19 Reasons to Vote Libertarian, Just Once.

Take the long-term approach. Voting Libertarian means you help put MANY House and Senate seats in play for 2014 and 2016.

19 reasons to vote libertarian, just once.

Take the long-term approach. This is for 2014 and 2016. Voting Libertarian means you help put MANY House and Senate seats in play for 2014 and 2016.

We lament that so few congressional seats are in play; third and fourth parties change that!

Your vote counts MORE if made for a 3rd party candidate. 4% of the vote in just ONE state makes a difference. It could put the U.S. Senate into one party or the other party's hands. Even if it doesn't, it gets the party NOTICED in two years.

Your vote counts MORE when it is used to punish wayward incumbents. Republicans in Congress who wouldn't stop Medicare Part D, McCain-Feingold, and "bridges to nowhere" DESERVE to be punished. Democrats in Congress who wouldn't stop The Patriot Act, Guantanamo, "Don't Ask Don't Tell", Wall Street bailouts, big-bank protections, Social Security theft, and NDA imprisonments DESERVE to be punished (and to have their heads examined). Third parties are here to MAKE wayward politicians lose.

3rd party candidates are almost always more principled public servants than their Republican counterparts. Main party candidates almost always compromise their principles to get elected or stay elected. (In the last 12 years, every Republican Congressman except Ron Paul was a sell-out.) Just once, try someone who is not a proven compromiser.

In the last 24 years, every Republican presidential nominee has been a sell-out. That includes Mitt Romney, who is unprincipled on immigration, on health care, and on abortion. By contrast, Gary Johnson had the principle to govern New Mexico for 8 years using 750 vetoes. This is a man who can and will say "no" to special interests.

Obama isn't about to change things for the better. Romney's proposed changes are only incrementally better.

WE need a RADICAL change.

Voting for the best candidate...gets us BETTER candidates in the future.

Lesser of two evils -- means you just voted for ..."evil"

Make this an election you don't have to say "I regretted my vote". Make this an election where you don;t feel you are deciding between "Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-dum". This is at the state OR federal level. Yes, voting for a faceless, unaccomplished name on line C or D (Libertarian) is BETTER than voting for someone less moral, or more corrupt, or with a proven track record of BAD.

Romney -- will not attempt the radical steps we need. Either he doesn't get it, or (worse) he does but chooses to compromise to gain personal power. That means he's a "career compromiser", so America doesn't benefit.

Romney -- politically he deserves to lose. This electorate can't let "Romneycare" slide. He foisted on Massachusetts a freedom-denying regime for health coverage. He's not apologetic. Romney-care was not an accident. Third parties are there to MAKE wayward politicians lose.

Obama -- his collectivism is repugnant. Individual responsibility makes families better, makes students better, makes communities better, makes the economy better, and makes the nation better. Not even avowed socialist (5-time US Presidential candidate) Eugene Debs stood for dismantling some individual responsibility. And Debs was at least proud of America. Obama keeps apologizing for America. Debs wanted America to stand for something. Obama wants America to just "blend in" to a Euro-cracy.

To the extent you want to eradicate evil, third and fourth party viability DOES THAT.

Bad Republicans take half of us for granted. Keeping a two-party system means Republicans who are statist know you can't go elsewhere (McCain and now Romney are statist Republicans.) Bad Democrats take half of us for granted. Keeping a two-party system means Democrats who violate civil liberties know you can't go elsewhere (Obama has violated more civil liberties than any president of my lifetime, and the recently passed legislation regarding "disloyalty" portends even more.)

Look at the libertarian credentials. If Gary Johnson were the Republican nominee, conservatives would hail him as the best candidate since Ronald Reagan.

Look at the libertarian once again. If Gary Johnson were the Democrat nominee, civil libertarians would hail him as the best candidate since Eugene McCarthy.

Look at the libertarian a 3rd time. If Gary Johnson were the nominee of either party, the "99%ers", independents, and Ron Paul supporters would be ecstatic that they finally had an electable reformer.

Just ONCE, do something politically "wild". It's like the rave you were scared to attend, but this is safer.

Just once, help start something politically important.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

sebastian dangerfield November 09, 2012 at 09:45 PM
Will, An interesting perspective....in its collective. Do I think self-interest at the expense of the community is unpatriotic; antisocial? I can see that to a degree. I would have to incorporate some understanding of whose self-interest you refer to. In other words, the Mr. Potter type from 'its a wonderful life', would fall under your definiton--and i'd agree there. But , what I find as a growing acceptance , and my annoyance with it, is this concept that if you are poor, you have no accountability to either yourself or your community. A struggling single mother (or father) doing her /his best to juggle the demands of life--should be met with charity and assistance. This is correct in my opinion. But-- the guy who works for all cash, and doesnt pay taxes and gambles away or drinks away his welfare check, is also selfish---but im not sure if that is ever addressed. Our society seems to be attempting to find this person as deserving of sympathy and a handout as the mother--- we have become a country that seems intent on making rich people out to be criminals, and greedy, and undeserving, and those less rich, as the heroes of our country and deserving of our politicians efforts and attention. And these efforts are expanding. You can see it on these blogs-- there is little respect given by liberals to anyone who achieves a modicum of success. In fact there is disdain, envy and snarly remarks. is being self-interested and poor unpatriotic Will?
Big Family November 09, 2012 at 09:49 PM
Will Wilkin, Sorry, if there was no such thing as race Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would also be out of work. Unemployment is 16% in the black community and is 50% for the 18-25yrs. Why do you think that was the case?
Kelley Anne November 09, 2012 at 09:50 PM
sebastian dangerfield November 09, 2012 at 09:56 PM
'There's no such thing as race in the first place. We are all Americans' highly idealistic. Sure--something that would be great if it were true. In the mean time, however, racism exists, but only criticized if its white racism. I think a step needed to achieve your goal, Will , is to place some responsibility on blacks , for example, to exhibit less blatant racism. My answer to my question above is--they both would be racist--and it is not the type of society I want.... black racism has its rationale--its founded on the basis of the past--but , the Supreme Court will soon decide on affirmative action in college selection, and i think many people would agree that the best way to address racism, is not to institutionalize it any longer. Diversity is a goal.... racial preference should not exist.
Michael Dinan November 09, 2012 at 10:14 PM
This thread is now closed. Thank you.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »