Voting Libertarian

[Beaker]

In past elections I have always voted one of the two red or blue candidates. The Ross Perot vote convinced me that voting third party was a waste of time and had a good chance of tipping the election in favor of the candidate I liked least anyway. But even before, using a lesser of two evils philosophy always gave me a choice that I felt I could live with, even if I didn't completely like the candidate.

Now we come to 2016 and our choices. I have decided I cannot in good conscience vote for either Trump or Hillary. Both of them have far too many downsides for me. So I have decided I will be voting for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate. I have always felt their party best represented most of my ideals anyway, but as I said before, I felt it was wasting my vote. This time around, I don't care. I will vote my conscience and take what happens. For those of you who really do not know what the Libertarian Party is about, here is where you can read up a little to find out:

http://www.lp.org/

[GMDino]

http://presidential-candidates.insidegov.com/compare/39-40-70/Gary-Johnson-vs-Hillary-Clinton-vs-Donald-Trump

The three contenders by the issues.

[McC]

(07-24-2016, 12:53 PM)Beaker Wrote: In past elections I have always voted one of the two red or blue candidates. The Ross Perot vote convinced me that voting third party was a waste of time and had a good chance of tipping the election in favor of the candidate I liked least anyway. But even before, using a lesser of two evils philosophy always gave me a choice that I felt I could live with, even if I didn't completely like the candidate.

Now we come to 2016 and our choices. I have decided I cannot in good conscience vote for either Trump or Hillary. Both of them have far too many downsides for me. So I have decided I will be voting for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate. I have always felt their party best represented most of my ideals anyway, but as I said before, I felt it was wasting my vote. This time around, I don't care. I will vote my conscience and take what happens. For those of you who really do not know what the Libertarian Party is about, here is where you can read up a little to find out:

http://www.lp.org/

Well, that way, no matter who wins, you can always say, "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for him/her."

[BmorePat87]

(07-24-2016, 01:06 PM)McC Wrote: Well, that way, no matter who wins, you can always say, "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for him/her."

6 year old Patrick had a shirt that said "Don't blame me, I voted for Bush". That was courtesy of my Limbaugh loving grandmother. 

[BmorePat87]

For one of the first times, you can also justify your 3rd party pick by stating you're voting for the guy with the most experience. Also, helping someone else by voting 3rd party is only an argument for swing states, though many of you are in one (PA or OH). Not an issue for me in MD.

[*bfine32*]

The best chance Libertarians had was Rand Paul, but folks didn't like a libertarian with an R beside his name.

[BmorePat87]

(07-24-2016, 02:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The best chance Libertarians had was Rand Paul, but folks didn't like a libertarian with an R beside his name.

Rand Paul isn't a libertarian. His dad flirted with the ideology, sure, but he isn't his dad.

[CKwi88]

(07-24-2016, 02:58 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Rand Paul isn't a libertarian. His dad flirted with the ideology, sure, but he isn't his dad.

This.

The most libertarian thing about Rand Paul was his last name.

[*bfine32*]

(07-24-2016, 03:00 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: This.

The most libertarian thing about Rand Paul was his last name.

....and his thoughts on National Defense and government. 

If you guys want to ignore that his stances are more Libertarian that any main-stream candidate, that's your choice. 

[Bengalzona]

[*bfine32*]

I will say that this Election has opened eyes and maybe paved the way for other Parties to become legit. To think it would start with the Presidency may just be a bridge too far. Perhaps they could start with a Congressman or Senator.

As to the Presidential Election I have a question: Is there a rule for the number (percent) of votes a Candidate has to have to "take" a State President?

For instance let's say Hills and The Don are close, and somehow Robinson takes Nevada. Would those votes go to whoever finished 2nd in that state, if it made a difference?

[BmorePat87]

(07-24-2016, 03:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ....and his thoughts on National Defense and government. 

If you guys want to ignore that his stances are more Libertarian that any main-stream candidate, that's your choice. 

I guess it depends on your view of main stream. If we're saying heavy national name recognition, then sure. If we're just saying multi-term politicians, then Amash is arguably more libertarian than him. His foreign policy and information gathering policy positions align the most with the LP's platform, but he still wants to use the government to regulate his own social behaviors. The fact that a couple of positions line up still do not make him libertarian. It's great to have people advocating for any LP party position, but the same can be said of liberals supporting abortion rights and LGBT rights.