Wasted Vote.........

[JJL]

I enjoyed reading this short column while drinking coffee this morning.

October 10, 2008

A Wasted Vote

By Chuck Baldwin

When asked why they will not vote for a third party candidate, many people will respond by saying something like, "He cannot win." Or, "I don't want to waste my vote." It is true: America has not elected a third party candidate since 1860. Does that automatically mean, however, that every vote cast for one of the two major party candidates is not a wasted vote? I don't think so.

In the first place, a wasted vote is a vote for someone you know does not represent your own beliefs and principles. A wasted vote is a vote for someone you know will not lead the country in the way it should go. A wasted vote is a vote for the "lesser of two evils." Or, in the case of John McCain and Barack Obama, what we have is a choice between the "evil of two lessers."

Albert Einstein is credited with saying that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result. For years now, Republicans and Democrats have been leading the country in the same basic direction: toward bigger and bigger government; more and more socialism, globalism, corporatism, and foreign interventionism; and the dismantling of constitutional liberties. Yet, voters continue to think that they are voting for "change" when they vote for a Republican or Democrat. This is truly insane!

Take a look at the recent $700 billion Wall Street bailout: both John McCain and Barack Obama endorsed and lobbied for it. Both McCain and Obama will continue to bail out these international banksters on the backs of the American taxpayers. Both McCain and Obama support giving illegal aliens amnesty and a path to citizenship. In the debate this past Tuesday night, both McCain and Obama expressed support for sending U.S. forces around the world for "peacekeeping" purposes. They also expressed support for sending combat forces against foreign countries even if those countries do not pose a threat to the United States. Neither Obama nor McCain will do anything to stem the tide of a burgeoning police state or a mushrooming New World Order. Both Obama and McCain support NAFTA and similar "free trade" deals. Neither candidate will do anything to rid America of the Federal Reserve, or work to eliminate the personal income tax, or disband the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Both Obama and McCain support the United Nations. So, pray tell, how is a vote for either McCain or Obama not a wasted vote?

But, back to the "he cannot win" argument: to vote for John McCain is to vote for a man who cannot win. Yes, I am saying it here and now: John McCain cannot win this election. The handwriting is on the wall. The Fat Lady is singing. It is all over. Finished. John McCain cannot win.

With only three weeks before the election, Barack Obama is pulling away. McCain has already pulled his campaign out of Michigan. In other key battleground states, McCain is slipping fast. He was ahead in Missouri; now it is a toss-up or leaning to Obama. A couple of weeks ago, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida were all leaning towards McCain, or at least toss-up states. Now, they are all leaning to Obama. Even the longtime GOP bellwether state of Indiana is moving toward Obama. In addition, new voter registrations are at an all-time high, and few of them are registering as Republicans. In fact, the Republican Party now claims only around 25% of the electorate, and Independents are increasingly leaning toward Obama.

Ladies and gentlemen, Barack Obama is headed for an electoral landslide victory over John McCain. John McCain can no more beat Barack Obama than Bob Dole could beat Bill Clinton.

I ask, therefore, Are not conservatives and Christians who vote for John McCain guilty of the same thing that they accuse people who vote for third party candidates of doing? Are they not voting for someone who cannot win? Indeed, they are. In fact, conservatives and Christians who vote for John McCain are not only voting for a man who cannot win, they are voting for a man who does not share their own beliefs and principles. If this is not insanity, nothing is!

So, why not (for once in your life, perhaps) cast a vote purely for principle! Vote for someone who is truly pro-life. Someone who would quickly secure our nation's borders, and end the invasion of our country by illegal aliens. Someone who would, on his first day in office, release Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean and fire U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton. Someone who would immediately, upon assuming office, begin leading the charge to dismantle the Federal Reserve, overturn the 16th Amendment, expunge the IRS, and return America to sound money principles. Someone who would get the US out of the UN. Someone who would stop spending billions and trillions of dollars for foreign aid. Someone who would prosecute the Wall Street bankers who defrauded the American people out of billions of dollars. Someone who would work to repeal NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, the WTO, and stop the NAFTA superhighway. Someone who would say a resounding "No" to the New World Order. Someone who would stop using our brave men and women in uniform as global cops for the United Nations. Someone who would stop America's global adventurism and interventionism. Someone who would steadfastly support and defend the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

[wtnhunt]

Ladies and gentlemen, Barack Obama is headed for an electoral landslide victory over John McCain. John McCain can no more beat Barack Obama than Bob Dole could beat Bill Clinton.

Don't know Jim, interesting opinionated article, but the polls seem to be shifting a bit, and it has been suggested by some that Obama needs a bit of padding for the voters who are saying they will vote for him who actually will not.

As it stands right now, there are some 1.3 million voters who are registered by acorn, many of which are fraudulent and most of which are "bought" with small gifts. Will be interesting to see what the election commission might be able to do to with those potential "bought" and fraudulent votes.

[oldksnarc]

Guess that's one way to spin an opinion. A wasted vote is the vote not cast. Yeah, the person the spin is for may have all the desirable traits - and in normal times a principle vote would be ideal.

But, these are not ideal times and socialism and Obama's values are not the path we want, nor can afford, to go down. Is the spin's candidate the better choice? Yes. Is he going to win - or even be counted at the end of the day? No. He couldn't even beat Obama in Illinois.

I've always stood on principle rather than popularity - but, again, these aren't normal times. As much as I disagree with McCain's moderate views, I have to cast mine to give him a better chance at the popular vote and, again and still, hope the electoral college goes the right way.

[slugshooter]

Thank God we have three branches of government, which is designed to prevent one single person from being able to accomplish all this. I guess Mr. Baldwin feels that the presidency should be the end all, be all of government. Here is some interesting facts I found out about Mr. Baldwin, the Constitution Party's nominee for president this year. A top tier, third party candidate:

He believes the government was involved in 9/11.

He refers to Martin Luther King Jr. as as "apostate" minister.

Appeared on a white supremacist talk show.

Considers Abraham Lincoln one of the two worst presidents.

Refers to Bush as an "American Fuhrer".

As 2004 VP candidate for the constitution party, spoke out against the Iraq War, and women in the military.

Sounds like a wasted vote to me to vote for this guy.

[JJL]

FYI.......... This article wasn't written about Alan Keyes.

It was written about Charles Baldwin 2008 presidential candidate, by Charles Baldwin. He's a Minister with very similar beliefs as

Mike Huckabee.

Eventually we're going to need a third party in this country, might as well get them started now.

[JJL]

Let's all get DEFENSIVE................ I just thought it was a thought provoking article.

[slugshooter]

Don't know Jim, interesting opinionated article, but the polls seem to be shifting a bit, and it has been suggested by some that Obama needs a bit of padding for the voters who are saying they will vote for him who actually will not.

As it stands right now, there are some 1.3 million voters who are registered by acorn, many of which are fraudulent and most of which are "bought" with small gifts. Will be interesting to see what the election commission might be able to do to with those potential "bought" and fraudulent votes.

I stopped paying too much attention to polls after 2004. All the polls said Kerry would win, even exit polling on election day predicted Kerry to win. Were there that many people ashamed to say they voted for Bush, or was it that the pollsters only polled the obvious people who would have voted for Kerry.

Anything can happen in this day and age, mark my words though, if Obama does not win, expect to hear all the accusations of racism and voter irregularity.

[JJL]

Ronald Regan didn't lead in the polls until 5 days before the election.

[slugshooter]

Just read something a few minutes ago on a news site that mentioned the "Bradley Effect." Referring to Tom Bradley who ran for Mayor of Los Angeles in 1982. Polls showed him with double digit leads and he obviously expected to win. Come election day he lost. Speculation was that many people who claimed they were voting for Bradley, did so, so as not to appear prejudiced. It has also been termed the "Wilder Effect" after polls showed Douglas Wilder with a double digit lead for the Virginia governors race. Wilder only ended up winning by a very small percentage. Even exit polls showed him with a double digit lead. This may just be the case with Obama.

[wtnhunt]

Just read something a few minutes ago on a news site that mentioned the "Bradley Effect." Referring to Tom Bradley who ran for Mayor of Los Angeles in 1982. Polls showed him with double digit leads and he obviously expected to win. Come election day he lost. Speculation was that many people who claimed they were voting for Bradley, did so, so as not to appear prejudiced. It has also been termed the "Wilder Effect" after polls showed Douglas Wilder with a double digit lead for the Virginia governors race. Wilder only ended up winning by a very small percentage. Even exit polls showed him with a double digit lead. This may just be the case with Obama.

This was what I was referring to when I posted what I did previously in this thread in reply #2. There has been some discussion on this point on fox news, and from what I have heard the Obama campaign has ruled out any need for any type of a "padding" in the count in the polls to compensate for voters who will fall into this "Bradley" effect, however if I am remembering right some who were asked suggested to expect a possible 6 to 8 percent swing away from Obama with this. As to whether or not people are being honest in talking with pollsters, I guess that is a question that will likely have an apparent answer on November 4th.

[slugshooter]

This was what I was referring to when I posted what I did previously in this thread in reply #2. There has been some discussion on this point on fox news, and from what I have heard the Obama campaign has ruled out any need for any type of a "padding" in the count in the polls to compensate for voters who will fall into this "Bradley" effect, however if I am remembering right some who were asked suggested to expect a possible 6 to 8 percent swing away from Obama with this. As to whether or not people are being honest in talking with pollsters, I guess that is a question that will likely have an apparent answer on November 4th.

Just to throw this out there, think about this scenario. Poll workers who are on the Democratic side, are going to have many more African-American members canvassing for numbers. Now, someone asking who they are going to vote for who happens to be black, approaches an older white person. Sad to say, but they will probably say Obama because they fear reprisal. I am sure there will be some difference in actual voting because of this. I for one would have no problem telling someone I am voting for McCain, unless of course it was a group of gangsta rappers with guns pointed, then I might sacrifice my principles.

[stevebeilgard]

it was indeed a thought provoking article, complete with lots of negativism. i think we may well see the bradley effect in place here. i also believe we are subject to pure lies by the pollsters, who mostly want us to believe that there is no reason to vote as obama has already won. we'll all know more in less than 30 days....