Voting Starts Today
Doesn't time fly when you're having fun? The Sacramento Bee informs us that today is the first day you can vote, assuming you care to, in the February 5 primary election. You'll have to go to the local Registrar of Voters' office, though, if you want to go ahead and get this over with.
If you're an absentee voter, you should see your ballot in the mail within the next week or so.
There's seven statewide ballot initiatives up for a vote, none of which seem all that exciting except maybe the term limits initiative. According to the Smartvoter web page, that's about all that will be on this ballot. Nothing local appears on mine.
I guess I should start taking a closer look at the Libertarian Party presidential candidates and see if there's any I want to vote for.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 8:32 AM
10 comments
10 Comments:
I vote absentee, although I have not receive my ballot.
I thought you were supporting Ron Paul, Fred?
I am, but Ron Paul isn't on the ballot as a Libertarian Party candidate, at least not yet. He may never be.
To some extent many of these primaries are fairly meaningless since the eventual presidential candidate isn't really chosen by primary vote totals but at the various party conventions and/ or caucuses.
But I might vote, anyway, despite having no particular strong preferences over any of the LP candidates.
Just register republican Fred,and switch back if you'd want you.I had to take the dive in order to vote for my preferred candidate.
What is your gut feeling Fred, would Ron Paul accept the invite to run as a Libertarian? Would the party want him?
Do you think he stands a better chance running as an independent?
-boy
He doesn't stand a chance period.
Esquan wrote, "Just register republican Fred,and switch back if you'd want you.".
I thought about doing that but decided not to bother. Don't have any problem with people that do, though.
Boy wrote, "Do you think he stands a better chance running as an independent?".
I think most libertarians would love to have him run as an LPer, but that doesn't mean anything.
I've said before I think he'd do best to run as an independent to avoid picking up any of the baggage the LP or any other third parties might carry with them. Then I suddenly realized he'd have to make a big effort on ballot access if he ran as an independent.
As an independent, he'd have to spend the big bucks to qualify himself for the ballot in as many states as possible. He'd start out qualified in zero states as an independent, I believe.
He's got the money to do that now but I think he might lose a lot of momentum in going through all the signature gathering just to get on the ballot.
The Libertarian Party beats pretty much any other third party as far as already being on the ballot in the most states. The exact number of states escapes me now, but we have ballot access in the most states.
So, it would make sense to try to get the LP nomination, except then he'd carry the Libertarian Party label and there would probably be a number of people who wouldn't vote for him as an LP candidate although they would have as a Republican [or even Constitution Party candidate].
If he went for the Constitution Party nomination, he'd still have ballot access problems, and there'd be people who wouldn't vote for him because of his Constitution Party ties.
If he could just magically run as an independent, with full ballot access in all fifty states, he could do his best. I don't know that he'll do too well in any sort of third party/ independent type campaign as it stands now.
Then again, what do I know?
Fred,he'd collect more signatures and get onto more ballots than you'd think.He'd be the only anti-war candidate in the field come early summer,with the Dems kicking out Kucinich.Just the anti-war movement coffers could provide necessary fiances,not to mention the supporters he's got right now.He's pulled off some amazing fundraising feats,much coming from new voters who'd support him.
And Fred,there is a Ron Paul meetup tomorrow night at Chapala's at 7pm.I received an e-mail the other day.Have other obligations,so I can't make it.
Esquan wrote,"he'd collect more signatures and get onto more ballots than you'd think".
I think he'd do very well with ballot access, but so much time and effort would be spent on that, I don't know that there'd be much left for a strong as campaign as he's been running now.
"He'd be the only anti-war candidate in the field come early summer,with the Dems kicking out Kucinich".
You forget, though, there are left wing third parties, too. The true anti- war voters from the left might well go for a Green, or some other party's candidate, although there might be some effort by the Moveon.org types to fund Paul as a way of helping beat whoever the Republican candidate is. IOW, give Paul money to siphon votes from the Republican and thus help the Democrat win.
I think you'll find most supposed anti- war candidates from the left will end up backing the Democrat regardless of the issue of war vs. peace. You see most of them here on the blogs already supporting Edwards.
Many of those claiming third party loyalty now, will jump ship when it gets down to the bottom line and vote for the Democrat (or Republican), just so the "THEY" don't win. Happens all the time.
In fact, if the most common reason I've heard over the years for voting for one side over the other is so "They don't win. Boy, I know my candidate sucks but...you don't want THEM to win, do you?..".
It's become the universal reason for voting, or so it seems.
Mresquan is a republican???
Mark, Barack Obama is anti-war, too.
Carol,I'm pretty confident that he's taking California regardless of what my vote would be in that race,so its more important for me to support Paul and honor his anti-war stance and integrity.Obama has voted to increase funding the war in the past,and I'm not too comfortable with some of his rhetoric towards Pakistan.I've explained other reasons why I'll vote for Paul on Eric's blog,and I've gotta get out of here in a minute.
Post a Comment
<< Home