3 votes

Obstacles of 3rd Party and Independent Candidates

Hello all,

This is my first post here on DP after being a long time supporter of the cause of liberty and reader of the great content on here. The inspiration to join the conversation was the video post (http://www.dailypaul.com/250416/whos-afraid-of-an-open-debat...) recently posted regarding the debate stage, mainly Jesse Ventura's soundbite.

Now that Paul has all but given up his bid for the nomination I ask myself... now what?

I look at Ron Paul running in the Republican party as an experiment such as anything in politics, or life even. In the two times he has run, what have we learned?

1. The libertarian movement is growing and isn't bound by party affiliation.
2. It has shown us to what length those in positions of power within each party will go to hold onto that power. How corrupt the vast majority of decision makers are in their willful ignorance and arrogance of not letting themselves see the future, let alone present for what it clearly is.

Now this is quite dark and to the point, but there are vast numbers of people (those in power included), that are going to go to their graves with their willful ignorance and all of the destructive sabotage of those that have been in the wake of their decisions. Just like with the decrease in racism through the years... new libertarians are born everyday at higher rates, just as establishment cronies die out every day. The vastly accepted ideas die out with them.

This and the relentless fight to gain these positions in one of two corrupt parties to change it from within will take TOO LONG.

For those of us that have turned to Paul because of the reasoning that Romney and Obama are the same on all of the most important issues... is it not contrary to that reasoning to then vote for the lesser of two evils for the LESS serious issues that pale in comparison to the important ones?

With the decision to vote for Gary Johnson instead of writing in Ron Paul... I understand that he also has very slim chances of winning.
But what do I want my vote to count for?
What flavor s*** I'm given to eat or sending the message that the 60-80% of us that are willing to consider a 3rd party candidate are really waking up?
That this revolution isn't just about the message... but that it's a revolution of critical thinking and open-mindedness?

This reminds me of the phrase "If everyone who says 'I'd vote for Ron Paul, but he won't win' actually voted for him, he would win".

How about...
If everyone that wanted Ron Paul to win now voted for Gary Johnson, on top of Gary Johnson's already loyal supporters, he would win...

...or would he?

The first statement might not have been true (as we'll never know), but the logic behind it was a theory worth exploring. The same goes for this when given the "Choice of Flavor VS Sending a Message" question you're now faced with.

Now looking at the obstacles facing Gary Johnson I now find the Rasmussen Reports to be one of the largest. When it's well known that an article analyzing polling results doesn't include a candidate's name when they're not one of the named candidates in the poll and a large number of news organizations report and credit a single reputable poll, we can conclude that Johnson not being included as a named candidate cuts off his media exposure greatly.

Rasmussen's reasoning (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/about_us/publ...) to not include Johnson as a named candidate is completely backwards in the sense that he is helping create the end result that is then their reasoning for not including him in the first place.

The following is my recent tweets to Scott Rasmussen on twitter (http://twitter.com/RasmussenPoll):

"Your reasoning for leaving out Johnson in polls is invalid when you consider his numbers are low, because he doesn't get enough coverage (ie news articles not including him because he's not named in polls).
It comes full circle and you cut him off. You're part of the problem as to why we have a lesser of two evils two party only system.
You can't invalidate the logic in this evidence, because it's true. I just invalidated your reasoning for leaving him out."

Now I don't know about you... but this is the frosting on the cake of my reasoning to vote for Gary Johnson. He's a two term libertarian governor that showed a Republican can win an election even when outnumbered by Democrats, two to one. It's because of the message.

This is why I think we need to put pressure on Rasmussen Reports to include him and other 3rd party candidates in their polls. As shown in the video I mentioned in the other DP post... I'd much rather have a choice between four or more candidates than two.

I've started a Change.org petition and would hope you would sign and share it for the sake of the same media blackout Paul has faced all these years... let alone the increased chance of better candidates being shown to those politically challenged, but not observant enough to stop themselves from or incapable of getting themselves to vote.


I know this is long and I greatly appreciate you taking the time to read it.

Any and all suggestions or tips for the description and letter for the petition are greatly appreciated!

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Another inspiration to this

Another inspiration to this is the following article.


Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally