I've voted for Republicans for president before. No more.
Although my personal political philosophy is libertarian, like most people, over the years I have surrendered to the binary choice our two-party system gives us when casting my vote in presidential elections. I almost always find myself settling for a "lesser of two evils," but the "evil" is not so great as to prevent me from rationalizing what amounts to, by my vote, an endorsement or affirmation of the candidate.
Because at least rhetorically, the Republican party candidate promises a greater commitment to limited, constitutional government, entitlement reform, tackling the national debt, and a belief in the benefits of free trade, I have voted for the Republican candidate for president ever since Ronald Reagan. The Republicans repeatedly disappoint on matters of foreign policy, seeing the US as world policeman. But the Democrats fare little better on foreign policy—sometimes even worse. So foreign policy as a vote-determining factor between the two major parties tended to be a wash for me. I often profoundly disagree with the Republicans on many of the "culture war" and so-called social issues, but I have had confidence that our Constitution and judiciary will defend against any overreach by Republicans in that area.
So as a matter of practicality, I have tended to base my vote on the differences between the two major party candidates on matters of economic liberty and commitment to the principles of federalism and limited government. I recognize the politicians in both political parties have differing promises but similar results: bigger government, greater debt, less individual liberty. But I use the party platforms and the candidates' rhetoric to help in my rationalization (some would say self-delusion) that I am voting for someone who will, at best, move things in a better direction or, at worst, be a lesser of two evils that I can live with.
I still wish to participate in the electoral process. Choosing not to vote is always an option. But I prefer to express my opinion in a less passive manner. Not voting certainly provides the satisfaction of knowing that I did not sanction or legitimize the offerings of the two major parties. But that satisfaction is only personal and private. I want to more actively make my views known. Using the following chain of logic, I have found a positive way to express myself through, what I believe, is the most effective allocation of my vote in November:
1) According to Professor Ilya Somin in Democracy and Political Ignorance,my vote has, on average, a roughly 1 in 60 million chance of being the decisive vote in the Presidential election. (It might be a great as 1 in 10 million in my relatively small state of Arizona. It would have a roughly 1 in a billion chance of being decisive if I lived in California.)
2) If I vote for the lesser of evils and hold my nose, my vote is blended in with millions of others—there is no way to register my dissatisfaction with the choices the two major parties have given me. There is no way to separate those who voted for a lesser of two evils from those who voted because they actually LIKED the candidate.
3) If I vote for the Libertarian party candidate, I am directly affecting the vote total of that candidate. Because that candidate will get fewer total votes than the major party candidates, when all votes are totaled up, I will have had a greater effect on raising the total percentage of votes for the Libertarian candidate. If the Libertarian candidate garners say, 5 percent of the vote as opposed to 1 percent, then my vote made a greater impact in making a statement than it would have if it was folded in with the 40 or 50 million voters who voted for a major party candidate.
4) If the Libertarian candidate gets say, 5 percent of the vote, then that clearly means that 5 percent of the voters chose a candidate that they KNEW had absolutely no chance of winning, rather than choosing the lesser of two evils. What's more, they chose the candidate with the most pro-freedom, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights program. That sends a clear message.
Therefore:
5) By casting my vote for the Libertarian presidential candidate, my vote is actually more meaningful and makes more of a statement.
My conclusion: Voting for the lesser of two evils is statistically and strategically wasting my vote. I will vote Libertarian for president this year. This rationale does not necessarily apply to how I will vote in the down ballot races, where my vote has a greater numerical impact, I have a greater ability to directly communicate my views, and I might have less marked dissatisfaction with many of the candidates.
I offer my line of reasoning as a guide to others who might be agonizing over their decision this year.
#1: A K A Stone To: Deckard (#0)
A K A Stone posted on 2016-05-20 08:54:48 Reply Private Reply
#2: Gatlin To: Deckard (#0)
It's a severe mentally programmed condition you can get help for.
Gatlin posted on 2016-05-20 09:12:45 Reply Private Reply
#3: misterwhite To: Deckard (#0)
When Romney was the Republican candidate we were told to "hold our nose" and vote for him. The same with McCain. The same with Dole.
Now that Trump is the candidate we're told that's a wasted vote.
misterwhite posted on 2016-05-20 09:58:19 Reply Private Reply
#4: ConservingFreedom To: misterwhite (#3)
I let go of my nose starting in 2004 and have never regretted it.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-20 11:21:54 Reply Private Reply
#5: ConservingFreedom To: Deckard (#0)
All quite sound - except that the candidate with the most pro-freedom, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights program is the Constitution Party candidate: abortion, open borders, and "gay" "marriage" have nothing to do with freedom nor the Constitution.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-20 11:25:10 Reply Private Reply
#6: SOSO To: Deckard, All (#0)
For sure it will against REP overreach but as we have seen over the fast few decades NOT against liberal, leftist over reach. Secular progressive judges have been shredding the Constitution and making law from the bench since at least RvW.
SOSO posted on 2016-05-20 11:52:32 Reply Private Reply
#7: SOSO To: Deckard (#0)
Then why don't you become more active in local REP Party activities that would have even a greater impact on the REP Party nomination for the top of the ticket. Libertarian is BS and a total waste of a vote.
SOSO posted on 2016-05-20 11:59:15 Reply Private Reply
#8: ConservingFreedom To: SOSO (#7)
Who says he doesn't - or that doing so is inconsistent with voting third-party in the general election?
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-20 12:08:03 Reply Private Reply
#9: SOSO To: ConservingFreedom (#8)
But it is inconsistent based on the logical put forth by the author.
SOSO posted on 2016-05-20 12:32:45 Reply Private Reply
#10: ConservingFreedom To: SOSO (#9)
No it's not - if he wants the most pro-freedom, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights program, he can work to get that from the GOP in the primary, and if that fails then vote for the third party that offers it in the general election.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-20 13:06:22 Reply Private Reply
#11: SOSO To: ConservingFreedom (#10)
Thank you for agreeing with what I said. The author did not say this. He did not speak to working in the local Party only voting in the local election. You may have the last word on this..
SOSO posted on 2016-05-20 13:38:51 Reply Private Reply
#12: ConservingFreedom To: SOSO (#11)
That doesn't make it inconsistent with what he did say, contrary to your claim.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-20 13:49:55 Reply Private Reply
#13: SOSO To: ConservingFreedom (#12)
By conscious omission it does.
SOSO posted on 2016-05-20 14:14:18 Reply Private Reply
#14: ConservingFreedom To: SOSO (#13)
Not discussing the topics that interest you is not "conscious omission."
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-20 14:24:04 Reply Private Reply
#15: SOSO To: ConservingFreedom (#14)
C'mon, you are better than that. The author was talking about his "logical" alternative to voting in the national election and comes up with voting libertarian over becoming involved at the local party level (or any other of a number of options). It wasn't that he didn't discuss that option, as is true with all of the other options that he didn't discuss, but he cited what he called the most logical choice, the one that he made after given it his most critical thought on the subject In other words, he wasn't thinking very clearly at all when he made that choice.
SOSO posted on 2016-05-20 14:29:50 Reply Private Reply
#16: ConservingFreedom To: SOSO (#15)
No puzzle there - by the time the general election rolls around it's too late for party involvement to help.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-20 15:07:14 Reply Private Reply
#17: nativist nationalist To: A K A Stone (#1)
Since this thread is about liberaltarian we should play the liberaltarian anthem.
nativist nationalist posted on 2016-05-20 16:12:02 Reply Private Reply
#18: ConservingFreedom To: nativist nationalist (#17)
That's not it. Here it is:
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-20 16:21:41 Reply Private Reply
#19: nativist nationalist To: ConservingFreedom (#18)
The words that inspired Jorge Arbusto as he launched Operation Iraqi Freedom. Conservatives have long held a different view:
Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains on their own appetites—in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity;—in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption;—in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there is without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters. (Edmund Burke, A Letter From Mr. Burke To A Member Of The National Assembly, 1791.)
When the GOP was a conservative party it instinctively knew to avoid such follies, as it did in 1919. When it became a liberaltarian party it embraced folly, and now that Trump has defeated the liberaltarian GOPe establishment the liberaltarian are going ape.
nativist nationalist posted on 2016-05-20 17:26:09 Reply Private Reply
#20: Deckard To: nativist nationalist (#17)
Spelling mistakes aside - that song doesn't even make my top 10 libertarian/freedom songs.
(In no particular order)
Sunshine - Jonathan Edwards original song and lyrics
Beatles - Taxman / Stevie Ray Vaughan & Double Trouble
The Rascals - People Got To Be Free
Tom Petty and The Heartbreakers - I Won't Back Down (lyrics)
“The Guns of Brixton” by The Clash / With Lyrics
Long Haired Country Boy Charlie Daniels Band w/ Lyrics
Rush-Freewill (With Lyrics)
Creedence Clearwater Revival - Fortunate Son
Tom Sawyer by: Rush
I'd Rather Die Than Be Your Slave (PokerFace)
Deckard posted on 2016-05-20 17:29:12 Reply Private Reply
#21: Deckard To: ConservingFreedom (#5)
As a (l)ibertarian, I have plenty of issues with the (L)ibertarian Party platform, open borders and abortion being the main thing.
I have been considering voting Constitution Party as a "protest" vote.
They are on the ballot here in Michigan.
Deckard posted on 2016-05-20 17:51:58 Reply Private Reply
#22: GrandIsland To: Deckard (#0)
This is code for....
Vote for the 6% popular Paultard... or I'll act like an asshole.
GrandIsland posted on 2016-05-20 18:00:06 Reply Private Reply
#23: Deckard To: GrandIsland (#22)
You own the franchise Sparky.
Deckard posted on 2016-05-20 18:04:59 Reply Private Reply
#24: Gatlin To: Deckard (#21)
Sparky, you have issues with everyone and everything!
Gatlin posted on 2016-05-20 18:07:36 Reply Private Reply
#25: GrandIsland To: Deckard (#23)
The only problem with your quip is that I'm not a Paultard. I'm just a regular asshole that happens to respect Stones site... unlike you agenda assholes.
GrandIsland posted on 2016-05-20 18:32:33 Reply Private Reply
#26: ConservingFreedom To: nativist nationalist (#19)
Whatever the GOP is now, it's not libertarian by any sane person's definition of the term.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-20 21:44:30 Reply Private Reply
#27: ConservingFreedom To: Deckard (#21)
And where they aren't they can be written in.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-20 21:45:28 Reply Private Reply