About a month ago, I posted my refutation to some of the more idiotic things said by people who want me to vote Mitt Romney. I’m about to share some of the same thoughts, but also explain what it would take to get me to vote Romney.

There is about a 99% chance that I’ll be voting for Virgil Goode, the Constitution Party candidate for President. Why, you ask? Simply put, he’s the guy I like most. I don’t have much love for Mitt Romney, and voting for him would be a protest vote only, not a meaningful vote.

As I stated in my previous post, I live in Minnesota. Minnesota consistently votes Democrat for President. The last Republican to win Minnesota was Richard Nixon in 1972. We were the only state to go for Walter Mondale in 1984 (though likely because he’s from Minnesota). Only Washington DC joined us in not voting for Reagan. This year appears to be possibly moving more toward an even race, but is still in the Obama/Democrat category.

With Minnesota likely to go Obama, a vote for Romney is a protest vote. It’s an “anyone but Obama” vote. I don’t cast “anyone but…” votes, I vote for the guy I like most on the ballot.

“But You’re Wasting Your Vote”

You’re certainly entitled to your opinion, and you’re welcome to come up with whatever justification you wish for casting your vote, but I’ll decide what constitutes wasting my vote, thank you very much.

How you come to the conclusion of whom to vote for is your business. I don’t cast “lesser evil” votes, or “anybody but…” votes. I vote for the candidate that I like the most. For most races down the line, that ends up being the Republican, mostly for lack of any other choice – it’s the Democrat or it’s the Republican. In races even further down the line, such as school board, city council, or county office, it is often the Liberal Democrat vs. the more moderate Democrat. Whomever comes closest to my political philosophy gets my vote.

That said, it’s my opinion that “lesser evil” or “anyone but…” votes are the ones that are wasted. If there is a better candidate on the ballot, but you refuse to consider him/her because he/she is third party, you’re just rubber-stamping the status quo. In the case of the Presidential race this year, voting for Mitt Romney is voting for the guy who will drive us toward the cliff at a more leisurely pace, rather than speeding ahead with the pedal to the metal. I prefer a candidate that turns the bus around and heads away from the cliff.

“But A Vote for Anyone but Romney is a Vote for Obama”

I addressed this one in my previous post. This logic is completely idiotic, and using it shows that you don’t think at all, you just repeat the garbage you hear others saying. Just sit down and relax. You think Mitt Romney is the only other candidate. Well, just rest well knowing that since I’m not voting for Obama, my vote is as good as a vote for Romney. That may sound strange, but it’s your own bullet-proof logic.

“So What Will it Take to Get You to Vote Romney?”

I’m glad you finally got around to asking. That is what I set out to address, isn’t it?

Put simply, Minnesota will have to be very close. There will have to be a reasonable chance that it will go to a recount. Anything else and I’m going with the guy I like.

Why so close? Well, in any other case, it’s hard to make the argument that my vote really will make a difference in the outcome. If, as is normally the case, Minnesota is headed toward sending 10 electoral votes to the Democrats, then voting for Romney would be a protest vote. It’s an “anyone but Obama” vote. If that’s the case, what’s the difference between voting for Romney (who can’t win Minnesota) and Virgil Goode (who also can’t win Minnesota)? Neither guy will win Minnesota either way. In that case, a vote for Romney is a vote for the status quo. A vote for Romney says that I buy into the system. It’s Kang vs. Kodos.

If it suddenly swings in the other direction, and Romney becomes the projected winner in Minnesota, then a vote for him is simply a rubber-stamp for him. I don’t like him, and don’t have any desire to rubber stamp him. Sure, he’s the lesser evil, but still not my guy. He’s not the guy that will turn the bus around and head in the right direction.

“Why Do You Keep Talking about Minnesota? This is a National Election!”

Go back to third grade History and Civics class. We don’t have a national popular vote. We vote for electors from each state, who in turn vote for the Presidential candidates. My vote affects who those electors from Minnesota will be. Romney could get every vote from every voter in every other state, and it will make no difference who the electors from Minnesota are.

What was the Point of this Post?”

Mostly to tell you to shut up. You sound like a buffoon repeating every idiotic talking point you hear from your Republican Party handlers. Please, stop and think a little before repeating the same old tired and illogical arguments. If your candidate can’t win me to vote for him because he’s the best candidate on my ballot, then resorting to “wasted vote” and “lesser evil” arguments just expose him as being hollow, and your reasoning as weak. Maybe consider learning some basic informal logical fallacies. You’re engaging in several of them and you’re too ignorant to see it. For starters, you’re engaging in the following fallacies: Special Pleading, Bandwagon, Black or White, and Appeal to Emotion. There are probably others as well, but we’ll start there.

2 thoughts on “What it Would Take to Get Me to Vote Romney

  1. Hey Andy, thoughts on Gary Johnson? Why Constitution and not Libertarian? Genuinely curious. I already voted, btw. And not for red or blue! 🙂

  2. There are a lot of similarities between the Libertarian and Constitution parties. Where they overlap, I generally like them both. However, where they differ, I am firmly on the side of the Constitution Party.

    I often refer to myself as a Libertarian/Conservative. I believe that the Constitution Party best fits what I mean by that. One thing I don’t like about main-stream Conservatism is that they talk about small government, but in practice they grow government. They talk about eliminating cabinet-level agencies, but have done nothing to make it happen. On the other hand, the thing I don’t like about main-stream Libertarianism is that they deny the role Natural Law plays in society. Their ethic seems to be that “if it doesn’t harm others, legalize it.” They’re soft on abortion, they take a stand on marriage that is more Liberal than the Democrats (and harmful to a society), and generally don’t even consider long-term consequences to anything. It’s all about immediate harm or immediate consequences.

    During the GOP primaries, I was a big supporter of Ron Paul, and had a hand in getting him most of Minnesota’s delegates to the National Convention. He and Johnson had many similarities, but where they differed, I really didn’t like Johnson. Abortion is a big one. I know that in practice, Johnson would leave the issue of abortion to the states, which in today’s environment would lead to fewer abortions as some states would ban the practice, but philosophically he is “pro-choice.” I just can’t, in good conscience, support any candidate that doesn’t acknowledge that abortion is murder, and should be handled in the same manner in regards to law.

Comments are closed.