When you vote for what you believe in, your vote is NEVER wasted.

There is one question that is almost always asked of Libertarian candidates. The person asking the question states the belief that there is no chance the Libertarian candidate will be elected, and asks why they should “waste” their votes on an candidates they do not believe have any chance of being elected, when they can make their vote count by voting for one of the two major party candidates. Usually it is also stated that they are planning to cast their vote based on the “lesser of two evils” concept. Usually, the Libertarian answers that if you vote for the lesser of two evils, you are still left with evil. Both the voter’s view and the Libertarian’s reply ignore a very important element of what happens in elections—something that I refer to as the “Mandate From the People Syndrome.”

Even though voters cast their ballots based on which candidates they believe will be less harmful, the candidates who are elected do not know, and do not care, how many voters voted for them, and how many actually voted against their opponents. All they see is the percentage of the vote they received and say, “I have a MANDATE from the people.”

In effect, the voice of the person voting for the “lesser of two evils” is not heard. The elected candidate does not know that you are unhappy with his or her political positions. In actuality, the vote for the “lesser of two evils” is the TRUE wasted vote.

Instead of voting for the “lesser of two evils” the voter should vote for the candidate who has the principles and political views in which the voter believes. By doing so, even though that candidate may not be elected, the voice of the voter is heard, because the candidates who are elected see that they do not have the “mandate from the people” that they would otherwise have thought they had. They will see that part of their constituency is dissatisfied with their politics, and that they must change if they want to have any hope of gaining those votes in the future.

Our 40 th US President, Ronald Reagan (I know many Libertarians are not happy with his presidency, but the quote applies), is credited with having said , “I do not care who gets the credit for doing something, so long as it gets done.” Well, I do not care what political party name the elected officials wears (for example, Ron Paul of Texas is elected as a Republican, but his votes in Congress are based on Libertarian principles), so long as they enact needed laws that are in compliance with the US Constitution and our rights therein delineated, and more importantly, get rid of laws that violate the US Constitution and are an affront to the us and our rights and diminish liberty.

In reality, though, we see over and over that we cannot depend on the Republican and Democratic party elected officials to do what is right and needs to be done, as we see that they both perpetuate Big government and continually pass laws that violate the US Constitution and our rights, and hinder the cause of liberty. If we are to advance the cause of liberty, we will have to do it ourselves, by getting Libertarians elected to office.

Therefore, we find that it is incumbent upon all of us to expose fallacy of the common wasted-vote syndrome beliefs by showing our family, friends, neighbors, co-workers, and anyone else with whom we come into contact that their vote for the Libertarian candidate is the only vote that really counts. Only by voting for the Libertarian candidate will their voice truly be heard by whoever is elected.

The argument that your vote is not wasted by voting Libertarian because it sends a message to the other parties is a good one. However, I like to vote Libertarian to let other people who might be of the same mind know that they are not alone, that there are others who feel the same way that they do.

And to anyone who thinks that the minority parties don’t matter, I have two words for you: Ralph Nader.

If you keep voting for the “less of two evils,” you still are getting “evil.”

The politicians have become so accustomed to your tax dollars year after year that they also believe your vote belongs to them too. Politicians claim that you’re “stealing” votes from Democrats or Republicans if you vote for an alternative party. How can someone actually steal your vote? Your vote belongs to you. No politician owns your vote. Your vote is one of the most critical decisions you make. Your decision belongs to you.

But truthfully, can alternative parties take away votes? In some cases they do compete. For example, the Green Party tends to pull from the Democrats in many elections because they consider themselves “liberal” or “progressive.” Republicans might lose votes to the Constitution Party because they describe themselves as “ultra conservative.”

The only exception is the Libertarian Party. Libertarians are neither conservative nor liberal. Libertarians believe in liberty on all the issues. They believe in personal freedoms/civil liberties and economic freedoms, whereas the Republicans want to control many social freedoms, and Democrats want to control many economic freedoms.

Libertarians take the best issues from the old parties. For example, Democrats and Libertarians may agree on free speech, civil liberties, war, personal choices and privacy. Republicans and Libertarians may agree on free trade, choice in education and cutting taxes. So it is clear Libertarians do not “steal” from either party.

Even then, Republicans vote for more spending, fewer choices. Democrats vote for more war, less privacy and fewer personal freedoms. It’s difficult to decipher their differences in some elections. Their principle is power, re-election and special interests. Libertarians believe people should be our “special interest,” and that power should not be in the hands of politicians, but rather, families, communities and individuals.

Are you satisfied with the status quo? Or do you want real change? What voters should ask is “am I wasting my vote on the old parties?” The answer is YES. If you keep voting for the “lesser of two evils,” you still are getting “evil.” Your vote encourages them to do more of the same. Don’t encourage or endorse their behavior. In order to change the status quo, we can no longer vote the status quo.

So make a statement this election. Vote Libertarian.

Fortunately, in many cases, Libertarians are winning elections. In fact, there are more Libertarian Party members in office than all other third parties combined with more than 600 across America. Libertarians are making great progress getting elected, and finally representing you in states like Texas, Georgia, Oregon, California, Indiana and others. If there is an alternative party for freedom to compete on the same degree, it is the Libertarian Party.

In some cases, a Libertarian in the race means they will address issues typically not discussed in a two-sided debate. We select one Miss America from 52 women, and one American Idol from 24 contestants. We should at least have three or four options when selecting our representatives. Is this too much to ask?

Fortunately, Americans are waking up. According to a 2005 Gallup Poll survey, 20 percent of people call themselves libertarian and can see past the left versus right wing masquerade. We hope you can too! Vote Libertarian!

The response that I have developed is similar to the one in “Small Government News.” When asked why I waste my vote on a libertarian I always ask who they voted for and why. And of course the response is very often that they fear the “other guy” more than they like who they voted for. So I then ask if they voted “for” someone or against someone else. They voted against someone else. I then ask if they intentionally voted for someone they didn’t want to win. The answer of course is yes, but they didn’t want the other guy to win even more. So my response to the “wasted vote” argument is then applied. At this point I say..”Let me get this straight, you purposely voted for someone you didn’t want to win, knowing there was a better candidate, and you consider that vote NOT wasted?”

Another angle: No one votes because they think their vote is likely to make a difference in the outcome. They vote out of a sense of duty or as a matter of principle. If you’re voting as a duty, you have an additional duty to do the right thing. If you’ve voting on principle, then presumably your principles will inform your vote.

A cousin of the same argument: It is often said that Libertarian candidates “take” votes from major party candidates. But votes belong to citizens and are theirs to give as they see fit. In fact, because many people vote reflexively for major party candidates, any votes we get are completely earned. Finally, the major party candidates are fond of taking not just votes, but money and rights/liberties. We’re not in the business of taking; they are.

I’ve voted in nearly every Federal election that has occurred since I attained 21, but I have usually wasted my vote. Most voters do the same as I did — waste their vote.

The Democrats and Republicans represent what economics professors call a duopoly. This is simply the two supplier version of a monopoly. Like its monopolistic counterpart, it does not occur “naturally’, that is, the power of the two “suppliers” of political activity is maintained through Federal and state laws that create a barrier to competition (i.e., independent parties).

Members of both parties maintain their positions by “taking care of” their constituents. The constituents with whom they are concerned are the ones who are organized into powerful pressure groups. These groups, when they are pleased with the politicians’ actions, work and spend to ensure their re-election.

“Taking care of” always translates to money. Both parties maintain their positions by spending other peoples money to meet the diverse goals of the pressure groups who, in their turn, help the politicians meet their goals of re-election. It’s a very simple process, and it’s supported by bigger government. Any reduction in government would reduce the ability of Democrats and Republicans to perpetuate their positions. For that reason, both parties operate from the same basic starting point – more government.

The major two parties consider themselves to be pragmatic. Their kind of pragmatism is similar to emptying someone else’s bank account to buy frivolities at the mall for yourself. In the short run it appears to work for them, but it is grossly immoral and, in the long run, devastatingly impractical.

Each candidate of the two major parties will try to distinguish himself from the other in certain respects. Sometimes a Democrat or Republican will sound like he is calling for some specific reduction in government. Once elected, however, his actions follow the same “pragmatic” line, again and again.

For years I maintained hope that I would find a truly principled politician within the major parties. Two years ago, however, I finally conceded that I was wasting my votes and energies on this duopoly, and I became an active worker for the Libertarian Party.

The Libertarian Party does have a consistent, principled program. Libertarians do not seek government solutions, they do not seek to impose their will on others. They believe that there is a very specific and appropriate way to organize society, based on respect for each individual’s rights. Look around you at the waste, damage and oppression that government has created, and you will see that the Libertarian “principled” approach is also the true practical, or pragmatic approach.

Voting for a Libertarian means that you have voted for the principles that you support. It means that your vote supports a person who has made a commitment to these principles. Voting for anything less than a consistent and principled individual would, indeed, be a waste of a vote. Support your Libertarian candidates in the forthcoming and subsequent elections.

I’ve found it’s often effective to simply answer that any vote cast for a candidate for any reason other than the conviction that the candidate is the best person for the job is a wasted vote. ‘Nuff said.

But if you want a longer treatment!

The ridiculous assertion that I must be calculating and determine, using Machiavellian logic, which candidate has the best chance of winning and represents the lesser of two evils is a frightening prospect to me. And when simpletons tell me I should vote Republican not because the Republican has the best plan for managing the public trust, but because of what will happen if the Democrat wins, I remind them that, under (now) nearly 16 years of Republican governorship in Massachusetts, state spending has increased by an average of $1 billion per year. That Republicans in Washington DC have presided over the largest spending increases (and deficits) in history.

By the way, if “the lesser of two evils” is the best argument they have, it’s time to evangelize for Small Government!

Democrat/Republican. It doesn’t matter. Both have demonstrated an arrogant willingness to disregard fiscal responsibility and abuse the privilege of public office to barter for power with taxpayer money. At the local, state, and federal level the waste and irresponsible stewardship of public funds has towns begging to the state, has states begging to the feds, and has the feds spending us into oblivion. Meanwhile, every level looks to higher taxes to solve problems rather than taking responsibility for the fruits of their waste, greed, and corruption.

Disclosures this week that disgraced congressman Duke Cunningham abused his position by writing pork provisions into SECRET FEDERAL BUDGETS that are apparently immune to even Congressional scrutiny, nevermind public scrutiny, because of national security is an outrage, and not only should Cunningham go to prison for his crimes (he took bribes in exchange for adding line items), but so should those other individuals whose responsibility it was to vet those secret budgets to ensure no such shenanigans were taking place.

I could go on, but my blood pressure is rising too fast.

Wasting my vote? Hardly.

In recent weeks as I’ve campaigned for Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik, I’ve had numerous people explain to me why they could not vote for my candidate even though they liked him better than the others. So now I am compelled to attempt a case for voting your conscience instead of your fears.

The ideology Michael Badnarik represents the most freedom you can vote for in this election. But, I am told, he is too extreme. “Americans are moderates,” they say, “and want moderate candidates.” This supposedly explains why the authoritarian parties are abandoning their ideologies and looking for votes in the center. But is extremism really a bad thing?

Do you want your airline pilot to be extremely sober or moderately sober? Do you want your brain surgeon to be extremely competent or moderately competent? Do you want your spouse to be extremely faithful or moderately faithful?

I agree with former Republican senator and presidential candidate Barry Goldwater that in the defense of liberty, extremism is no vice and moderation is no virtue.

As Bush and Kerry struggle to emphasize their differences, I find their similarities more striking. To begin with, both like to spend like drunken sailors. Well, not quite, actually, as the sea-faring inebriates blow only their own wads while the Reptiles

and Demagogues have the bottomless pocket of the taxpayer to dip into.

Kerry wants to soak the rich, but doesn’t mention that higher taxes on “the rich” are merely passed on to consumers as higher prices and diminished private sector activity. Bush pounds his chest as a tax cutter, but his puny, anemic tax cut merely passes the cost of his spending binges to future generations.

Then there is the Constitution. Those of us who have ever taken an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution cannot support either Bush or Kerry, as they have both engaged in a frontal assault on constitutional principles, including such abridgements as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and the Patriot Act. Such enactments are fine, unless you happen to believe in such things as free speech, due process, privacy, and free, fair, open elections.

The lesser of two evils

“Unfortunately, the major parties have a stranglehold on the political system,” they say. True enough. But continuing to vote for either of the big authoritarian parties will only perpetuate the stranglehold, while voting for “third” parties or independents will wear it down.

Many folks agree more with Badnarik philosophically, but buy into this “lesser of evils” thing. “Unless I vote for candidate A, candidate B will get in and he’s even worse.” Remember the fable of the boiling frog. If you drop a frog into boiling water, it immediately hops out. But if you drop it into cold water and heat the water gradually, by the time it realizes it’s being cooked, it’s too late.

It’s kind of like “good cop, bad cop.” The bad cop bullies and threatens you, then leaves the room. The good cop tells you that you seem like a nice guy, so if you work with him he’ll keep the bad cop off your case.

You see, another term for the lesser of two evils is the incremental advance of evil. What you seem to gain in the short term, you merely lose in the long term.

Other practical considerations

The so-called conventional wisdom is that Libertarians “take” more votes from Republicans than they do from Democrats. We do attract disgruntled conservatives who still believe in fiscal frugality, the right to bear arms, free enterprise, and private property. But we also attract disgruntled liberals who still believe in civil liberties and peace.

Both groups feel abandoned by the new “moderate” major parties. But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that a decent showing for Badnarik would throw the election to Kerry. What will happen? First, if the Republicans keep Congress, we will have more gridlock. Gridlock is a good thing. When the White House and Congress are in the same hands, the lack of gridlock costs you much more in lost freedom and money.

Second, the Republicans will come back in four years with a more libertarian candidate and platform in an effort to lure back those libertarian votes to keep it from happening again.

And in the meantime, the Libertarian Party stays on the ballot and stays credible as a reminder that enough is enough and authoritarianism will cost the major parties badly needed votes.

Beware the message you send

A vote is a message. A vote for Bush or Kerry is a message that you like what they’re doing to you and you want them to keep doing it.

A vote for Badnarik is a message that you want their hand out of your pocket and their foot out of your door. Be careful what you vote for — you might get it!

Will my vote be wasted? It’s true that when I wake up on November 3, Michael Badnarik will probably not be the president-elect. But I will sleep well on election night knowing that I sent the right message.

Most places do plurality voting, in which we can only approve of one candidate and can not say what to do if that candidate loses.

As was said on this topic on Feb. 21, this presents in intolerable dilemma for Libertarians and many others who see obvious problems with plurality and VERY MUCH want to do better. They want to approve of more than one candidate as better than the worst lemon, AND want to approve of one candidate as BEST.

Ranked choice voting allows voters to approve of multiple candidates AND rank those approved in the order they prefer.

Telling the major parties that ranked choice gives third parties a better chance can only encourage them to reject such a change while they have the power to do so.

Telling them that ranked choice keeps voting for minor candidates from disturbing the race between major candidates gives the idea a better chance:

While Libertarians and others remain minor, this lets their popularity get measured without disturbing the major races.

If and when some minor candidates become popular enough they can get elected as they deserve.

There are two major choices for counting ranked choice votes, while both use the same ballot and let the voter rank each candidate approved:

Instant Runoff Voting has VOCAL backers and looks first at each voters first choice, discarding candidates this counting identifies as losers — then recounting resulting first choices.

Condorcet counts more as in a tournament, seeing ALL that each voter offers in ranking. Usually both methods identify the same winners, but Condorcet backers note that, sometimes, IRV fails to see significant preferences.