Will Ron Paul spilt the rightwing vote and give Obama a win?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
it's really arrogant to assume any voters are any candidate's voters. Paul doesn't split the support of Romney in your analogy. Paul's supporters do not support nor will they vote for Romney. If Romney gets the nod, I don't vote. Neither side gets my vote. I might write-in Paul instead, b ut Romney will n ot get my vote. There is zero difference between Romney and Obama. Not worth the time it takes to go vote if those are the choices. Let Obama preside over the round-ups.
 
The constant threat that votes for a 3rd party candidate will split the vote and give the election away is simply a scare tactic for mainstream partyline candidates and their supporters to use against free-thinking citizens.
 
tinfoil said:
it's really arrogant to assume any voters are any candidate's voters.
Click to expand...

If there were two universes, one in which Ron Paul ran on a 3rd party ticket in 2012, and one in which he didn't, Mitt Romney is more likely to be elected president in the second one. It's mathematical fact that our voting system is not independent of irrelevant alternatives, IE, adding an option that doesn't win can change the outcome. It's not arrogance to acknowledge this, it's stupidity to deny its existence.
 
And anyone who votes a certain way, not because of the candidate but to prevent something, is wasting their vote.

I vote for teh candidate I think is best for this nation.
 
tinfoil said:
Paul's supporters do not support nor will they vote for Romney.
Click to expand...

Oh, I didn't realize that you were the representative of all of Ron Paul's supporters and had the ability to bind their will. How silly of me. I guess any obvious statement to the effect that, should Ron Paul not run, many of his supporters are probably going to vote anyway, and that, of this group, they are going to break for Romney by a statistically significant margin, is completely and totally irrelevant, in light of this information. Thanks for the info.
 
WinterBorn said:
And anyone who votes a certain way, not because of the candidate but to prevent something, is wasting their vote.

I vote for teh candidate I think is best for this nation.
Click to expand...

That's noble and all, but it doesn't change the fact that Paul's presence in the race would bias the results towards Obama. When a person speaks of "wasted votes", in a mathematical sense, they are speaking of votes that don't contribute to a win. You can attach a great deal of sentiment to such a vote, of course, but that does not mean that it doesn't fall into this definition. The fact is, our electoral system is pretty shitty, and voting strategically is just something people naturally do to make up for its deficits.
 
\\(())// said:
The effect of Ross Perots' candidacy has been a contentious point of debate for many years. In the ensuing months after the election, various Republicans asserted that Perot had acted as a spoiler, enough to the detriment of Bush to lose him the election.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992
Click to expand...

another direct result of perot's success in the election was for republicans and democrats to make getting on the state ballots harder for 3rd party and independents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top