mickey Mouse are making a statement. But you are going to silence all of those voices? Have I got it correct?

Only those that recognize the fallacy of the "choices" presented to us will be allowed to vote? The rest of us, who are not happy with our choices are better off staying at home? Is that really what you are telling me? You are removing the right to vote for "other"?

While, it is clear that the Bush Administration has removed many of our Constitutional rights, I did not know the right to vote was among them.

This makes me very sad. What happened to America? Where did it go?

Please tell me – for a person who abhors the choices presented to her – how I am supposed to say so? If I must pick a person on the ballot then any vote I make will only be counted as an affirmative vote for the "lesser of several evils" choice I make. That means I still have to vote for evil. I do not want to vote for evil.

Under this system, you are telling the disgruntled to go away. Please hide in the closet. We will only recognize the people who are happy with the process. Any dissent must be silenced. Either you will like the choices given to you or you will remain quiet. We cannot hear from anyone who is not content. Would you call that the American way of doing things?

I beg you to reconsider ignoring these votes completely. These people have something to say. They are saying – we are unhappy. Please hear us. Those who are registered in a party can say "I don't like the person the party picked" and the party can hear them: But not if their vote is ignored.

What good is free speech if we are only allowed to say what we want in our own closet? These "other" votes are a statement. Please don't silence democracy.

Please report these votes in total. Let the people hear how many are unhappy. Let the parties hear how many they have failed to reach. Let their voices be heard. Or are you telling them all to stay home? Do you really want to make apathy the intelligent choice? Right now it is pretty stupid to go to the polls if you do not like the choices: So much for getting out the vote. I guess only "certain" people are allowed to speak.

Perhaps if the American public really understood how fixed the game is, they might start to complain. A girl can dream can’t she?

Peace.

I saw The Fifth Element.

I switched parties to the Libertarian Party. But I will vote for one of the two candidates. I've talked to a number of people I know who are registered other than Dem or Rep.

It turned out that there was a significant agreement on the idea that even though we are third party people, we don't vote third party candidates. While voting that way does make a statement, we pretty much agreed that it was tantamount to throwing away votes.

Now there may be many of you who disagree with that. That's all well and good. This is just what my two groups of people think.

(one group is all my younger friends in the anime club, dance group, and movie group, the other group is mostly older people in my stitching and book groups, if anyone feels the need to know the demographics)

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it.
Abraham Lincoln


...time to wake up people....

Thats what the 2nd amendment (one of the most attacked Constitutionally assured right) is all about.