History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
The kaleidoscope of circumstance has turned & Ron Paul has categorically ruled out a third party run. He has, however, called for a march on Washington DC in 3-4 months’ time, to show the democratically-elected rulers of the US that at least some of their subjects are still defiant.
As is now clear, what people find so attractive & compelling, are the genuinely liberal ideas & ideals that Paul articulates so well. This is why his voters cross party lines & so many were previously a-political. But only a minute fraction of all these will be able to travel to DC. Can I suggest, therefore, that this march be only the first prong in a two-pronged attack: Let there be a Ron Paul write-in, in November. This will be a better & a permanent register of the true numbers of those who still hold to a genuine liberalism, one of tolerance & peace, of markets & people’s actions.
Paul has already categorically refused to support McCain. A write-in, therefore, will accomplish at least one impt aim of a third-party run: it will demonstrate the numbers who support true liberalism, the ideological foundation of all the DCs.
Thus a Ron Paul write-in will make clear the numbers -- whatever they are -- of those who:-
(a) favour peace -- rejecting the warmongers of both major parties
(b) favour popular choice & self-responsibility -- rejecting the decrees of tax-consuming officials -- whether in relation to the monetary system, health-care, drugs, self-defence, etc.
"?? Who assigns electors? Are they assigned _only_ to candidates of 'official' parties?"
I'm not sure if I understand the question properly. Technically, the voters choose the electors -- the voter decides which slate of electors to vote for. However, casting a write-in vote for elector is probably not possible in most states. In that case, you are restricted to voting for the slates of electors who appear on the ballot, which is governed by state ballot access laws (which, in practice, favor the two major parties).
Sudha Shenoy -
2/17/2008
The whole point is that Ron Paul has brought out far more than the standard hardcore American libertarians. The object of the exercise is _not_ to measure the latter, but rather the numbers for whom Ron Paul has served as a catalyst -- including those who otherwise would be apolitical.
No one expects miracles.
Anthony Gregory -
2/16/2008
He's done FAR better that LP candidates, especially at generating excitement among the youth, which IS essential to the libertarian movement continuing to be a movement at all. He has focused 95% of his time, if not more, on the most important libertarian issues of the day. And he has gotten lots of enthusiasm on monetary policy, on which he is far from a crank -- even libertarian Chicagoians have to agree with his policy prescription of legalizing competing currency. There is no coherent libertarian objection to a freer market in money.
Bill Woolsey -
2/16/2008
Being on the ballot is a state-by-state activity. Political parties with ballot access provide a slate of electors for the presidential race.
Independents file a slate of electors when the petition to be on the ballot. If they succeed, then the electors they selected are on the ballot.
All that really matters is wether they bother to count the voters. But South Carolina has no procedure for registering as a "write in" candidate. I don't know how they count the voters.
Craig J Bolton -
2/16/2008
This Paul business is getting more and more ridiculous. A march on Washington? A write in campaign?
Has no one noticed that the Paul vote in the primaries has been only marginally better than the 30 year failure of the LP and breaks into double digets only in center of influence like Idaho?
Contemporary "libertarians" [who apparently think that zenophobia and being a money crank are essential libertarian traits] really need to get over this "legend in their own minds" psychosis if they want to see any real progress.... Otherwise they project the image, and probably are living the reality, of psychologically disassociated nut cases.
Sudha Shenoy -
2/16/2008
1. "...technically you're voting for a candidate's electors rather than the candidate...so the vote doesn't count".
?? Who assigns electors? Are they assigned _only_ to candidates of 'official' parties?
2. "You have to register as a write-in candidate".
Is there any problem with Ron Paul doing that? _After_ the 4th March? Or is the due date already gone?
Sudha Shenoy -
2/16/2008
1. "...technically you're voting for a candidate's electors rather than the candidate...so the vote doesn't count".
?? Who assigns electors? Are they assigned _only_ to candidates of 'official' parties?
2. "You have to register as a write-in candidate".
Is there any problem with Ron Paul doing that? _After_ the 4th March? Or is the due date already gone?
David T. Beito -
2/15/2008
I don't know about Alabama but one problem everywhere is that technically you are voting for the electors of the candidate rather than the candidate himself. Thus, the writes may not count for that reason in many states.
I am still hoping for an antiwar candidate like Judge Andrew Napolitano or Gary Johnson to step forward. This seems increasingly like a vain hope. Bobb Barr might be possibility if he has truly changed his previous views.
Jon Boguth -
2/15/2008
Not to ruin your brainstorming, but (at least in Michigan) write-in votes aren't counted unless the candidate for whom they're cast files as a write-in candidate. I assume other states are the same way.
