Sandra Hamilton says she will be “voting fourth party” on November 4 — she’ll be writing in Ron Paul.
Ms. Hamilton provides a link to a Web site detailing the various write-in laws, state by state. In many states, write-in votes for unregistered candidates are counted as generic “write ins,” which Ms. Hamilton suggests could have a positive impact nonetheless:
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.
Ms. Hamilton said she thought about not voting at all but rejected that idea. She does not want to be counted among the apathetic: “I am not apathetic. I am passionate: Extremely passionate for liberty.”
So then, why not vote for the Libertarian Party?
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.
Ms. Hamilton also seems to have been influenced by Bob Barr’s no-show.
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.
Forgot the best part.
Does this have to be all about you?
Hmmm. I don’t recall saying anything about me until my inquisitor asked me what I had done today.
Note also lack of response in kind.
LOL @ myself.
I really do need remedial lessons, no joke.
me before == He doesn’t want you to write him in, and has publicly said so. I should hope that would count for something.
sifu == Link please?
grasshopper == I asked first.
Good grief. You really do have difficulties with elementary reading don’t you.
Yep, that’s me.
Something must have happened to me in the last couple of decades. Back then, I had a nearly perfect verbal SAT score, even though I took the test while drunk and tripping on acid. Now, I have problems with remedial reading. Shame on me.
You really do seem to have a difficult time with remedial comprehension.
That sentence is an explanation as to why he may want votes but did not want to run under the banner of the Constitutional party.
What party was that again, oh patient teacher?
Glad to see you are working to get something accomplished. But that doesn’t excuse dumping on a lovely woman who wrote an excellent article.
Disagreeing with something she wrote is “dumping” on her? Geez, I didn’t know that. Let me go get some tissue.
Finally you write:
I would like my vote counted for Paul.
Just to be clear, I quoted GE, who wrote that. If you don’t know basic html, you could find some other way to distinguish what I wrote from what someone else did.
He doesn’t want you to write him in, and has publicly said so. I should hope that would count for something.
Link please?
I asked first.
Finally, again, you have a reading comprehension problem. Voting for Ron Paul as a write in CANNOT get him elected for President no matter if he wished upon a star for it to count. There are not enough states that count these votes.
So the reason to write in Ron Paul is because it will not count?
The article is about the voting system and has very little to do with Ron Paul at all.
OK, so it’s about hypothetical person X who is not a registered write-in candidate. Why not? It must be because he would be happy if you wrote his name in. What was that link again?
It has to do with the FREEDOM TO CHOOSE.
In what way? Anyone who is interested in being a write-in candidate merely needs to ask. Granted, there is some paperwork involved, but I would think the candidate Ms. Hamilton wants to write in would be easily capable of handling that, if in fact he were really interested in receiving write-in votes.
A freedom that is strangled by draconian voting laws.
I can think of some draconian voting laws, having asked at least a million people for a signature at one time or another. Compared with that, getting write-in paperwork filled out doesn’t sound so difficult.
Did you read the first part of the article too?
Yes.
Why is this concept so difficult for you?
What makes you think it’s difficult?
You are arguing about the color of the leaves in a discussion about whether the government has the right to take control of land.
Since I am so bad at reading comprehension, would you please connect the dots on that analogy?
Are you just trying to be argumentative?
That must be it. Because nobody could sincerely have a different point of view from you.
Because your comments are only showing your lack of understanding of the article, and ruining what could be a perfectly decent discussion of the issue.
So only perfect agreement would constitute a decent discussion?
I am done.
Well done, I’d say.
Go shout at the walls.
OK. I NOTICED YOU DID NOT ANSWER ANY OF MY QUESTIONS.
There, that feels better.
Good grief. You really do have difficulties with elementary reading don’t you.
“Perhaps, he did not want his name associated with other parties.”
You really do seem to have a difficult time with remedial comprehension.
That sentence is an explanation as to why he may want votes but did not want to run under the banner of the Constitutional party.
Glad to see you are working to get something accomplished. But that doesn’t excuse dumping on a lovely woman who wrote an excellent article.
Finally you write:
I would like my vote counted for Paul.
He doesn’t want you to write him in, and has publicly said so. I should hope that would count for something.
Link please?
Finally, again, you have a reading comprehension problem. Voting for Ron Paul as a write in CANNOT get him elected for President no matter if he wished upon a star for it to count. There are not enough states that count these votes.
I tried to explain the article above, but even broken down, you are unable to comprehend.
What can you say to a man who says I like play doh when you tell him the Fed needs to be abolished?
The article is about the voting system and has very little to do with Ron Paul at all. It has to do with the FREEDOM TO CHOOSE. A freedom that is strangled by draconian voting laws.
Did you read the first part of the article too?
Why is this concept so difficult for you?
You are arguing about the color of the leaves in a discussion about whether the government has the right to take control of land.
Are you just trying to be argumentative? Because your comments are only showing your lack of understanding of the article, and ruining what could be a perfectly decent discussion of the issue. Does this have to be all about you?
I am done. Go shout at the walls.
Oh yeah, and helped plan a possible presidential debate.
Carry on.
Moreover, Canoli,
What did you do today to help spread liberty and change the rules regarding voting?
Well, let’s see. I posted several articles here. If you do a google news search on the four leading alternative candidates:
Two of my articles from today are on page one for Nader
Two on page one for McKinney
Top result for Chuck Baldwin
Oh yeah, and a page one article on Boston Tea Party, for good measure.
I also helped formulate plans for the future of this website, and worked on a plan for 2010 and 2012 ballot access.
http://freedomballotaccess.org
What did you do?
Look, if you love Barr or Baldwin or Obama, this article is not telling you not to vote for them.
I assume you are not familiar at all with my writing?
Perhaps, he did not want his name associated with other parties.
Clearly not the case, since he stood next to Green and Constitution Party candidates on the stage, has publicly said he voted for LP candidates while serving as a Republican in Congress, is a life member of the Libertarian Party, has spoken to numerous Libertarian and Constitution Party gatherings over the course of many years, and once ran for president as a Libertarian.
To Paulie: I believe that Ron Paul would be thrilled to be President and AS HE SAID, is happy to get write in votes.
Please quote exactly what he said.
Also, again, for those of you that do not read,
the article also pointed out the choice of voting for whomever you like including none of the above.
The article is not a way to get Ron Paul elected, you get that right?
I did read this, and Ms. Hamilton’s other articles.
It’s clear what her intent is.
And the same objection would apply: any candidate who actually wants to be on the ballot can apply; the only cases in which those rules would be prohibitive would be in the case of those candidates who do not want to run.
Moreover, Canoli,
What did you do today to help spread liberty and change the rules regarding voting? How did you reach hundreds of people and tell them that their votes may not count?
People are so quick to attack around here. I wonder what their motivations are.
I don’t think this solution will solve the world’s problems, but I do think it would be very interesting if all the people who don’t vote because they refuse to choose any of the above, came out and did this. And in case you have missed what the article is suggesting, it is suggesting voting for the person you want to be President and if you do not have one to vote for none of the above or write in abstain. It is a way to be heard rather than staying home.
Exactly G.E.
It is tyranny.
Also, again, for those of you that do not read,
the article also pointed out the choice of voting for whomever you like including none of the above.
The article is not a way to get Ron Paul elected, you get that right?
Most of the states where you write in his name will NOT COUNT YOUR VOTE. So he can’t win those states.
Further, G.E. is right again when he says that Ron Paul said people could write in his name. For some reason everyone ignored that comment but picked up on his third party remark. Perhaps because the latter was more objectionable to them, but he did leave that open.
Regarding Barr, I don’t know the author’s reasons, but I do not believe him when he says he is libertarian because he gives statist reasons for each of his policies. It is clear he doesn’t understand the underlying principles and is simply saying what he thinks libertarians want to hear until he gets to something slightly controversial and then he jumps straight into a statist policy.
He has stated that libertarians foolishly remain stubborn about liberties not realizing you need to compromise in politics. (We know what old Ben said about that).
He is for the Fair Tax. If you are too, read this: http://www.mises.org/story/1975 learn about the lies of the tax and then decide if you are still for it.
He has lied over and over. His principles are about a month old.
I never agreed with all of Ron Paul’s positions either, so the man doesn’t have to be perfect, but Barr is so far from a libertarian, that (and this I do agree with Sandra Hamilton) to support Barr is to send a message to the LP that I am willing to vote for a non-libertarian.
If Barr is such a strong Libertarian, why won’t he associate himself with the word? It is not on his website. He does not say, libertarian candidate for President. He is using the party, one thought would have a lot of support after Ron Paul’s run and thought he could ride a wave without any of us actually listening to him.
I will never forgive him voting for the Patriot Act either. I don’t want to hear that junk about sunset provisions. Patriots don’t compromise liberty.
G. E. seems to get it.
To Paulie: I believe that Ron Paul would be thrilled to be President and AS HE SAID, is happy to get write in votes. Perhaps, he did not want his name associated with other parties. Perhaps, he has another agenda. He has gained more traction as main party candidate than he ever did when he ran as a Lib. But one thing is clear, he has agreed to people writing in his name.
Look, if you love Barr or Baldwin or Obama, this article is not telling you not to vote for them. In fact, this article tells you TO vote for them. But, if you do not like your choices, have high standards and will not vote for the lesser of evils, then this is what you can do.
It is pretty simple.
I don’t care.
It’s tyranny to make people have to register as write-in candidates.
He just doesn’t encourage it.
Why not?
Why should it? No one is going to force him to take office.
True. But do you suppose he has a reason in asking people not to write him in?
Also, not true. He has said people can write him in if they want to. He just doesn’t encourage it.
voting BTP or OP is pointless even in those states where they are on the ballot
I disagree. It has a point, just as voting for any alternative party does: it is a way to help build that party as a more viable alternative in the future.
Why should it? No one is going to force him to take office.
I would like my vote counted for Paul.
He doesn’t want you to write him in, and has publicly said so. I should hope that would count for something.
Had it been mine it would have been “shmendrik gate†or “schlemeil gate†and the label would have been lent a certain panache. I mean, haven’t we experienced enough mediocrity?
Because there are a lot of Yiddish speakers around?
2. You get to expose your state when they email and tell you that will toss your vote in the trash if you vote for a write in that has not registered.
3. By doing the above, you alert the populace of how rigged the voting system is.
You can do that without actually casting a write-in vote.
What’s “constructive” about writing in someone who doesn’t have an electoral slate? This is just dementia.
6. The above writer was incorrect, the article did not say that Delaware was the only state that happily accepts write in votes, it was just an example. New Hampshire, Alabama and others all allow write in votes.
Five states total, and some of those are suspect.
New Hampshire, Alabama and others all allow write in votes.
Many Alabama counties do not report separate write-in vote totals, only an aggregate total for all write-in candidates.
Also, while I have no solid proof, only anecdotal, I strongly suspect that many counties are not counting or severely undercounting write-in votes.
Many, many people have told me they voted for Loretta Nall as a write-in for Governor, but she officially received very few votes as a write-in.
Roy Moore and Charles Barkley also received many write-in votes in the same election, causing
numerous complaints from election workers about being forced to count write-in votes.
No one would force Paul into office, paulie. He could still refuse.
I would like my vote counted for Paul.
The requirement that seems to upset her is that votes for candidates who do not want to run are not counted.
I oppose the military draft; why should I support a political draft?
Ron Paul does not want to run in the general election. [hysterical voice] Leave Ron Paul alone! [/hysterical voice]
You are all missing the point of the article.
The author is not suggesting that Ron Paul will get elected like this, the author is suggesting that instead of voting for someone who makes your skin crawl, you can do several good things with a write-in vote.
1. You get to vote for who you want.
2. You get to expose your state when they email and tell you that will toss your vote in the trash if you vote for a write in that has not registered.
3. By doing the above, you alert the populace of how rigged the voting system is.
4. By doing number 3, you run the chance that someone might care and might actually work to change the rules for next time.
5. You cannot win when the rules are rigged against you. If we do not fight these rules now, you can forget about ever winning anything.
6. The above writer was incorrect, the article did not say that Delaware was the only state that happily accepts write in votes, it was just an example. New Hampshire, Alabama and others all allow write in votes.
7. If you paid attention, this article was addressing itself to those that are not going to vote for anyone this year because they HATE all of the choices. Rather than staying home and screaming in the dark, this article offers a constructive and helpful alternative.
Perhaps you should try reading the ENTIRE article before you bark your heads off.
“If the Bob Barr who showed up in Denver was actually running for President, everything would be going great.”
Yeah, the Denver Bob Barr was a moderate libertarian, not an egotistical conservative.
If the Bob Barr who showed up in Denver was actually running for President, everything would be going great.
Anthony,
I could see the argument for a cult of personality around Paul, even if I think it is overblown.
What I can’t see is why someone would think Bob Barr would be a preferable alternative or even a “step forward” for the liberty movement. He’s a massive step backward and I was saying this months ago, prior to any of this “snubgate” stuff.
Unfortunately, write-ins in Pennsylvania aren’t even counted at all in many counties. For example, Philadelphia County always reports zero write-in votes to the state elections bureau.
Many Pennsylvania LP members voted write-in in 2006 only to find that their precinct, county, and state did not tally their votes.
We wanted to mount a lawsuit on this issue in 2006 because the Libertarian Party candidates couldn’t gather the 100,000 signatures (67,6xx valid signatures) necessary to make the statewide ballot, but the consensus seemed to be it wouldn’t be a good use of our meager funds.
Look, “snubgate” was a great name, no doubt. Pludits to the author. But was it judgmental enough, did it reach past the purely factual to something more fundamental underneath? No, it didn’t and because of that it was pathetically pedestrian. Had it been mine it would have been “shmendrik gate” or “schlemeil gate” and the label would have been lent a certain panache. I mean, haven’t we experienced enough mediocrity?
Anthony – Then why is it that the “purists” advocate unity behind the C4L’s four points, while Barr didn’t want to be seen “with people like McKinney” and Phillies starts a program that explicitly refutes one of those four tenets.
At least I made the request politely.
I’m not going to play the battered wife to your perverse fantasies.
Please? You had me at “please kill yourself.”
“Purists are not divisive.”
Surely, you jest. Divisiveness is the modus operandi of the purist position.
Ron Paul was never going to endorse a CIA man who paid for his wife’s abortion while cheating on her with a whore he later married.
“But America is too far gone. My only goal in voting for Nader is to do my small part to deny Barr third place.”
G.E.,
Sadly, the only thing your tactic would indicate is that YOU are too far gone, not this country.
Purists are not divisive. We leave that to the libertine statists (Phillies and Outright) and the criminal faction (LNC/Barr). We are about working together and spreading the message of liberty. Not appealing to constipated conservatives and people for whom the ACLU is too bourgeois.
What I personally find ironic with regard to the so-called “Snubgate” is that Barr’s bottom-line point seemed to be “Either Ron Paul explicitly endorses the Libertarian Party nominee, or I see no reason to appear at this press conference that will possibly divide the vote of liberty.” Furthermore, he did actually sign the document RP created, endorsing the points therein.
If anyone would appreciate this sentiment, it would seem to be the purists. Yet they want him off the ballot now.
So Barr didn’t show up at the press conference. Its not the end of the world. Ron Paul and Ron Paul press conferences are not the be-all, end-all of the libertarian movement. The fight goes on anyway…
The attitude that Ron Paul created the tenants of libertarianism and more importantly, was the ONLY one who could bring the ideas of liberty back into the U.S. government were frequently mentioned comments.
Likely because many of those that came to support Ron Paul never heard of libertarianism before, or anyone else running on the idea of Liberty on the national stage.
I’m taking it and dishing it right back out. I’m not going to play the battered wife to your perverse fantasies.
What motivates losers to post on blogs that they don’t like?
G.E., I’m disappointed in you… for a guy that loves to dish it out, you can’t seem to take a punch with any style or class.
You sure are a sensitve little fella, aren’t ya? awwww…
Hahahaha! Ross says he’ll volunteer and give money to a candidate but not even vote for him? Wow.
It’s votes that get politicians’ attention.
But America is too far gone. My only goal in voting for Nader is to do my small part to deny Barr third place.
svf Barr-shill troll never had an opportunity to jump the shark — he had no credibility from the get-go. What motivates losers to post on blogs that they don’t like?
AnthonyD – I’ve got to agree with you on this one. You are throwing away your power on election day and literally wasting your vote if you cast a write-in where write-ins aren’t accepted. Even where write-ins are accepted, a voter might better serve their own interests by compromising and voting for someone who they don’t completely agree with.
I know it’s sacrilege to say that around here, but I don’t think voting is the most important aspect of supporting a third party candidate. If they will clearly lose, how much does your vote count? Doesn’t your money, and your voice, and your volunteer hours, etc. count so much more than a single vote?
At least the person counting your vote will see it. If you’re there anyway, as I will be, it’s better to write in Ron Paul for the vote counter to see…
G.E. jumps the shark…..
Andy,
Did you work in the R3VOLution or attend any Ron Paul meet-up group events?
In my experience at those events, there was a definite cult of personality element at work. The attitude that Ron Paul created the tenants of libertarianism and more importantly, was the ONLY one who could bring the ideas of liberty back into the U.S. government were frequently mentioned comments. I can personally say I was worried early on (as many others were), that despite Ron Paul protestations to the contrary, the R3VOLution was going to be about the man, and not the message.
SFM – Yes, but when you select “Write in,” that necessitates they look at the ballot to see if you wrote in a legitimate candidate — assuming there are any, at least.
For example, if Charles Jay had registered as a write-in in Michigan (the BTP of MI, which issued more press releases than it could round up electors dropped the ball), and then when I filled in “write in,” the vote counters would have to check to see if my vote was for him.
A few reason why libertarians should not write-in Paul:
H.J. 300
H.R. 3217
H.J. 46
B.J. University
Paul’s home district nick: “PorkPie”
WTF? Lutetium oxide, phosphoric acid, lanthanum salt and cerium terbium-doped
G.E.
Arn’t most votes counted by machines? If so they won’t care. Does it match one of those they are supposed to count yep increment the talley for that candidate if not ignore.
Myself, I am going to vote for Bob Barr which is more of a vote for wanting to see the Libertarian party again then it is a vote for Bob Barr. I am pretty sure that the LP will survive this election cycle and that Bob Barr won’t have done it irepairable harm. Hopefully we will see some changes in the party structure and nominating process. I see these issues more as growth pains.
At least the person counting your vote will see it. If you’re there anyway, as I will be, it’s better to write in Ron Paul for the vote counter to see rather than leaving it blank — if that’s what you want to do.
The highest New York state court (the Court of Appeals) ruled that everyone has a common law right not to be forced to be a candidate against his or her wishes. Ginsburg v Lomenzo, 23 NY 2d 94 (1968). The case was brought by Eugene McCarthy, who did not want to be on the ballot in New York.
Ron Paul has already asked Virginia and Montana elections officials not to put him on the ballot.
As the “Voting Fourth Party” article says, Delaware is the only state that counts all presidential write-ins and reports them. And even Delaware doesn’t include them in on its official returns as shown on the internet; they are merely put on a separate piece of paper that is filed away and gets almost no attention. Delaware no longer prints its official election returns. Only a handful of states tally up the number of “miscellaneous” write-ins. The practical effect of writing in Ron Paul, in almost all states, is exactly the same as leaving the presidential part of the ballot blank.
In some states, the votes are counted as generic “write ins.” If my state did this, I might be so inclined. Why not?
Why is it nonsense to refuse to vote for one of the government-approved candidates on your taxpayer-funded ballot?
Perhaps there will also be a website detailing how and where to by all of Ron Paul’s books.
I supported Paul for a brief moment in time, but then it became clear that neither he nor his “associates” had learned from their past mistakes (i.e. the newsletters, associations with racists, anti-abortion ammendments). This fourth party suggestion is utter nonsense.
At least Paul tried to make it into a campaign with the Four Points. But then again, maybe he didn’t.
I don’t think Ron Paul has a cult of personality. Rather, libertarians who supported Paul are literally faced with a situation where no libertarians are on the ballot in most states (and voting BTP or OP is pointless even in those states where they are on the ballot). Paul made a huge mistake in not continuing his run in the general election- because of it his movement has withered in infighting around a group of candidates, none of whom are really acceptable from a libertarian point of view. Yes, Barr was a jackass in the way he made that point about Paul’s lack of “leadership”, but it is true.
Even Ron Paul does not recommend this. Writing in Ron Paul where you need to be a registered write-in will do nothing. The state and the media will not even report it.
This is the sort of lunacy you get when you have a cult of personality rather than a true “campaign for liberty.”