Voting By The Numbers

I've been having an ongoing verbal argument with a friend for several years about voting. He thinks that not voting or voting for a third party candidate (i.e. NOT a Republican) is the same as voting for the Democrat. I realize it's not election season but we were talking about this again the other day and I finally had to put it all down in writing. Thanks to Vox for providing the math lesson on this one, I've adapted his examples.

Submitted for your amusement, here is the email I sent to my friend:

I just wanted to clear this up, we've talked about it off and on for a long time but I wanted this in print so you can see it.

Candidate A is a Democrat
Candidate B is a Republican
Candidate C is a third party candidate.

Candidate A has 99 votes
Candidate B has 99 votes.

The next voter votes for Candidate C.

How many votes does Candidate A have?

1) 100
2) 99
3) 5

Let's put it this another way:

I live in a small town with 101 people.
50 people vote for the Democrat
50 people vote for the Republican
I decline to vote. Who wins? Did I vote for the Democrat by not voting as you contend? Please explain.

Same small town scenario with 100 people.
50 people vote Democrat
49 people vote Republican
I decline to vote or write in some other candidate. The Dem wins but did I vote for the Democrat by not voting? Please explain.

Not voting for one party is not a vote for another party. The math doesn't work that way. If I find the Candidate A and Candidate B both so abhorrent that I cannot ENDORSE, VOTE, SUPPORT, GET BEHIND, CHOOSE, SUGGEST, or RECOMMEND how is not voting for either of those choices a vote for the person who is furthest from my views? It does not give them an extra vote as the examples above demonstrate. Not voting for someone means not voting for someone. Why is this so hard to understand? You're supposed to be much better at math than me, remember?

When you VOTE for someone, you are making a pronouncement that you want that person representing you. I didn't want McCain or Obama representing me. I didn't want Schwarzenegger or Bustamante representing me either. I knew one of them was going to win but it's absolutely impossible that by NOT voting for McCain and Schwarzenegger that I voted for Obama and Bustamante. They received NO extra votes because they didn't get mine. 1+1= 2. By your logic, 1+0 =2 because if the Republican didn't get that extra vote, then my non-vote goes to the Democrat which would be 1+0=2.

I got so tired of hearing... "But a third party person won't win!" Ron Paul is a Republican. Tom McClintock is a Republican. They aren't third party candidates. What bothers me most is the people saying that people like McClintock and Paul are spoilers when really, they are the ones upholding the ideals of liberty and conservative government. You voted for McCain and you voted for Schwarzenegger TWICE! You voted for that NON Republican TWICE! That means you gave your consent to be governed by a non-Republican, gay marriage, pro abortion, anti-gun, big government supporter who just so happens to have aligned himself with the Republican party just because he's a member of the Republican party. It can almost be excused that you voted for him the first time, but the state was already in chaos when you voted for him the second time yet you SUPPORTED him again knowing he was doing further damage to this state. Why would you do that?

Why would you vote for McCain who admitted he doesn't even really understand economics to represent you as the leader of the country in a time of economic trouble? Sure, he could surround himself with advisors who know economics, but how would he choose them if he doesn't understand it enough to begin with. He voted for the bailout. I don't care if he regretted it later, he voted for it as a United States Senator. SHAME ON HIM. Had I been supporting him up to that point, I would have withdrawn my support right there because it's clear he doesn't understand economics OR the Constitution of the United States of America which he is already sworn to uphold. Clearly he's a failure at his sworn duty, why would you vote for him for president? Because Obama is worse? How much worse and in what way? No doubt Obama is out to destroy this country but he didn't get my vote. I didn't support him. I didn't walk in to a voting booth and cast a ballot in favor of him. In the California and Federal elections, I voted for the person who I could actually support the policies of. I voted my principles. I voted my conscience. I voted for what I believed was right. Furthermore, both Ron Paul and Tom McClintock are committed, demonstrable Christians. Schwarzenegger clearly is no such thing and McCain seems to take a stab at it but I haven't seen much evidence of a deep, abiding faith.

You continually tell me I'm STUPID for voting the way I do yet I was right about Schwarzeneggar and I know I would have been right about McCain. The things Ron Paul was saying in the primaries are now coming to pass but no one wanted to listen to him because they didn't want to believe him. They wanted to (as you always say) BELIEVE THE BIGGER LIE. That's what you did by voting for McCain and Schwarzenegger (twice). You believed the bigger lie that somehow they could turn things around. Our governor has certainly made things worse.

I haven't even talked about you voting for George Bush twice. He was never a conservative. He hardly ever did one thing in office that is in line with conservative values. He could have done a lot more against abortion than he did. He could have used the bull pulpit. He could have done more for gun rights (he supported a continuation of the "assault weapons ban") and he approved budgets that were the largest non-military domestic expenditures this country has ever seen! Other than his initial reaction to 9/11, I can't say there are too many things that Bush did that I ever agreed with. I voted for him the first time; that was my mistake. I did not vote for him the second time. I saw my error.

In short, I cannot and will not give my support through voting to people who are bent on destroying this country through bad economic policy and stripping away our liberties by interfering more and more in our lives every day, growing government to outrageous levels and making us and future generations pay for it by continually loading us with more and more debt. If you want to continue to think that my lack of support for Republican candidates who do those things is a vote for the Democrats who do it more then there is nothing I can do to prevent that, but whatever you decide to think, it would be dishonest of you to continue to say that I really haven't thought it through and I don't know what I'm talking about. You can continue to disagree with me on this subject but you aren't going to change my mind, you can't change the rules of math and you can't change the fact that both parties are running us down the road to destruction.

Big Companies Are Not Capitalist

Need proof? Look at what the CEO of GM just said. Click here.

They WANT government protection for their businesses, not the freedom to succeed or fail on their own. Capitalist? I don't think so. The proper term would be corporate statism.

Federalist #6

Quite some time ago (starting nearly 4 years ago I'm ashamed to say) I started a chapter by chapter summary of the Federalist Papers. It got away from me and I stopped after #5. And now I continue but you may want to read the first 5. I think this is a good time to start again. This is to remind people of the principles this country was founded on even if some of them were a bit flawed. Certainly there can be no perfect system of government in this world but what America has produced has been the best so far.

Federalist #1
Federalist #2
Federalist #3
Federalist #4
Federalist #5

Author - Hamilton

"To look for a continuation of harmony between a number of independent, unconnected sovereignties in the same neighborhood, would be to disregard the uniform course of human events, and to set at defiance teh accumulated experience of ages."

I don't doubt at all that Canada and Mexico would be at war with us on occasion if the United States weren't so much more powerful than both of them. If the South had succeeded in breaking from the Union (as it should have been allowed to to d0) there might have been occasional wars there too. It's hard for us to see the history of Europe and them of it as a continent in conflict which it has been for most of its history. Now we only see it in light of current events with the EU and the Euro currency and France, Germany and England acting as if they've really just been like brothers punching each other in the arm rather than bitter enemies at constant war.

The unfortunate part of Hamilton's statement is that it takes government to for a cohesive union and government has an insatiable appetite for growth and power.

"The genius of republics (say they) is pacific; the spirit of commerce has a tendency to soften the manners of men, ad to extinguish those inflammable humors which have so often kindled in to war."

Wouldn't that be nice? But it just isn't so. Men are sinners and subject to the same jealousies, and bad behavior as everyone else in any other kind of government. While it's true that a strong Republic is less likely to be manipulated and used to satisfy the blood lust of any particular group of men, we've seen that it's certainly possible. In fairness, Hamilton was making a point about what other man say the genius of a republic is and doesn't particularly agree with it. He goes on to point out that not every nation is perusing benevolent ends for it's people and so conflict will arise.

Please bear in mind that when he's speaking here of having several unions instead of one united republic, there were still only the 13 states and the outlying territories not yet created as states going out to about the Mississippi river. I'll leave it to your imagination to decide whether it would have been best to have our current union split in to several nations as states were added on.

"Let the point of extreme depression to which our national dignity and credit have sunk, let the inconveniences felt everywhere from a lax and ill administration of government, let the revolt of part of the State of North Carolina, the late menacing disturbances in Pennsylvania, and the actual insurrections and rebellions in Massachusetts, declare------!"

That doesn't sound entirely unlike what we have going today though we've yet to face any insurrection. I think we're on the verge of serious civil unrest.

An Annoying Thing About Mexico

Maybe lots of annoying things come to your mind and I'm sure this is minor in comparison but I'm going to tell you about it anyway.

It seems that just about every parking lot has a parking lot attendant, especially places like the grocery stores, and other places where a large number of people might be shopping at one time. What I can't get used to is they way these guys will step in to the path of your car as you're backing up to guide you out. It creeps me out every time. I don't want someone behind me to help me back up; I do a fine job on my own. The laws of motion in Mexico are no different than the United States and with rare exception, I don't need help backing up there. (Exeptions: Driving large moving trucks, towing a trailer, etc.)

I don't really mind that they insist on rushing over to help put bags in the car even if it's only a few, I just hate it when they get behind me while I'm backing out.

And, in case you hadn't guessed, they work for tips.

Lies, Lies, and More Lies

As if the government doesn't lie enough, now comes the news that our own government has been been telling a real whopper about the number of guns flowing from the US in to Mexico.

The lie that's being perpetuated by people like Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi is that 90% of the illegal arms in Mexico come from the U.S.

It turns out the figure is closer to 17%. They came up with the 90% figure because Mexico sends lists of serial numbers of guns it recovers to the U.S. for tracing. 90% of the serial numbers we trace for them come from guns that originated in the U.S. however most of the weapons they recover have no serial numbers so they don't send them to us for tracing so they don't make it in to our statistical pool.

Clinton recently went to Mexico spouting that number and blaming the U.S. for some of the violence in Mexico based on this figure. I wonder if she'll amend her statement now that this new figure has come to light? She also promised to do more about the illegal flow of arms to Mexico.

To me, it seems like it's not really that bad. It's not an insignificant problem, but how many millions or billions are we going to spend on "prevention" to try to slow down something that is so easily transportable in vehicles crossing the border. Seriously, it wouldn't be that hard. Vehicles come under very little scrutiny going from the U.S. to Mexico. Sure, they pull over some random cars for thorough checks but still, it wouldn't be that hard.

The sad part is, Clinton, Pelosi and the Justice Department will probably continue to use the 90% figure despite the fact that it's been proven false.