Monday, November 05, 2012

The other 'Swing Voters'

My comments before the article for a change:
Yes, I am one of those 'fringe' voters. Yes, I have already voted and no, I didn't vote for either Obama or Romney. I voted in the way that our Founding Fathers would have - for a man that supports a Constitutional government.
I did not 'waste' my vote as many of you say - Obama and Romney fucked off my vote for not being the men we need in office. Blame them, not me.
For those that railed against the 2 party system and then went down and voted or will go down and vote for either of them, shame on you. You just made the 2 party system that much stronger. YOU are the reason we have a 2 party system.
I know, I know, we have too much to lose here if Obama's re-elected...... I've got news for you - we always have too much to lose every election. There's always the possibility that a Supreme Court justice will be appointed, guns will be outlawed, etc. Always.
I have never in my entire life voted for a republican or democrat for president and I'll be damned if I'll start now just because my choices suck especially bad this time around.
One more thing:  I don't know why they titled the article the way they did - if we're on the fringe, we're not 'swing' voters - our minds are pretty much made up.
The other swing voters: Some undecided voters occupy the political fringes, not the middle.
Pundits, campaign operatives and party strategists agree that the 2012 presidential election, like almost every election before it, is a race for the undecided voter--and they're mostly right. But these perpetually fascinating specimens aren't merely torn between President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.
With Election Day hours away, there exists another universe of toss-up voters, one rarely mentioned: The Fringe Undecideds, who are torn between voting for a major-party nominee and a third-party candidate.
There are Fringe Undecideds on the left--and they may have cost Al Gore the presidency in 2000 when many of them voted for Ralph Nader. But in 2012, the Green Party's Jill Stein doesn't seem to be giving Obama much anxiety.
Instead, it is on the right--to use the term loosely--where the Fringe Undecideds may be kingmakers, if the race is close enough. These are libertarian voters who find themselves unexcited about Romney but horrified of the possibility of a second term for Obama. Their man this year is Gary Johnson, a two-term Republican governor of New Mexico who left the GOP and became the presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party.
Early polling data suggests the Libertarian Party nominee could take votes away from both major-party candidates. Liberals who are opposed to Obama's mass deportations, his drone war in Yemen and Pakistan or his crackdown on medical-marijuana dispensaries could find themselves drawn to Johnson's candidacy. But the best evidence that Johnson is likely to hurt Romney more than Obama is that Republicans worked hard to keep Johnson's name off state ballots.
In Michigan, to name one example, Johnson was barred from the ballot because his paperwork was filed three minutes after the deadline. On Election Day, 46 states and the District of Columbia will list the Libertarian candidate on the ballot.
Although Romney has done little to reach these undecideds--some would argue he has pushed them away--there has been a grassroots effort to bring them into the fold. An online search for "Why libertarians should support Mitt Romney" yields hundreds of essays published in conservative publications and blogs that implore their unreliable brethren to support their candidate.
Still, an unscientific Reason Magazine survey of some of the most prominent libertarian writers found that none planned to support Obama or Romney. All either pledged support to Johnson or said they would not vote at all. (One writer was still undecided between Johnson or Romney, but leaned toward Johnson.)
"It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it," wrote David Boaz, the executive vice president of the libertarian Cato Institute, in his response to the survey.
Therein lies the heart of the debate. The counterargument from some conservatives: Even if Romney isn't the ideal candidate for libertarians, Obama would be worse. That's the argument Paul Ryan, Romney's running mate, made at a September campaign stop in Lima, Ohio, when asked pointedly why someone who might support a candidate like libertarian-leaning Republican Rep. Ron Paul should get behind the Romney-Ryan ticket. (Ryan's initial response--"Do you want Barack Obama to be re-elected? Then don't vote for Ron Paul"-- left something to be desired, but he later followed up with a more thorough argument.)
Beyond scare tactics, Romney's campaign seems to have done little to sway the hearts and minds of the Fringe Undecideds. The campaign has used Paul's son Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul as a surrogate, but sparingly. (Perhaps for good reason: The last time Rand Paul campaigned for Romney, he criticized his foreign policy.)
"I think they really went about it the wrong way," said Christopher Barron, a libertarian-leaning Republican and the co-founder of GOProud, an organization that represents gay conservatives. Barron did not support Romney during the Republican primaries. He chose Johnson instead, but recently made a public turnaround. Now he has joined the chorus of Republicans who are calling on libertarians to join him in abandoning Johnson in the ballot booth.
For years, Barron said, he scoffed at undecided voters. He found them baffling. Until he became one himself.
"I've never been an undecided voter. It was a phenomenon that I found hard to comprehend," Barron said. "Half of the election, I thought, Who are these yahoos switching between candidates in the last months of the race? How can you be undecided between two candidates? Yet somehow, that's where I found myself.
"At the end of the day, I can't in good conscience do anything that might help elect Barack Obama to another four years," he added. "Either Mitt Romney or Barack Obama is going to be president and I for myself had to decided, Do I want to be part of electing the next president?"


Brian said...

Good for you WC. Fuck em.

I vote for Johnson, not these two bags of shit.

Tim said...

I'm surprised at how difficult it is to convince most people that they are libertarians, even after they say things like, "I'm liberal on the social issues, and conservative on the economic issues."

I'll miss voting, most likely. I missed a 170 class whitetail yesterday and will spend the rest of today and tomorrow, looking for my arrow and hunting some more.

drjim said...

We all vote the way we feel we must, at least those of us who give it the proper amount of thought.
I may not agree with the way you vote, Ken, but I'll defend it to my last breath!

Wild Cookery! said...

The entire time I've been voting, I've voted for either the Constitutional or Libertarian candidates. I've never been able to stomach voting for Democrat or Republican. The only way I would have voted Rep is if hell froze over and Ron Paul had gotten the Rep nomination. Don't agree with the guy on everything, but one doesn't need to. Ending the Fed, sound monetary policy, and no foreign entanglements is a big plus in my book. Oh, and following the Constitution helps too. ;)

Had I thought the votes would actually be honestly counted, I'd be voting tomorrow. As it stands, I don't think any tyrant will allow themselves to be recused from power, unless it's to another tyrant, and those are the two mainstream choices. Tyrant A. Or Tyrant B. Libertarian A or Constitutionalist B will just be voided by the Diebold electronic voting system and reassigned to Tyrant A or Tyrant B, sadly.

But I salute ye for sticking to your principles brother! All the best! (We're gonna need it come sunrise, methinks.)

Mark12A said...

A vote for Johnson is a vote for Obama. But what the fuck, it's your right. If Johnson had a hope in hell of winning, I'd vote for him. But in every election since Reagan I've voted against someone, rather than for someone.

Osmium said...

The choice has been and will always be between Democrats and Democrats who call themselves Republicans. Too many people support the two party cartel.

It is difficult to even justify voting anymore.

Timbo1 said...

Salute your integrity. (I like how the word has "grit" in it.

wirecutter said...

Mark12A - Funny, but the liberals say a vote for Johnson is a vote for Romney and you say it's a vote for Obama.
Will all you fucking kool-aid drinkers please make up your minds who I'm voting for?

And what the fuck makes you think I voted for Johnson? I voted my Party, the same one I have always belonged to - American Independent.

And I hate to tell you this but if you're voting AGAINST someone instead of voting FOR someone, YOU are the problem.

tripseven said...

Because your from Cali, your non-0bama vote didn't count anyway.

I'm not picking on you WC, I'm from Washington State...same dilemma :(

Anonymous said...

Now if we changed presidential elections so that if no candidate gets a majority, there is a run-off between the top two...would that work?

Can we work on making some such structural change instead of lamenting the way things are?