-- Darrell Castle, the Constitution Party's presidential nominee -- "on thirty-five state ballots (twenty-four, actually) and maybe the only social conservative running" -- has the ultimate putdown to those who still parrot the fallacy that a vote for the lesser evil is your only option.
There you go, evangelicals and Ted Cruz supporters. Get Castle's polling moving upward.
-- I had a bizarre conversation with a California Berniecrat who is voting for Clinton because he isn't certain whether Clinton could carry his state (a fairly delusional thought, unless you just can't believe the polls or fear the election is going to be hacked by the Russians, or something). Bizarre, at least, until I read this.
Go read it; it's kinda fun. And not so much bizarre, but about as possible a scenario as a swarm of undocumented immigrant conservative Yetis helping the GOP hold the line in Orange County.
-- I think writing in Bernie Sanders' name is ridiculous and a little sad, but I do not think that any vote cast is a wasted one. This is debatable, however, as I will explain in a moment. But for now, and as a matter of public service ...
In Texas, a write-in vote for any candidate in any office who has not been certified by the state of Texas is a vote that will not appear in the official canvass. Strangely, there will be a record of it kept by your county clerk, but that will not be made public. Perhaps the clerk's office would respond to a FOIA request and announce the number of votes cast for Hypnotoad, or Jesus Christ, or Mickey Mouse for President some time after the election. Otherwise we'll never know how many votes were "wasted" in this fashion ... the only way you can waste a vote, other than by not casting it at all.
To the latter: over 50% of the American people will waste their votes in this manner, as they remain unregistered to vote, and about 50% of those registered, give or take a few, will likewise fail to get themselves counted. Those who do not exercise their citizenship are doomed to be governed by their inferiors, so the saying goes, and have earned no right to complain.
-- I have seen some really interesting voting rationales by some 'friends' on Facebook. The most creative one recently was a woman who said she could not vote for Jill Stein in Texas because the GP "doesn't do party-building" between presidential elections (an atrociously misinformed statement coming from an otherwise bright but binary-thinking progressive Democrat). In the same paragraph she said she would vote for down-ballot Greens "to show support for having additional options". That's really something, isn't it? A Catch 22 that she puts herself into and takes herself out of at the same time. I suppose the Greens should be happy with whatever vote for them she can muster.
A rationale that a fearful or recalcitrant liberal might employ in deciding to vote for Hillary in a close county -- like Harris -- might be in order to help the Dems retake majority status, with the presiding judges in all precincts and at early voting locations. Note that this would have nothing to do with turning Texas blue, as it won't. Similarly, and as the anonymous person mentioned in the previous graf has indicated she will do, here's the best reason to vote for Jill Stein and the Green candidates running in Texas (there will be four or five dozen on the ballot throughout the state, not all of them on your ballot, because they're running for county offices and things like SBOE, which are multi-county in a specific region):
Charles Kuffner, as you might have guessed, is contemptuous. It is indeed going to be one giant leap for mankind if the Greens can pull it off, as someone on another celestial plane once said. With respect to those who would rather focus on a brand new Congress, I applaud the efforts of BernieDems, etc. in working to reform that party on the inside, but I spent the past ten years heavily involved in that effort, and you can see the fruits of that harvest came in spoiled rotten every single year. Been there, done that, just took the forty T-shirts I got for it to Goodwill.
I would sooner join al-Qaeda and try to reform it from within. A decade of my life spent demonstrating the definition of insanity is far too much. I'm going to do something different from now on. I'd be happy to have your help if you're so inclined.
“People say, ‘Well I have to vote for the lesser of two evils because if I don’t Mrs. Clinton may get elected,'” he says. “But I speak to a lot of Christians, and I tell them as a Christian you cannot do that if you have some regard for scripture because Romans 3:8 says you’re prohibited from trying to achieve a good result by doing evil.”
There you go, evangelicals and Ted Cruz supporters. Get Castle's polling moving upward.
-- I had a bizarre conversation with a California Berniecrat who is voting for Clinton because he isn't certain whether Clinton could carry his state (a fairly delusional thought, unless you just can't believe the polls or fear the election is going to be hacked by the Russians, or something). Bizarre, at least, until I read this.
Whether Donald Trump is entitled to California's 55 Electoral College votes would be called into question if Trump wins the state's popular vote, a Trump-supporting third party and election law experts are warning.
It's an unusual situation and everyone seems to agree there's a potential problem, but they disagree on the severity and likely resolution if Trump defies polls and wins the state.
[...]
The problem arises from the fact that Trump is nominated by both the Republican Party and the state branch of the American Independent Party, and the two parties did not agree on a joint slate of electors, Just two names overlap on lists submitted earlier this week, bringing the total number of Trump electors to 108.
California ballots will list the two nominations together near Trump’s name, with “Republican, American Independent” or some abbreviation – and ballots don't list individual electors. But if on the evening of Nov. 8 it becomes clear he has won the state, the two nominations will net Trump nearly twice the number of electors allowed.
Go read it; it's kinda fun. And not so much bizarre, but about as possible a scenario as a swarm of undocumented immigrant conservative Yetis helping the GOP hold the line in Orange County.
-- I think writing in Bernie Sanders' name is ridiculous and a little sad, but I do not think that any vote cast is a wasted one. This is debatable, however, as I will explain in a moment. But for now, and as a matter of public service ...
In Texas, a write-in vote for any candidate in any office who has not been certified by the state of Texas is a vote that will not appear in the official canvass. Strangely, there will be a record of it kept by your county clerk, but that will not be made public. Perhaps the clerk's office would respond to a FOIA request and announce the number of votes cast for Hypnotoad, or Jesus Christ, or Mickey Mouse for President some time after the election. Otherwise we'll never know how many votes were "wasted" in this fashion ... the only way you can waste a vote, other than by not casting it at all.
To the latter: over 50% of the American people will waste their votes in this manner, as they remain unregistered to vote, and about 50% of those registered, give or take a few, will likewise fail to get themselves counted. Those who do not exercise their citizenship are doomed to be governed by their inferiors, so the saying goes, and have earned no right to complain.
-- I have seen some really interesting voting rationales by some 'friends' on Facebook. The most creative one recently was a woman who said she could not vote for Jill Stein in Texas because the GP "doesn't do party-building" between presidential elections (an atrociously misinformed statement coming from an otherwise bright but binary-thinking progressive Democrat). In the same paragraph she said she would vote for down-ballot Greens "to show support for having additional options". That's really something, isn't it? A Catch 22 that she puts herself into and takes herself out of at the same time. I suppose the Greens should be happy with whatever vote for them she can muster.
A rationale that a fearful or recalcitrant liberal might employ in deciding to vote for Hillary in a close county -- like Harris -- might be in order to help the Dems retake majority status, with the presiding judges in all precincts and at early voting locations. Note that this would have nothing to do with turning Texas blue, as it won't. Similarly, and as the anonymous person mentioned in the previous graf has indicated she will do, here's the best reason to vote for Jill Stein and the Green candidates running in Texas (there will be four or five dozen on the ballot throughout the state, not all of them on your ballot, because they're running for county offices and things like SBOE, which are multi-county in a specific region):
If Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka receive 5% of the national vote, the Green Party will qualify for general election public funding in 2020 that will be worth over $10 million dollars.
Securing 5% of the popular vote will also guarantee state ballot access lines for the next election cycle, saving the Green Party time and money that could be spent where (the GP) needs it most.
Charles Kuffner, as you might have guessed, is contemptuous. It is indeed going to be one giant leap for mankind if the Greens can pull it off, as someone on another celestial plane once said. With respect to those who would rather focus on a brand new Congress, I applaud the efforts of BernieDems, etc. in working to reform that party on the inside, but I spent the past ten years heavily involved in that effort, and you can see the fruits of that harvest came in spoiled rotten every single year. Been there, done that, just took the forty T-shirts I got for it to Goodwill.
I would sooner join al-Qaeda and try to reform it from within. A decade of my life spent demonstrating the definition of insanity is far too much. I'm going to do something different from now on. I'd be happy to have your help if you're so inclined.
