Parah
January 25 2008
IS HE ELECTABLE? DOES IT MATTER?
As I write, there have been votes cast in only 7 states primaries or caucuses -- that means there are 43 states still to go. Isn't it a little early to decide that a candidate "can't win"? Do the voters of Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada, Wyoming, South Carolina, and Louisiana get to decide for the whole nation? If there was a clear "front-runner" coming out of these early states it might be suggestive of a national trend... but there isn't. RON PAUL has come in ahead of EVERY OTHER CANDIDATE in AT LEAST ONE STATE.

Someone who was canvassing for Ron Paul in South Carolina the week before the primary reported that almost 1/3 of the people he talked to said they liked Ron Paul's positions and what he had to say... but they weren't going to vote for him because "he couldn't win". If this percentage held true throughout the State, and if all those people had voted their conscience, Ron Paul would have won South Carolina.

When "blind" telephone polls have been taken, where the biography, history and positions of a candidate are given but not their name, Ron Paul wins them by an overwhelming majority. If everyone says Ron Paul can't win, and then doesn't vote for him because he can't win, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the media keeps saying Ron Paul can't win, and people keep believing them and voting for the candidates who are approved by the talking heads on the television set, then the media has taken over our representative republic. But IF people vote their conscience, then, YES, RON PAUL CAN STILL WIN THE NOMINATION.

There is a science fiction story which mentions in an offhand way a world in which the people are ruled by lizards. It includes the following conversation:

"The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."

"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."

"I did," said Ford. "It is."

"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"

"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."

"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"

"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."

"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"

"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in."


If you disagree with Ron Paul's strict constitutionalism or his economic theories or don't like his character or his voting record or his plans for the country, or just really like Mitt Romney's hair, by all means vote for someone else. But if you LIKE HIM BEST OF THE CANDIDATES WHO ARE RUNNING, and vote for someone else because they are more "electable", then you have just played into the hands of the media. The real vote that "doesn't count" is a compromise vote for the "less evil" lizard.



Posted by Sora at 3 : 22 pm
Excellent! I'm currently re-reading the Hitchhiker series and loved your example.

A vote for Ron Paul is just that, FOR him. We don't vote against candidates (or at least, we shouldn't); we vote for them. I'll never understand the mindset that says otherwise.

Posted by Alison in OH at 6 : 42 pm on 01 . 25 . 08
I totally agree with you although I am not a Ron Paul supporter by any stretch of the imagination, I am a Kucinich supporter and he was treated the same, or worse, by the media and countless voters who went with the mainstream rather than voting their consciences.
-SB in MI

Posted by at 8 : 51 pm on 01 . 25 . 08
Stop voting for lizards. What a great idea!

Posted by DeputyHeadmistress at 1 : 17 pm on 02 . 05 . 08
Post a new note:

Name:

E-mail: (optional)

Website: (optional)

Type your comments here:

Remember my info.

Return to journal home

View archived entries