-5 votes

21 Reasons that Ron Paul should run Independent (if he might actually want to be President)

I've been compiling this list over the course of the last two months. Some of the items are admittedly controversial, especially those at the beginning. But I think it's important to put it out there. If you agree, keep it going and pass it on as appropriate. If you disagree, then please disagree with all your heart and mind in the best interest of Liberty! Thanks for reading and considering.

1. He will not get the Republican nomination in the usual way -- that is, by receiving large number of votes from Republican voters. Simply, not enough traditional Republican voters will be swayed by his message, and there are not enough new Republican voters coming in the door.

2. If Dr. Paul were to win the Republican nomination through some other means -- for example, commandeering the delegate process -- the victory would appear hollow and illegitimate. This would have devastating consequences for his prospects in the general election. The Republican Party might even fracture into two parties, temporarily, and Dr. Paul would not receive support from his own party.

3. If Dr. Paul were to lose the Republican nomination, he would not be able to switch to independent later, both because of sore-loser laws and also a sore-loser perception. Neither would there be any other liberty-oriented third party candidate available with any chance of winning. We would be irreversibly stuck with two statists.

4. By running independent, on the other hand, Dr. Paul would keep options open: He could abandon the independent campaign in favor of a liberty-friendly GOP nominee if one arose. Or he could choose to pursue his own campaign all the way.

5. Funding required for ballot access as an independent would be provided quickly from one or two money bombs. An army of eager supporters will take care of petitions and other paperwork.

6. Any attempt to keep him out of the debates would backfire. His following and his media presence are too big now.

7. He would not squander financial and personal resources on a bruising primary battle.

8. He could remain on TV interviews during much of the primary season, commenting on politics and the presidential race as it occurs, elevating his own stature above the petty arguments likely to surface among the GOP candidates.

9. He would be free to select a VP running mate from outside of the establishment GOP, or outside of the GOP altogether.

10. He could announce his candidacy during a crisis, if one were to occur. (He has stated previously that he would run if the country particularly needs him.)

11. He could time his announcement precisely at the peak of public frustration over the choice between the likely Republican and Democratic nominees.

12. The political parties are part of the problem. Dr. Paul has mentioned this many times, including the chapter in The Revolution entitled "The False Choices of American Politics", his endorsement of third-party candidates in 2008, and frequent interviews alongside non-GOP allies. Dr. Paul has already placed himself outside of the boundaries of the GOP.

13. Political parties are collectivist institutions by their very nature. A stand against political parties is, in itself, an inspiring statement of libertarian ideals.

14. If successful, an independent campaign would not only elect Ron Paul but also bust up the major-party duopoly.

15. Many of his issues appeal to independents more than Republicans. Just for example, witness the speech at 2011 CPAC, with the concentration on the Patriot Act, foreign aid, and interventionism.

16. There are a lot of silent Paul supporters outside of the GOP, who have largely been sidelined by the Tea Party movement. They will come roaring back to life.

17. The "spoiler" label would not matter as much to Dr. Paul, who believes that a Democrat president is only marginally worse (if at all) than a Republican president anyway.

18. He might pick up endorsements from other independents such as Jesse Ventura or Ralph Nader.

19. He would have more time to evaluate whether he really wants to run.

20. It's not 1988 anymore.

21. It is rare for a game-changer to win by playing the game.
(Please consider this last point from the perspective of your own lives and your own experiences outside of politics. How do these things usually work?)

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Too Much

Each state has different requirements on how to get on the ballot. This is usually a fee (which varies) and a certain number of signatures (which varies and can be in the thousands). Signature-gatherers charge $2 - $4 per signature.

The cost of figuring this out, alone, is prohibitive. The LP has managed to acheive ballot access in all 50 states several times, but each time, there are a few states where our numbers are too low, and an extra push has to be made--and sometimes the Secretary of State still manages to disqualify us. It's a battle every time.

Meanwhile, the dominant parties are automatic shoo-ins, because they have "permanent" ballot status. All they do is nominate someone.

The Libertarian Party is a shining beacon. No tarnish here. It never elected a single lecherous adulterer, war-monger or smooth-tongued dictator, and it did nominate (and its members supported for years afterward) Ron Paul.

Besides, our candidates become lifetime members (that includes Dr. Paul). That said, I would not ask Dr. Paul to give up his congressional seat (he probably couldn't run and win again as a Republican after running again as a Libertarian).

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

Tsk Tsk Tsk

Do you really believe RP is going to give up his chairmanship and committee so he can get attacked and marginalized from the sidelines of a no win campaign that isn't invited to the debates, can't get on the ballots, and gets no media time.

He's got less of a chance as an independent than as a Republican and would further distance himself from any ability to form useful coalitions and educate the public.

I wish, WISH with all my heart, that he would run as Independent

but I think he has committed himself to spreading his message of Liberty as far and as wide as he can. Unfortunately in America today the public is primed and the game is set for Republican VS Democrat. You can't even get on TV if you are not in the game. I don't think ANYTHING is ever achieved by voting or winning an election. Things change when the public at large has a change in behavior. Ron Paul, I am convinced, is hell bent on bringing change to the country...but through the real revolution : The Evolution of the Individual Mind.

anytime someone says ron should run indipendent

I think you are a troll. I dont even bother to look at your name, because even if you are not a troll you are following the ideas of a troll.

The fact is a very large portion of the people who vote in this country will only vote republican, and a very large portion of this country will only vote democrat. Heck if oboma ran as a republican next time there would be a huge chunk of republicans voting for him, or hillary or any of the other democrats. If bush was able to run a third term and he ran as a democrat a huge portion of democrats would vote for him, or palin, or mccain.

Fact is too many voters in this country only care about the D or the R.

If I am wrong prove it with history.

Here you go

Sorry, I cannot prove that I am not a troll. But I can give you the historical proof that people do not automatically vote R and D:


From the above link: "In June, Perot led the national public opinion polls with support from 39% of the voters (versus 31% for Bush and 25% for Clinton)"

How did that poll showing

How did that poll showing Perot ahead work out for him on Election day? With those numbers and his billions of dollars, he won right? You have proved nothing with those numbers except that Dr. Paul should absolutley NOT run as an indy!

Ron Paul 2012 - It's Almost Here!

Joη's picture

"You'd need to be a billionaire like Perot to run 3rd party"

RP's words. He's not a billionaire.

Not that it mattered.

"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it." | Up for a game?

The downside is

1. It is difficult just to get on the ballot in many states.
2. he gets ignored during the whole primary season, while republicans are getting tons of free publicity.

I have some sympathy for an independent RP run, but there needs to be a way to get him into the primary debates.

THough in the end, I am not expecting him to win and it is not imprtant that he does. It is just important that we fight like hell. We have several new senators and congressman because of the 2008 run. A 2012 run could bring even more. Change is often a slow process.

Interesting but a third party

Interesting but a third party has the deck stacked against him. He can't get on the ballot of al fifty states and cannot get into the debates. Silly suggestion in my eyes.

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. - T. Jefferson rЭVO˩ution

"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.” - BASTIAT


He could run as a Libertarian: If I am not mistaken, he has been or still is a member.

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

He still does not get on all

He still does not get on all the ballots that way and will not get into the debates or at least get equal coverage.

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. - T. Jefferson rЭVO˩ution

"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.” - BASTIAT