Make Your Vote Meaningful: Vote for the Candidate of Your Choice, but Vote!

Is there a candidate for president of the United States of America that you would choose to vote for in the coming election?


I have often thought that we should require elections in the USA to bring in more than half of the electorate for the results to be counted valid. Or that we should require a "None of the above Candidates" option on all issues and candidacies.

But we don't have one. Or do we?

Is a vote cast for a candidate that can't win a wasted vote?

I've been persuaded by such arguments in the past.

But it occurs to me now that the people making such arguments generally want to win, or want their candidate to win, even if it's against the will of the electorate. That's why they say such things. They can't get your vote if you vote for a candidate that can't win.

Think about this carefully.

If a candidate C or candidate T gets elected because forty percent of the voters were brainwashed by commercials into believing that candidate X, Y, and Z had no hope of winning the election, does the winning candidate actually have any sort of a mandate?

How about those hanging chads from four election cycles back? Statistically speaking, a difference of less than one percent of the popular vote is tantamount to a draw, and should be treated as such.

If you were one of those who voted for Bush because you couldn't vote against them all, were you glad that your chad didn't hang?
But more to the point, will it be any sort of comfort to know that you voted for the winning candidate in the coming election?

By they way, that's one of the theoretical purposes of the electoral college, really, to give the system a chance to sort that kind of non-mandate out in a way that doesn't pull the wheels of the system to a screaming halt.

But we can now re-run a national election now without risking running without an elected president. So that purpose is no longer a real purpose.

The true purpose of the electoral college was to try to prevent this sort of popularism in selecting the new government. But the guys who like to think they are in control have managed to pervert it with a variety of rules changes.

People who want to be president are, by their desire to be president, usually disqualified. You can especially be justified in guessing they are disqualifying themselves by their ambitions if they are spending ridiculous amounts of money on the campaign.

I'm getting side-tracked.

My sister mailed me an article from the Deseret News on a late entry 3rd party candidate.

I've read parts of what is saying, and he seems at least as reasonable choice as Gary What's-his-face. If he weren't a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, I'd probably even say more reasonable.

Actually, there are a lot of third-party candidates to choose from. Check one list of candidates here:
Or go over and look on Wikipedia:,_2016
So there is a way to vote against both Hillary and The Donald this November.

If you really can't support a third-party candidate, what then? (That anyone in their right mind could support Clinton or Trump is clearly impossible.)

Write a vote in. They'll tell you write-ins can't be counted and all sorts of other stuff that is half-true. But if write-ins can't even be counted, why is there a place for it on the ballot?

The point is, every vote against the winner is warning to the parties that think they are in control that they are not.

More along this line of reasoning on the site I mentioned above, here:
This is not about Clinton or Trump or any third party candidate. This is about telling the parties that think they are in control that the average American wants them to just quit.

Maybe none of the third party candidates can actually win.

Think of what would happen if the combined vote for third party candidates exceeds the vote for the winner. If ten percent of the vote were for write-ins and fifty percent were for various third-party candidates. If the combined total for Clinton and Trump couldn't even get over fifty percent of the vote.

That's what would tell the old guard the news:
Hey, you guys, wake up!
Parties over. Get out of the way.
Take your toys and go home. Let grown-ups run the country for a while, people who don't give a wooden nickel for any party line.
Oh. Here's how wikipedia describes the situation with write-in votes:
The official word on this is that the election commissions don't want to be bothered with write-ins. Uhm. No. Just kidding.

Write-ins have a serious problem. If you write my name in, how does anyone know which Joel Rees you mean? Even if you knew my middle name, there are probably more than one person with the same full name as me in the US.

So if you want to vote for someone with a chance of winning, you are discouraged from writing in a name. Except that many states in the US allow candidates who have not met the conditions for getting their names printed on the ballots to register as write-in candidates. This way, the election commission has an idea who is intended when registered write-in candidates are written in.

However, if you have ten thousand write-in candidates in your state, it's guaranteed that the election commission won't just throw that data away. Not if they don't want the state getting sued.

If a million voters in any state wrote my name in on their ballots, it's guaranteed that those states would have to do something besides ignore the vote.

Uhm, don't write me in.

If some wise guy suggests wasting tax money weeding out the invalid write-ins so they can keep their heads buried in the sand, there are various reasons I'd be declared invalid rather quickly.

For one thing, even though I am a natural born citizen and have been a resident of Texas more than twenty years total, and a resident of Utah at least eight years total, I have not been a resident of the US for the last fourteen years. I don't want to test the intent of the Constitution on that point.

Besides, you don't know me from a sock puppet.

Even if you write a vote in, write in the name of someone who you would be willing to support as president.

Which is the point.

Now is the time to declare you can't support a candidate. If a president is elected that you can't support, at least reserve to yourself the right to say you didn't vote for him.

Or to say that he or she deceived you.

Don't just vote, make your vote meaningful.

[Ranted a bit more about the meaning of voting here:

JMR20161028: Expanded a bit more on it here:]

Popular Posts