You're right. Your vote will count for something. Your vote will count as a vote for Obama. You need to take a hard look at reality friend. You can hold on to the belief that your Libertarian vote is a real vote for change but in reality, your vote is only a vote for Socialism. Here's why - Libertarians and Conservatives are mostly on the same page regarding economics. Social issues and foreign policy not so much but, economics, yep. And what's this election about? It's about jobs and the economy. No one cares about social issues - social issues are just political tools - and no one pays attention to foreign policy.

This election is about the ECONOMY.

Obama LOVES Libertarians, Not their politics, just their mindset. HE LOVES YOU because he knows your Libertarian vote is a vote not for Romney. That's the reality of the situation.

You vote for Johnson and that's +1 Obama.

"You can avoid reality but you can not avoid the consequences of avoiding reality." - Ayn Rand

And by the way, Ayn Rand was an advocate of CAPITALISM not Libertarianism.

I come here to find reason, not main stream media mush opinions. I'm disappointed in the members here who hold onto this "voting for Gary Johnson is helping Obama" tripe.

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan aren't the salvation from Obama. They are just more of the same.

People like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are the ones who could bring our country back and put it on top again. But it isn't going to happen until we open our eyes and take control. Shrugger is right: "voting for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil."

Freedom and liberty mean owning the responsibilities to maintain them, not cowering under the boot of the majority. Those who admonish "looking at reality", to you I say this: We can change the way our country is ran. If every one of you who says "Libertarians are right, but they can't win" would vote Libertarian... they might win. Or at least as Shrugger is pointing out, "get noticed".

For too long the American people have allowed themselves to be silenced and simply compromise with our politics and be forced into a two party system. It's time to stand up for what's right, not the popular choice.

Do the research and make up your own mind. Find out exactly who Obama, Romney and Johnson are. Forget their politic party affiliations and look at what they believe in and stand for. Then make your own choice of who can run our country best.

I will be voting for Gary Johnson this November 6th. Many of my friends and family members will be, also, because we want America back.

There is a cover up going on in the White-house (Benghazi-Gate) and the main stream media is barely talking about it so I wouldn't count on them sitting up and taking notice (of "FORCED" to pay attention) if a Libertarian gets a few votes.

I think if we're hanging around the Gulch discussing voting for a Libertarian candidate for President, it is only fair to point that Ayn Rand diverged from libertarianism in many ways. The two that top my list.
1) Intellectual Property i.e. patents. The ONLY right called out specifically in the Constitution. Libertarians (Cato-before the transfer of power) and Reason magazine show an appalling lack of understanding regarding patents and the Economy. Rand was staunchly for strong patent rights.
2) Foreign Policy. She was strongly for intervention in the world with regards to terrorists and terrorist acts against the US.
For me, these are two very good reasons to not want a Libertarian in the highest Office in the land. In fairness, Ron Paul does not side with the party on patents.

Greetings Shrugger,
I have no right to tell anyone how to vote, but I would like to point out that your premise depends upon a lot of IFs. I respect anyone who adheres to principle, but be aware of the pragmatic consequences! For a third party candidate to be recognized by the MSM and be viable they will have to garner a third of the vote. We need a third party option, but it must be implemented and gaining enough traction to be viable long before election season. When a third party candidate gains sufficient traction and support to force the debate committee to include that third party candidate in the final debates then we will have viable options besides the Republicrats.
Respectfully,
O.A.

I live in a blue state. My vote for Romney won't achieve anything anyway, so I had already planned to vote for Gary Johnson. I much prefer him to Romney anyway.

Everyone Seems To Be Missing The Point

I don't CARE who we elect as President of the United States.

You are all in a fast-moving car heading toward a cliff. The driver has the gas pedal floored and is doing 90 miles an hour. You are all debating on replacing this driver with one who promises to slow down to 65 miles an hour, without actually changing direction.

If you don't agree with that scenario, then I'm not directing this at you. We can debate the merits of the scenario (or lack thereof) elsewhere.

If you agree with that scenario, and you do not wish to go over the cliff, you have only two choices:


1). Get out of the car (i.e. go Galt, stock up on gold, food, fuel etc. or find another society better suited to your beliefs), or


2). Convince a substantial number of the passengers in the car that you must change direction.


Those of you still in the car who believe strongly in Reason, Liberty and individual rights need to focus your energies on educating your fellow passengers. The person driving matters little if most of the occupants are unaware of where they are heading and of what is in store for them up ahead. No matter who is driving, they will urge him to continue moving forward in the same direction. If he refuses, they will replace him with someone who will abide by their wishes.

Of all potential contenders, I believe Ron Paul best reflects what I would consider the best choice of a driver... but... even if he had somehow managed to do the impossible... even if he was elected as our new "driver"... very little would change.

Yes... for about 4 years he might slow the car down and buy more time... he might have even managed to turn the car to the right or left a bit soas to approach the cliff at a bit of an angle... but with most of the occupants in the car still believing there was no cliff on the horizon, even Dr. Paul would have found it impossible to turn us around... his best intentions notwithstanding.

The truth is... the ONLY way to save our country is to educate a large number of our friends and neighbors on the evils of collectivism. A change in leadership will NOT do it. It would, in fact be counter-productive. Imagine a scenario with a Ron Paul-like President who was still ham-strung by a collectivist populace. He would try to reduce government spending and fail... and when the economy inevitibly continues to plunge... his Libertarian policies would be blamed.

How do we educate our friends and neighbors? We can't and shouldn't try to force-feed them. They must become curious enough about the subject to inquire of their own accord. One way to increase their curiosity is let them see a dramatic increase in the results of a third-party in a federal election.

At that point, many would become interested in learning about this third party... and SOME would agree with the basic Libertarian platform.

Remember... the Libertarian Party is comprised of many individuals with diverse political and philosophical beliefs... just like the Dems and Repubs. No group of individuals will ever agree on everything. The Libertarian Party, I believe, comes closer than any other political party in
espousing the beliefs of Objectivism. Ayn Rand disliked the Libertarianism of the past because many in the Libertarian movement at the time were actually Anarchists. That is no longer the case. While there are certainly some who still carry that mantle, the vast majority of Libertarians today are for LIMITED federal government... NOT for eliminating the federal government.

Those of you who are still planning on voting for Republicans because you fear another four years of Obama are accomplishing nothing with your vote. Even if you win, you'll still end up going over the
cliff, albeit maybe a bit slower. Most of you will be voting for someone who you don't believe in, just because you dislike the alternative even more.

I, for one, do not care to compromise my principles for the expedient. I am already "out-of-the-car".

Good luck to the rest of you.

One vote is one vote. No more, no less. (A vote for Johnson, as much as I like him, is a vote for Obama. I couldn't sleep knowing I voted for Obama....but to each his own.)

It's secondhanded to compare votes and say "my vote will count more than yours." Vote the way you think is best (or don't vote at all), but don't compare whether my, your, or anyone else's vote counts more.

I disagree. We have been attempting to get 10% of the vote for years. It has not worked. Why do you think it will this time? Not only that if we did get 10% or 20% it would be one of the worst outcomes that could occur.

Lets say we could regularly get 10% of the vote for Libertarian, lets even say 20%. Where is that vote going to come from? The hyper progressive democrats, or the less progressive republicans? What does that accomplish? It guarantees we get the most progressive big government guys in every federal office.

The media would simply play up how heartless we are and how we do not care about the people. They would have evidence in the landslide victories of the Communists/Marxist/Fascist candidates. All the media would take note of is the grand victories for the socialist way of life and how capitalism dose not work.

This is an unreasoned solution to the problem we face. If you vote for the libertarian you are not throwing your vote away, you are casting a vote for the worst scenario that could occur, unless the libertarian could actually win.