A Short Guide to Principled Voting (Or: Why It’s OK to Vote for Romney)

One of the most frustrating statements for a politically involved person to hear is: “I don’t care about politics, I never vote. They’re all liars/crooks.” This may be partially true, but it’s certainly not universally true. Most politicians have good intentions and are good people in their own right, even in Washington. Nearly all of them believe that they’re striving for the common good. For a democratic republic, the United States federal government isn’t actually very corrupt.

Still, this raises an important question. How should you decide whom to vote for? Do you vote for the morally-dubious person that you mostly agree with on the issues? What about the guy who strikes you as a perfect candidate, but who’s polling in the single digits the week before the election? What if you don’t like either of the candidates, but one of them appears marginally better than the other? Should you cast a “protest” vote for a third-party candidate, or is that really just “throwing away your vote?” In short, how do you cast a principled vote?

ALL these threads are just troll bait for those obsessed with hating romney, mormons, both, ets. Romeny is an opportunist? yes. so was bill clinton, obama, and even bush sr. (probably jr) and on back.

we MUST focus on congress.

Soros is focusing on congress.

Unions are focusing on congress.

Is your state legislature conservative enough?

if there is one democrat who is elected then that is one democrat too many.

it is not just every vote that must count, it is every SEAT we hold.

romney is an “R”. not an arlen specter “R” but at least an “R”.

Folks we need a BIGGER majority in the house and a full 60 in the senate.

We have to purge the unelected bureacrats and purge the seiu.

these threads are pointless.

focus on tea party GOTV.

focus on security of our vehicles and offices.

we are fighting communists who want to use our freedoms to take our freedoms.

That's not what your ballot will say

It doesn't matter what the ballot says. In recent history, the president has either been the GOP candidate or the DEM candidate. There is no indication, and no sane argument, that anything will be different in this upcoming general election. It's not right and I wish the Tea-Party (or similar) had knocked the GOP off the face of the earth. That didn't happen, so we are left with a crap choice.

So, I'll make this simple: Since 0bama will be the DEM candidate, I'm voting for whoever occupies the *GOP* candidate's spot. I presume that will be Romney (barring divine intervention at the GOP convention). So, I'm voting for whoever the GOP candidate is as my vote "against 0bama". Or if you prefer, "Vote For Leading Non-0bama Candidate" == "Vote Against Obama".

Now, if you have a different candidate with better odds of beating 0bama than the GOP candidate, speak up & make your case and let's vote for him. Otherwise, I vote against 0bama by voting for the candidate with the best odds of winning -- however slight those odds may be -- and at this point that's going to be (like it or not) the GOP candidate. It is just that simple.

It doesn't matter what the ballot says.

Good. If that's true, then I'm voting for Sarah Palin as the Republican candidate.

I'm college-educated. So we can make it complex. If you tick the box that says "Mitt Romney" that means you're voting FOR "Mitt Romney". If you don't, you're voting for someone else.

I tell you this to expose the basic logical fallacy in which so many ABOs (or more accurately, "NBRs" for "Nobody But Romney") engage. They try to tell me that my vote for a third-party candidate will be what it isn't -- that is, a vote for Obama instead of a vote for an actual conservative -- while people like you tell me that your vote isn't what it is, and how it will be counted: as a vote for Mitt Romney. There's no spot in the results for "against Obama".

Look, you've made your choice. I respect it. But it would certainly be easier, and you wouldn't have to engage in such mental gymnastics to salve your conscience, if you'd simply admit what you're doing. For me at least, no harm, no foul.

I and people like me have mentioned them repeatedly. We still have Virgil Goode. We have FR's homegrown, Tom Hoefling. But to make a point and start a populist wave that sooner or later even ABOs admit is going to HAVE to happen to promote a spirit of resistance to socialism we see in BOTH major parties, people have to get on board. We have good conservatives sitting on the sidelines saying it can't be done because no other candidate has an "R".

The Tea Party went from an idea in a reporter's head on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange to rallies of hundreds of thousands of people on the National Mall in a matter of weeks. Where's that spirit here, on the premier conservative site on the web? What on earth happened?

Gay marriage, abortion, gun control, big government, Romneycare, TARP -- that is more than a bridge too far for me and for some others here. If you think voting for Romney accomplishes the stated goal of this website by advances conservatism, I'm more than willing to hear your reasoning.

I'm college-educated. So we can make it complex.

I'll have to take your word for it and complex isn't required as it's just too simple, presuming one isn't playing semantical games...

They try to tell me that my vote for a third-party candidate will be what it isn't -- that is, a vote for Obama instead of a vote for an actual conservative -- while people like you tell me that your vote isn't what it is, and how it will be counted: as a vote for Mitt Romney.

Being college educated, and likely observant of recent history, I'll take a leap and presume you know the difference between a "primary" election and a "general" election. In recent history, what are the odds the president will *NOT* be either the GOP or DEM party candidate? (feel free to use your college statistics education to sort it out). With just a few months to go, that isn't going to change this time. If you want to work towards changing that for *future* elections, I'll likely help however I can. I would even urge us all to do just that. But It ain't happening this time. You know that as well as anyone else.

So, tell me again -- bearing in mind that we are talking about the *general* election and not the *primary* election -- how it makes much difference who's name is on the ballot in the general to historically partisan voters (which we are, as a group)? Tell me how it is *NOT* a pure horse-race between the DEM candidate (whoever it is) and the GOP candidate (whoever it is) in the general?

Now, using your college smarts and presenting yourself as "informed", refer back to Ross Perot election. Tell me how (by all accepted arguments) that election would have turned out without the Ross Perot vote-split in the mix? I'm not saying folks were necessarily wrong to vote for Perot, but I'm just acknowledging the effect that was observed and the generally accepted statistical probabilities either way. If you don't like the outcome of that, then feel free to use the statistical effect of Nader on Gore (both side of the political spectrum have experienced it to one degree or another).

The only thing I'm telling you about your vote is that, historically, logically and statistically, if you aren't voting for the GOP or DEM candidate in the general, you are merely stroking your ego. It may allow you to feel good about yourself (and maybe *that's* what's most important to you and what motivates you), but at this point in time in history, you know as well as I do that the overwhelming odds are that the next president elected on Nov 6th will be either the DEM or GOP candidate.

I have no problems with more conservative candidates like Goode or Hoefling, but any sane, rational, college educated person would readily agree that they stand *no* chance of getting anywhere near the top of the ballot by Nov 6th for *this* election. I would argue the saner course would be to start - right now - to find a unifying conservative candidate (Goode, Hoefling, someone else?) to primary Romney next time. We would have 4 years to get our act together. Right this moment, any sane, rational college educated person would acknowledge that we (conservatives) can't even agree on the color of the sky and are in serious need of a unifying candidate who can *LEAD*, inspire, sway and motivate us to get our act together.

Vote however makes you feel good about yourself if that's what's important to you. I'm motivated to vote as much statistical damage to 0bama as I can because this election ain't about *me*, or how I feel about myself.

So, to be clear: Regardless of what the ballot says - I'm motivated to vote against 0bama and I believe the most effective vote, based on historical, logical and statistical reasons, is to vote for the "GOP candidate", whoever that may be (likely Rino-Romney, but the convention ain't done yet). Even if Rino-Romney makes it through the convention and suffers a completely debilitating stroke prior to the election or otherwise becomes non-viable, I'm still voting for the leading candidate (whoever that may be) "against 0bama" on Nov 6th. I vote "against 0bama" by voting for whoever leads the pack in his opposition. If you can drag Goode or Hoefling kicking and screaming to the front of the pack and get them in the lead ahead of the GOP candidate (or get them to replace Romney somehow on the GOP ticket) then I'll vote for them. Either way, my *motivation* is to vote "against 0bama" with the best-odds candidate at the time and I don't much care what their name is.

Anyone should be able to understand that, college educated or otherwise, no semantical games needed. So, before you beclown yourself again -- it's the motivation that compels me, not the candidate's name.

I’m not playing semantic games. Just be honest and admit you’re voting for Mitt. I’m not. That’s the difference between us.

You’ve just spent a lot of time posting a response that essentially admits one of my main points: you’re not willing to help elect a conservative in 2012. Hopefully we’ll see you in 2016.

I’ve never claimed in any of my posts on this subject that Goode or Hoefling has any chance to win. But I’m not willing to support socialism regardless of whether it wears blue or red clothing.

By the way, I don’t vote for ego. I vote for what I feel is best for my country, and sometimes that means being willing to tell my political party when it’s wrong, which it clearly is in this case.

I don’t see Romney as being any better than 0bama in fiscal terms, since they seem to support the same things, and I don’t see him as a social conservative, which is the basis for all conservatism as it teaches us the difference between right and wrong.

By all means, vote your conscience. You’ll receive no sanction from me. But in return, I do ask you to be honest about what you’re supporting. I know your motivation and understand it, but when the votes are counted, your motivation won’t be.

Best to you.

I’m not playing semantic games. Just be honest and admit you’re voting for Mitt.

You should endeavor to be the least bit intellectually honest. For someone who claims a college education, you sure don't make that impression.

What part of the following do you not understand:
I am voting for whoever stands the best odds of defeating 0bama come Nov 6th, and I don't care what their name is. Right now, polling indicates that will be the GOP candidate, which is tentatively presumed to be Romney. However, if Romney suffers some setback -or- if Ron Paul uses some backroom delegate technicality to get in front -or- if some back of the pack unknown gets dragged unexpectedly to the front -- then I'll vote for *whoever* would be leading the pack at that time. So, if you want me to "name" who I will vote for, I can tell you it will be either Paul, Romney, or Someone-Else-Not-Yet-Named, one of which will most likely be on the GOP ticket as the leading opponent to 0bama. There! I've admitted all the possible names (as far as I currently know) of who I'm voting for. I can't put it any simpler. You need to ask your college for a partial refund if you still can't comprehend it.

you’re not willing to help elect a conservative in 2012

Bull-Butter! I'm absolutely willing to help elect a conservative in 2012! Show me the viable conservative candidate with the demonstrable ability to win and I'll vote for them!! Where is that candidate? Don't blame me if you can't produce one, look in the mirror! I'm to blame too! We (conservatives) got our butts handed to us in the primaries. Look also to your back-of-the-pack, also-ran candidate who lacked the skillset to lead, motivate and persuade a majority of folks to support them with votes and money. I don't care how "well-meaning" they are or that they have impeccable conservative credentials, if they can't even get on the radar, how does that defeat 0bama? If 0bama is not defeated, how does that further the conservative cause? All it does is allow you to puff-up and say, "well *I* voted for so-and-so because *I* have standards...".

That will be a real comfort as, in his next term, 0bama adds more regs, czars and executive orders and appoints one to four Supreme justices. Glad you will have found some way to feel good about yourself!

Getting rid of 0bama is our nation's single most pressing need right now. If you do not agree with that, then your opinion is patently invalid, nor is it rational or logical. Voting for some weak contender that you readily agree has no chance of winning does not actively help defeat 0bama; all it does is give you a selfish way out. Though you won't be voting for 0bama, you certainly aren't voting for his strongest opponent either. You wasted an otherwise useful vote on some also-ran that you admit has no chance. If he has no chance, then your principled-stance has no significance or impact for anyone other than yourself. Which goes to my point - the one you appear too embarrassed to admit: You vote just so you can feel good about yourself. But it is also your right to cast that emotional vote. Just keep your facade of self-righteousness to yourself. I refuse to lie to myself like that. I want my vote to have as much statistical weight against 0bama as possible to "stop the bleeding" and allow conservatives some footing to continue the fight.

There is nothing wrong with voting for 0bama's strongest contender and bringing as much conservative pressure to bear as possible once we get 0bama gone. Then we will have some breathing room to start trying to work a "Hoefling"/"Goode"/"Whoever" into a much better position, presuming they have what it takes to lead, motivate, inspire and persuade. Frankly, they aren't showing they have what it takes. If they did, we wouldn't be having this conversation and you bloody well know it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.