Ron Paul Wins an Electoral Vote

File:Ron Paul, official Congressional photo portrait, 2007.jpg

The Libertarian Party’s 1988 presidential nominee Ron Paul received an electoral vote today from a faithless Texas elector as the Electoral College met to officially elect Donald Trump the next president.

Paul, a former Republican Congressman who twice ran for president as a Republican, left the party in 2015 and changed his registration back to the Libertarian Party.  He is a lifetime member of the party.  Paul is the first Libertarian to receive an electoral college vote since John Hospers, the party’s first presidential nominee who received a vote from faithless elector Roger MacBride in 1972.  MacBride later served as the party’s next presidential nominee.

As of 5:30 pm CST, three other individuals received votes from faithless electors.  Former Secretary of State Colin Powell received three votes in Washington pledged to Hillary Clinton.  Amerindian activist Faith Spotted Eagle received one from Washington as well.  Ohio governor John Kasich received a vote from a faithless elector in Texas, who like the Paul elector, was pledged to Trump.

Ballot Access News earlier reported a faithless Maine elector voted for Senator Bernie Sanders, but, upon revote, the elector voted for Clinton.  An elector in Minnesota who also wanted to vote for Sanders, was replaced.

UPDATE: A faithless Hawaii elector pledged to Clinton voted for Sanders.

52 thoughts on “Ron Paul Wins an Electoral Vote

  1. Jim Polichak from Long Island

    A more respectable term is Hamiltonian Elector.
    I don’t know if any of the elected Electors who were replaced by their states will take the matter to court but my reading of the Constitution is that they had the right to cast their vote for whom ever they chose.
    With luck, after four years of Trump most of us will still have the right to vote.

  2. Sandy Sanders

    It’s about time Ron Paul got some recognition and this is perfect – this vote will represent all the long hard hours people worked and donated (and donated their money too) to get Paul and his ideas into the mainstream.

    Sandy Sanders
    Blogger, Virginia Right
    ssanders@varight.com

  3. Thomas L. Knapp

    “my reading of the Constitution is that they had the right to cast their vote for whom ever they chose”

    That’s not something addressed in the Constitution. The Constitution leaves the method of selecting electors up to the states. If the states want to select electors 1) by popular election and 2) bound to particular candidates, that’s their prerogative. As is selecting electors by games of naked hopscotch who are required to put on blindfolds and throw darts until one hits a candidate.

    If the states can’t bind their electors, why are several states discussing binding their electors to the national popular vote?

  4. AMcCarrick

    Thomas L. Knapp… “If the states can’t bind their electors, why are several states discussing binding their electors to the national popular vote?”

    They’re not…. They’re saying that the states that take part in the National Popular Vote Compact would appoint the electors from the party that wins the popular vote, for their state’s electoral vote. There’s no talk of binding electors to vote for that candidate, but that candidate’s party’s electors would be awarded the seats.

    In other words, if a Republican won the popular vote, and California, being a member of the compact, would appoint the Republican electors as the electors to vote in the electoral college; but they wouldn’t actually be bound to vote for the Republican candidate. It’s just strongly likely they would.

  5. Jill Pyeatt

    Well, this is refreshing! Congratulations to Dr. Paul.

    And yes, George, you were exactly right. Some people were fairly certain that the elector coup would work, but clearly it didn’t.

    Somehow, I don’t think the election nonsense is over yet, though. I expect drama clear through Inauguration Day.

  6. George Whitfield

    Very glad to see an Electoral College vote cast for Ron Paul. Does anyone know who the Elector was who voted for Paul?

  7. Richard Winger

    Colin Powell got more electoral votes than Ron Paul today. Does that mean anything? Not really.

    On Tom’s point, there is a difference between a state deciding how to choose its electors, and a state telling a duly-elected elector how to vote. I am glad to see that the Washington Secretary of State says she plans to fine each of the 4 electors $1,000. That guarantees that their lawsuit, pending in US District Court, will not be ruled moot. Eventually even the US Supreme Court may hear their case, and we can settle whether electors, once elected by the people, have the right to decide for themselves whom to vote for.

  8. langa

    Colin Powell got more electoral votes than Ron Paul today. Does that mean anything? Not really.

    No, it doesn’t. However, does the fact that there were seven “faithless electors” this year (1912 was the last year with more than one), and not a single one of them voted for Gary Johnson mean anything?

    Absolutely. It means that the wild scenarios put forth by Gary and his Groupies — you know, the ones that involved him getting enough “faithless” electoral votes to throw the election to the House, where he would somehow be elected — were total bullshit. Of course, anyone with half a brain already knew that.

  9. Timothy Yung

    This is wonderful news. The man who did the vote knew that his electoral vote would not change the outcome who became president but did it to bring publicity to Ron Paul and to the cause of liberty. From what I have heard the man is a professor who was active in the Ron Paul movement in Georgia and briefed the campaign teams about convention laws when they were fighting for delegates and he wrote some articles for the Mises Institute concerning gold and silver as currency.

  10. Dave

    So figures at least one time affiliated with both the LP and Greens got electoral votes today. Pretty nice. And a great retirement gift for Dr. Paul.

  11. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    It’s been four years since Ron Paul ran for president, whereas Gary Johnson ran this year. That this libertarian-leaning elector choose Paul over Johnson says something about the latter’s failure to inspire.

  12. Just Saying

    “Colin Powell got more electoral votes than Ron Paul today. Does that mean anything? Not really.” — Richard Winger

    “No, it doesn’t. However, does the fact that there were seven ‘faithless electors’ this year (1912 was the last year with more than one), and not a single one of them voted for Gary Johnson mean anything?” — langa

    Great question, langa, and I’m sure Richard Winger and Goofy Gary’s other Groupies would be singing an entirely different tune if their candidate — the bumbling buffoon of American politics — had received three votes in the Electoral College. Or even one vote, for that matter.

  13. Tony From Long Island

    TK rightfully pointed out: ” . .. .If the states can’t bind their electors, why are several states discussing binding their electors to the national popular vote? . . . . ”

    ” . . . . .They’re saying that the states that take part in the National Popular Vote Compact would appoint the electors from the party that wins the popular vote, for their state’s electoral vote. There’s no talk of binding electors to vote for that candidate, but that candidate’s party’s electors would be awarded the seats. . . . . “

    Huh? what kind of linguistic twister is that? The National Popular Vote Compact is explicitly binding a state’s electors to the winner of the popular vote. That’s the raison d’etre of the initiative

    http://www.fairvote.org/national_popular_vote#endorsers_of_the_npv_plan

  14. Tony From Long Island

    Jill: ” . . . . Somehow, I don’t think the election nonsense is over yet, though. I expect drama clear through Inauguration Day. . . . . ”

    True. Members of congress can still “challenge” individual electors when the electoral votes are officially counted.

  15. Austin Cassidy

    “That this libertarian-leaning elector choose Paul over Johnson says something about the latter’s failure to inspire.”

    This elector also voted for Carly Fiorina for VP. Probably made that decision after many hours of deep prayer.

    I don’t think Gary Johnson was on his radar.

  16. Richard Winger

    There were no faithless electors in 1912. The California Republican state convention chose Theodore Roosevelt as its nominee for president, and chose presidential elector candidates pledged to Roosevelt. Roosevelt’s name was on the California ballot as the Republican nominee. Therefore the Republican electors in California were not faithless. Ditto South Dakota, where the situation was the same.

    If any historian is going to count California and South Dakota 1912 as faithless, then to be consistent that historian would need to count Mississippi and Alabama 1960 as other examples of faithlessness, and Alabama 1968 as faithless. But I have never seen anyone assert that. The country does need a clear vocabulary. Imprecise terms in election and constitutional law create lots of confusion. Other terms with vocabulary confusion are “two-party system” and “primary” and “open primary”.

  17. Matt

    “Huh? what kind of linguistic twister is that? The National Popular Vote Compact is explicitly binding a state’s electors to the winner of the popular vote.”

    No, it ties the electors to the NPV, it does not bind them. In other words the electors are chosen on the basis of their pledge to vote on the basis of the winner of the national popular vote, as opposed to on the basis of the state’s popular vote or the congressional district’s popular vote or some other scheme, but regardless of the scheme under which they are chosen they still have the option to go faithless – just as they do under the current scheme.

    Again, why have human electors at all if they are to have no free will? It’s easy enough to automate the process.

  18. Tony From Long Island

    With the NPV compact (in their words) ” . . . states choose to allocate their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC. . . . . ”

    You want to use the word “tie.” Ok, I say “bind.” Either way, the winner of the national popular vote would get the electoral votes of those states. Of course, I’d have to read the actual legislation that the states already in the compact have passed to see if they are absolutely bound. However, if you consider that those states passed the legislation with the intent that the national popular vote winner would receive the Electoral Votes of that state you would have to at first assume that they would be bound.

    ————————————————————————–
    Matt asked ” . . . . ., why have human electors at all if they are to have no free will? It’s easy enough to automate the process. . . . . ”

    In some states they do have free will, as we saw yesterday. Othewise, this thread would not exist.

    The EC should not exist. It is an antiquated relic of a long gone era. Sadly, amending the constitution to eliminate it is a difficult. Task. At least the NPV initiative would render it absolutely ceremonial.

    But Matt, I do agree with you in that why have the electoral college in its current form if the “electors” are not free to exercise their position in the way it was intended?

  19. Matt

    Allocate does not mean bind. Right now most states allocate electoral votes according to the winner of the state popular vote, and a couple of states allocate some of their electoral votes according to the winner of the congressional district popular vote. Under NPV they would be allocated to the winner of the national popular vote, but that is a separate question from whether electors, as individuals with conscience and free will, would have the right to vote differently from how their appointment is allocated. I believe that they should have that right, regardless of how they are allocated…no less so under NPV than under the current schemes.

  20. Tony From Long Island

    Matt: ” . . . . .I believe that they should have that right, regardless of how they are allocated…no less so under NPV than under the current schemes. . . . . ”

    I believe they should not exist. . . . but I would be OK with the NPV because it would – in essence – abolish the EC.

    I think you are obsessing over one word and missing the intent. The states that have signed on would almost certainly not have done so if it wasn’t a binding thing. That’s the entire point of the endeavor.

    I will make a point of looking up the actual legislation passed by New York (it is probably similarly worded in each state that has passed it). I would almost guarantee that it contains language that all but binds the Electors to the national popular vote.

    I only have computer access when I am at work so I will have to do this tomorrow morning probably

  21. Matt

    “…NPV because it would – in essence – abolish the EC.”

    Only if you are correct about it being binding. Otherwise, it would still at least theoretically function as a failsafe mechanism and/or method of expression/protest.

    “I think you are obsessing over one word and missing the intent.”

    No, I disagree with you about how it would (or should) function.

    ” The states that have signed on would almost certainly not have done so if it wasn’t a binding thing. That’s the entire point of the endeavor.”

    Not necessarily. It would still practically always fulfill the purpose of picking the national popular vote winner even if it allows for faithless electors. The purpose is to keep the sort of thing that happened in 2000 as well as this year, with the clear loser of the national popular vote being the clear winner of the electoral vote; not necessarily to prevent what happened this year with a small handful of faithless electors lodging protest votes. Those are two different things and one does not necessarily imply the other.

    And, yes, amending the constitution is not very easy. It’s not supposed to be. It has the level of difficulty that it does by design.

  22. Tony From Long Island

    This is New York’s NPV law : http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/sites/default/files/ny-a4422-s3149-2013.pdf

    Article III, Section 3 states: “The Presidential Elector certifying official [ In New York, this is probably the Secretary of State] of each member state SHALL certify the appointment in the official’s own state of the elector slate nominated in that state in association with the national popular vote winner.”

    Seems to me that you would no longer be voting for an elector. You would vote directly for the candidate who then designates their own electors to handle the ceremonial stuff. But that was a quick read.

  23. Matt

    That says nothing about prohibiting faithless electors, at least in the section you quoted.

    “The Presidential Elector certifying official [ In New York, this is probably the Secretary of State] of each member state SHALL certify the appointment in the official’s own state of the elector slate nominated in that state in association with the national popular vote winner.”

    So the SOS certifies the slate of electors associated with the NPV winner; in this past election, Hillary Clinton. However, the individuals chosen by that campaign to be on its slate of electors remain individuals, and as such they still have the right to change their minds and vote otherwise. Given that they are chosen by the campaign, it’s unlikely that very many of them would, but a few may here and there – and in the case of some extreme circumstance it could be the whole slate. But that would have to be an extreme circumstance indeed; for example, if Clinton were to be indicted in between the election and the electoral college vote, one could imagine her slate of electors getting together in a coordinated effort to make a different choice.

    Or, for instance, if Trump had been the winner of the NPV and in between the popular and electoral votes undeniable videotaped evidence of him raping underage girls, or being a paid agent of the Russian regime, or of him emerging from Trump Tower and personally shooting peaceful protesters in the face with a machine gun came out…well, in his case, his electors would probably still vote for him.

  24. Just Some Random Guy

    @ langa

    No, it doesn’t. However, does the fact that there were seven “faithless electors” this year (1912 was the last year with more than one), and not a single one of them voted for Gary Johnson mean anything?

    It means that… wait for it… the positions that Gary Johnson (and the LP in general) has are not in particular alignment with the Republican or Democratic party, and thus electors chosen would be more likely to throw their “protest vote” towards a candidate who does share their views?

    Absolutely. It means that the wild scenarios put forth by Gary and his Groupies — you know, the ones that involved him getting enough “faithless” electoral votes to throw the election to the House, where he would somehow be elected — were total bullshit. Of course, anyone with half a brain already knew that.

    Did Johnson himself ever advocate that? I don’t remember him doing so. I think he mentioned that if he won a few states he might be able to win via the House, but that was about if he had electors, not if he managed to flip ones for another candidate.

  25. Jim

    langa “the wild scenarios put forth by Gary and his Groupies — you know, the ones that involved him getting enough “faithless” electoral votes to throw the election to the House, where he would somehow be elected — were total bullshit. Of course, anyone with half a brain already knew that.”

    Anyone with half a brain knew that wasn’t the plan. The plan was to get in the debates, then win enough states to prevent anyone from getting to 270. It had nothing to do with faithless electors.

    The plan fell apart when he failed to get in the debates. You can criticize the campaign all you want about why that happened – Allepo, mis-allocated resources, or whatever. But Johnson said repeatedly no debates – no chance.

    And I don’t know what all this gloating about Ron Paul getting an electoral vote and Gary Johnson not getting one is all about except that libertarians like to shoot their own. Paul spent 20 years in Congress and had to run for President 4 times (if you count his aborted 1992 run.) Browne never got one. Darrell Castle never got one. Plenty of good people have never got one. And plenty of authoritarian thugs have, Donald Trump being the latest.

  26. Andy Craig

    If the elector who voted for Ron Paul was that concerned about picking a libertarian, he chose an odd way to express it when he also voted for Mike Pence.

    Random faithless electors are fun footnotes. This year they were a particularly fun and amusingly random set of footnotes. I wouldn’t trade getting four and half million voters for one rouge Republican elector, though. You can be pleased about both of those things, too. It’s nice that Ron Paul got this nod in the history books, and it’s nice that Gary Johnson got ten times as many votes as the Libertarian Party usually did before him.

    I also don’t think anybody would argue that their 1 electoral vote– as neat and helpful as that was– makes Hospers/Nathan, with less than 4000 votes and ballot access in two states, the party’s most substantively successful ticket. And at least that elector also chose a Libertarian for Vice-President.

  27. Richard Winger

    People should be more upbeat about the chances of the presidential debates changing for the better. Next month we have the first oral argument in Level the Playing Field v FEC.

  28. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Me: “That this libertarian-leaning elector choose Paul over Johnson says something about the latter’s failure to inspire.”

    Austin Cassidy: This elector also voted for Carly Fiorina for VP. Probably made that decision after many hours of deep prayer. I don’t think Gary Johnson was on his radar.

    Well, that’s the whole point, isn’t it? Johnson wasn’t on any of the faithless electors radars.

  29. Matt

    I’m not a fan of Johnson – didn’t even vote for him – but that’s just not a very good talking point. Those electors are chosen based on their activism in and loyalty to the Republican and Democratic parties so it’s no surprise that they might have more affinity for someone whose last few runs were as a Republican for congress and the presidential nomination as opposed to someone whose last two campaigns were as a third party candidate and whose last Republican campaign went nowhere because he’s socially liberal.

  30. Tony From Long Island

    Or, for instance, if Trump had been the winner of the NPV and in between the popular and electoral votes undeniable videotaped evidence of him raping underage girls, or being a paid agent of the Russian regime, or of him emerging from Trump Tower and personally shooting peaceful protesters in the face with a machine gun came out…well, in his case, his electors would probably still vote for him.

    The saddest true statement of the day

  31. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Tony from Long Island: Spineless conservatives are now afraid to blab on about their beloved conservative principles for fear of Darth Trump and his clone army.

    The only “conservative principle” that conservatives fight for is unqualified, ardent support for Israel.

    Conservatives routinely violate every other “conservative principle” they espouse. Government keeps growing on their watch. Regulations and taxes keep increasing. And they’ve done little to stop abortions or gay marriage. (Not that they should, but those too are “conservative principles” which they’ve failed to deliver on.)

    It’s no wonder Trump walked all over the GOP and conservatives. His populism and nationalism is something, however problematic, whereas conservatives have proven themselves to stand for nothing. And you can’t fight something with nothing.

  32. Andy

    Gary Johnson is only “socially” liberal on some issues. Everyone seems to forget that as Governor of New Mexico, he signed a bill banning late term abortions, and he also supports parental notification if a minor wants to get an abortion. He also said that abortion is an issue that should be left for the states to decide (which is something that Ron Paul also said). Johnson also sought to expand the death penalty while Governor of New Mexico, as he wanted to apply it to people as young as age 13. Even on the war on drugs, Johnson only favored taxing and regulating marijuana, and he wanted to keep the war on drugs going against other drugs.

    Ron Paul is more pro-life than Gary Johnson, which is an issue that is more identified with conservatives, but Ron Paul is actually more “liberal” than Gary Jonson is when it comes to the death penalty and the war on drugs.

  33. Andy

    langa hit the nail on the head when it came to the talk of Gary Johnson getting electoral votes and then throwing the election to the House, in that this was just a bunch of hype put out by the Johnson people.

  34. Andy

    It is nice to see that the good Dr. Ron Paul finally won an electoral college vote, but at this point it was merely a symbolic gesture.

  35. Matt

    “Gary Johnson is only “socially” liberal on some issues. Everyone seems to forget that as Governor of New Mexico, he signed a bill banning late term abortions, and he also supports parental notification if a minor wants to get an abortion. ”

    That was then, and regardless of any such nuance, he publicly identifies himself, and is primarily described by others, as pro-choice. By contrast, Ron Paul is identified primarily as pro-life, even though his own position is also nuanced. Likewise, Paul is more conservative than Johnson on some divisive social issues that are important to many/most Republican electors such as immigration and gay marriage.

    ” Johnson also sought to expand the death penalty while Governor of New Mexico, as he wanted to apply it to people as young as age 13. ”

    I’m pretty sure he is now against the death penalty. If your point is that Johnson has not always been perfectly consistent, I agree. If your point is that he is not more socially liberal than Ron Paul, I disagree.

    “Even on the war on drugs, Johnson only favored taxing and regulating marijuana, and he wanted to keep the war on drugs going against other drugs.”

    On the other hand, he not only wants to legalize marijuana but actually promotes it. He is open about having been a long time marijuana user and was CEO of a legal marijuana company. Whereas, Ron Paul has never admitted to using marijuana as far as I know, or to investing in marijuana businesses. Also, Ron Paul sometimes says it should be up to the states whether they make drugs legal, whereas Johnson wants marijuana to be legal not just at the federal level but in as many state and local jurisdictions as possible.

    “Ron Paul is actually more “liberal” than Gary Jonson is when it comes to the death penalty and the war on drugs.”

    That’s highly debatable on both issues. And overall, I think you would find that most Republican electors, and more people that have an opinion on it in general, would agree that across the broad spectrum of social issues Johnson is more liberal than Paul.

    “It is nice to see that the good Dr. Ron Paul finally won an electoral college vote, but at this point it was merely a symbolic gesture.”

    Agreed on both counts.

  36. Andy

    Some issues that Gary Johnson is “liberal” on it is not liberal in a good way. One example of this is that Gary Johnson thinks that it is OK to force private businesses to provide goods and services to people against their will (like with the whole gay wedding cake controversy).

    Oh, and here’s a “conservative” stand that Gary Johnson took that wasn’t really what I’d call libertarian. Remember the “Ban the Burqa” controversy? Gary Johnson thought that it was OK for the government to ban an article of clothing. This reminds me of those conservatives who want the government to ban hooded sweatshirts, or baggie pants. Gary Johnson backed down on this issue ONLY AFTER he was attacked for it by a bunch of libertarians.

  37. Matt

    “Some issues that Gary Johnson is “liberal” on it is not liberal in a good way. One example of this is that Gary Johnson thinks that it is OK to force private businesses to provide goods and services to people against their will (like with the whole gay wedding cake controversy).”

    The question wasn’t whether his views are good or bad. Obviously, I don’t like all of his views or I would have at the very least voted for him. The question was whether his views would be more or less likely to appeal to Republican electors. The obvious answer is less, which is not necessarily the same question as to whether those views are good or bad.

    “Remember the “Ban the Burqa” controversy? ”

    Yes, I do. It was one of those colossal brainfarts that led me to vote for a different candidate. To be fair, Johnson dropped that nonsense quickly. On the other hand he wasn’t completely honest either, saying he was only answering a reporter’s question off the cuff, whereas in reality he almost certainly brought up the issue on his own and did so in at least three separate interviews. But, still, it’s not an issue he kept harping on after that, so it’s unlikely that it cost him any faithless elector’s vote either way.

  38. Jim

    Andy “Everyone seems to forget that as Governor of New Mexico, he signed a bill banning late term abortions, and he also supports parental notification if a minor wants to get an abortion. He also said that abortion is an issue that should be left for the states to decide (which is something that Ron Paul also said).”

    That’s not quite accurate. Ron Paul introduced legislation (Example: 112th HR 1096) that defined human life to exist from conception at the federal level. The bill then required the states to enforce the abortion ban. He also co-sponsored bills to cut off federal funding to schools if they so much as mentioned abortion (Examples 112th: HR 6173, HR 4046)

    Andy “Ron Paul is actually more “liberal” than Gary Jonson is when it comes to the … war on drugs.”

    Only in rhetoric. I just skimmed through every piece of legislation introduced by Ron Paul back to the 70’s. Abolish the Department of Education? Yup. Abolish OSHA? It’s there. Abolish the Federal Reserve? Of course. But end the war on drugs… not so much. Paul was very limited on that front. His legislation addressed things like industrial hemp and barring the FDA from classifying food and supplements as drugs. The only bill I can find that directly attacked the DEA was from the year 2000, when he tried to remove some specific funding to the DEA which would have been used for counter narcotics operations in Columbia.

    I was only skimming, so it’s possible I missed it if he only did it once, although most of his bills were repeated year after year. And I didn’t look at co-sponsored bills, but it’s pretty unlikely any other Congressman would have tried to end the war on drugs.

  39. Andy

    I just skimmed through a partial list of legislation that was either sponsored by Ron Paul, or co-sponsored by Ron Paul. Ron Paul co-sponsored a bill put forth by Barney Frank to end federal marijuana prohibition. He also co-sponsored a bill for the federal government to not interfere with states that had passed medical marijuana. He co-sponsored another bill to reform asset forfeiture laws, which are abused in the war on drugs.

    This was just a quick scan.

    It should also be pointed out that Ron Paul did campaign on the issue of completely ending the drug war, and he did talk about jury nullification, and he urged jurors to nullify any laws where people were facing prosecution for victimless crimes. I wish that Ron Paul would have talked a lot more about jury nullification, but the fact that he brought it up at all puts him ahead of just about every other politician, including Gary Johnson.

  40. Jim

    Andy “Ron Paul co-sponsored a bill put forth by Barney Frank to end federal marijuana prohibition. He also co-sponsored a bill for the federal government to not interfere with states that had passed medical marijuana. He co-sponsored another bill to reform asset forfeiture laws, which are abused in the war on drugs.”

    Yes – Paul’s actions in his 20 years in Congress on the drug war were not significantly different than what Gary Johnson campaigned on. Johnson also opposed civil asset forfeiture, saying he bought into the arguments about it being an important law enforcement tool when he was Governor, but came to realize it gave bad incentives to law enforcement and called it tyrannical and unconstitutional and encouraged NM Governor Susana Martinez to sign a bill that would ban it.

    Paul never actually tried to do anything about drugs other than marijuana, with the sole exception, that I could find, of trying to block DEA operations in Columbia in the year 2000. He would talk about ending the war on drugs, but he never introduced a bill to do it. Which is odd, because, as I said, he introduced bills to end the Department of Education, OSHA, the Federal Reserve, and so forth. But drugs… it was pretty much just talk.

  41. Andy Craig

    To be fair, most of the bills Paul introduced were “just talk”, too. I don’t know that I’d read too much into what particular bills he introduced vs. what he merely talked about, since almost all of his bills were just symbolic gestures, with no follow-up effort to push them through committee and to a floor vote. The only substantive bill he ever put much effort into trying to pass was Audit the Fed; and how important that actually was is debatable.

  42. Andy Craig

    “This elector also voted for Carly Fiorina for VP. Probably made that decision after many hours of deep prayer.”

    The elector who voted for Fiorina for VP was the one who voted for Kasich for President.

    The guy who voted for Ron Paul voted for Mike Pence for VP, which shows that whatever his motivations were, picking a plumb-line libertarian probably wasn’t part of it.

  43. NewFederalist

    The Electoral College has meaning if one believes states matter anymore. If states are no longer relevant then neither is the EC nor the U.S. Senate. The states created the U.S. government not the other way around.

  44. langa

    So, Ron Paul is “all talk” and no action, huh? Gary Johnson, meanwhile, goes on and on about the evils of marijuana prohibition, yet what did he do as Governor? He had the power to release every non-violent drug offender in New Mexico. How many did he actually release from prison? Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

    Don’t you groupies ever get tired of riding Gary’s … err… Johnson?

  45. Matt

    Both Paul and Johnson are largely “all talk” on ending drug prohibition. I think Johnson’s lack of pardons is worse than not introducing even more bills that would have lost by a large margin.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *