Vox Popoli: Endorsements

All right, now that we've seen the very entertaining justifications presented by the cognitively challenged Obama voters, let's see if the Dread Ilk can do any better. For whom are you voting next week and why? Alternatively, if you are not voting, what is your justification for your decision.

Stow the reactions to anyone else's endorsement or reasoning, limit your comments to your own intended actions. I'll highlight what I consider to be some of the best and worst of them in a post tomorrow, and present my own endorsement for the presidential election.

On a tangential note, I found this to be easily the most interesting out of the 150+ endorsements there:

I have been undecided for a very, very long time. But I think this thread is what finally made up my mind – after reading how many people want Obama because they believe he won’t try to prevent Iran from going nuclear. I’m endorsing Romney even though I’m angered by a lot of the nonsense that comes out of the Republican Party, and even though I agree with Obama on most things, especially health care and immigration reform.

Why? Because my grandmother is a Holocaust survivor, and the slaughter of her entire family was enabled, in part, by a policy of wishful-thinking appeasement that thought any sacrifice was acceptable to avoid war, and that the leader talking publicly about killing all the Jews couldn’t possibly mean it seriously.

After World War II, as a 16-year-old without a single living person in the world who knew her name, my grandmother moved to Israel, the only country that would take her. Israel is where most of my relatives live now. And much as I would love to, I can’t vote for the candidate who seems likely to follow a policy of wishful-thinking appeasement while Iran works on its nuclear arsenal and talks publicly about wiping Israel’s six million Jews off the map.

Translation: Obama has lost the Jews. Their concern for Israel is trumping their domestic left-liberal concerns. If those who "agree with Obama on most things" are now voting for Romney due to his tough talk on Iran, Obama is one and done.

Labels: politics

230 Comments:

trk October 31, 2012 6:39 AM: Romney...b/c he has executive style hair this country desperately needs
JazzyB October 31, 2012 6:45 AM: I am not a US citizen,hence can't vote. But had I been voting, I would have voted for Romney. Reason: Republican presidents always had a better relationship with my country. Recent democratic presidents were more popular (like the rest of the world) and they had always talked very nice when them came to my country. But whatever they actually did, they did against their words and our interests. Republican presidents did not come to us just to talk. They always meant business, not just words. Which is what I would like the most powerful president in the world to do.
Steve Canyon October 31, 2012 6:48 AM: Not voting, pretty much because neither candidate is even close to promising to do what is needed to save it. Stabilize the currency, end meddling in other countries civil disputes, and focus on the preservation of the middle class by reducing bureaucratic hurdles for entrepreneurship and the tax burden a bloated, confusing bureaucracy imposes upon them.

Empty rhetoric and maintaining the status quo, why would I vote in favor of that?
Rantor October 31, 2012 6:50 AM: While I don't want four more years of Obama, I understand that Romney is just another big government progressive Republican. (I am finally accepting that Conservatives are the actual RINOs) Being an ex-Mormon, Conservative Christian, I can vote for neither.

I will vote straight R on the rest of the ballot as the local candidates are much better than the Dems in office.

I will vote against all local laws which expand government or seek additional debt (School bonds and the like)
Steve Canyon October 31, 2012 6:51 AM: er, needed to save the country....
Pete October 31, 2012 6:52 AM: Like Vox, I don't live in the US so the point is moot. I agree with the bi-factional ruling party concept and dislike Romney, but would vote for him as the least worst option.
VryeDenker October 31, 2012 6:57 AM: Were I a US citizen, I'd vote for Romney, because everything else being identical between him and Obama, Romney at least is much less likely to physically bow to the leaders of other countries. He also seems more capable of actually talking tough, which might make places like Iran think twice about pulling any stupid sh!t. Probably.
Judge October 31, 2012 7:02 AM: I am endorsing Romney because he is the only chance to save the republic from the impending maelstrom of...

Just kidding. I am voting for Romney because it will be fun to revel in the misery of the sanctimonious messiah worshippers and see the MSNBC crew put on suicide watch. As a libertarian I'm willing to sell my soul to say - at least once in my life - I voted for the guy who became president.
Koanic October 31, 2012 7:06 AM: Not voting, because the Vegas levers give better odds.
daddynichol October 31, 2012 7:06 AM: Write in "Ron Paul", or "None of the Above".
TontoBubbaGoldstein October 31, 2012 7:07 AM: Gary Johnson.

I'm a libertarian. He's running for the Libertarian Party.

I'll be at the polls anyway to vote on local stuff. I live in a small town, so it won't take long.

Did not vote last go round, as I lived in the city and the lines were really long!
My state (SC), reliably goes RINO er...GOP, so my vote in the Presidential election means nada. Other than 2008, I have voted Libertarian in every Presidential election since 1984.
If I were under :the delusion :that my vote made any difference...I honestly don't know whether I would vote tor Romney or Obama. Romney talks a better game...but a second Obama term offers the hope of gridlock qnd a weak, unmotivated executive [FORE!!]. Also, bad things are coming and I would rather the acknowledged liberal get the blame....
Bohm October 31, 2012 7:09 AM: Personally, If I were a Yank, I would vote Obama, just to savour the spluttering piniculations of the far right fringe -even though that might drastically increase the likelihood of a successful assassination attempt (unlikely as that is).

As for Israel, if any body can pinpoint an actual, tangible policy shift that distinguishes Obama from previous administrations I would be interested. Otherwise, it seems to me that it has been business as usual, aside form a certain personal coolness between O and Netanyahu, which, frankly, is understandable, since N. is absolute cunt.
DrTorch October 31, 2012 7:12 AM: I had four options at president: D, R, Libertarian and Green. I endorse Gary Johnson. He's reasonbly proven that he's for small(er) gov't. Although, I'm not impressed w/ his position on social issues, it's important to support minor party candidates. That's the only way they'll get additional attention. I'm also in a state that is very lopsided in how it will go in this election, so my small vote won't impact much.

I also endorse Sobhani, an independent for the open senate seat. Seat is currently held by lock-step D, who helps MD by raping the rest of the country. The R who's challenging him has had lots of good blog press, but dig down and you see he supports high immigration as long as it's "legal". Sobhani doesn't have a great platform, but has some small legit gov't function ideas that should bring a positive ROI. And that puts him well ahead of the D and R. The L candidate is from Palestein, so I reserve the right to be skeptical of his broader motives.

Several state and local measures, I researched them on the C4L site and found no discussion. As best I could tell, they were just designed to add more bureaucracy, support credentialism and further marginalize the average citizen. I vote against most.

I vote against legalizing casino gambling, despite bringing "40,000" jobs to our area and "hundreds of millions of dollars" for the schools. (They couldn't say that if it wasn't true, right?)

I vote against gay marriage in our state.

I vote against the Dream Act. Current ad campaign is that "It's only _fair_" b/c they pay taxes and worked hard to get a MD HS diploma. So now it's fair to reward criminal behavior? I guess we'll be getting SS benefits to the surviving family members of drug dealers. It's only fair.
Cinco October 31, 2012 7:20 AM: Not voting so that one day I can look my children in the eyes and tell them that I never supported any of it!

And no, I am 31 years old and have never voted.
HongKongCharlie October 31, 2012 7:23 AM: Hold my nose and vote for Romney.

So far no one has mentioned the danger to the Constitution and the erosion to the freedom we have lost under Obama. Personally he is a weak excuse for a man. Politically he's a danger to the country.

HKC
Stilicho October 31, 2012 7:24 AM: I do not want thieves in that role.
I do not want them on the dole.
I do not like their endless scam.
I do not like the Hair or 'Bam.

I will not vote for pointless war.
I will not vote for for spending more.
I will not vote, I do not care.
I will not vote for that ugly pair.

Perhaps I'll vote for Mr. Paul.
Maybe that would show them all.
Betimes I do not give a damn,
But I will not vote for the Hair or 'Bam.
p-dawg October 31, 2012 7:29 AM: I don't vote. Here is why: It's Hobson's Choice, disguised. No matter who you vote for, you get the exact same game plan. Since I am going to receive the same outcome no matter my vote, I prefer not to contribute to the appearance of legitimacy of the voting process.
jay c October 31, 2012 7:31 AM: Obama, cuz he's done such a great job considering what he started with!

Just kidding.

Gary Johnson. I strongly disapprove of a couple of his stances, but he's closer to my ideals than any other candidate than possibly Virgil Goode. If it was a close race between those two I'd probably vote for Goode.

Johnson is still a better pick than just about any pres of the last century.
Roundtine October 31, 2012 7:34 AM: You aren't truly free until you stop voting.

When I tell people I don't vote they may boo me, but when I look at my gold, I clap.
Wagnerian October 31, 2012 7:36 AM: I had sixteen choices on the ballot in Colorado, a deteriorating "swing" state.

Although he was not my first choice (RP didn't appear), I marked Gary Johnson. His views most closely approximated mine, but I also want the Libertarians to get 5% of the vote so that if there is a next election, the Libertarian party can appear in what are popularly and erroneously called debates. That additional factor would transform the circus.
Remir October 31, 2012 7:38 AM: Chuck Baldwin.

For literally every political position listed on his Wikipedia page, I either agree, don't have an opinion, or don't care.
TLM October 31, 2012 7:39 AM: There is no choice, but voting for Romney, in my eyes, is giving justification to those goofy Mormon freaks on their bikes wearing their "don't bang your head" retard helmets from the 70's. Timmmay!
hood October 31, 2012 7:40 AM: I'm surprised at how many non US citizens follow this blog.

I will write in Dr. Paul, even Gary Johnson is weak on the issues of ending the war(s) and entitlements. IMO the two biggest issues that need to be addressed.
Peter Hartman October 31, 2012 7:49 AM: The only reason that I am voting for Romney is SCOTUS. If Obama gets to replace one or more conservative justices over the next four years, it will never matter who is POTUS in the future.
WarriorClass III October 31, 2012 7:51 AM: I worked in the Republican Primary and became a delegate to the state convention for Ron Paul. I had always suspected the Republican party was bad, but now I saw it myself - there are no underlying principles, only Party victory mattered. This was why I had voted previously for Chuck Baldwin when McCain had the Republican nomination. This time I did everything I could do to make sure we didn't get another McCain (Romney) nominated, but found that this was not possible. The Republican apparatus would never allow a Ron Paul nomination. There is no way I could ever vote for Romney, so I probably will not vote at all. If I do, it will be for Gary Johnson and I just can't get any enthusiasm for him either. The local elections are already sown up, so my vote really makes no difference at all.

I suspect we will soon see something in this country we haven't seen in over 100 years - civil war vets. When I consider the history of the American "Civil War" I am reminded there were no "civilians" in the South. The Federal Troops killed everyone, women, children, the infirm, slaves, anyone who got in their way. So don't think you will be able to sit this one out either.

Get ready.
RTP October 31, 2012 7:53 AM: Romney. He's a more effective executive. While I don't neccessarily trust his rhetoric and sincerely believe him to be only shades different than Obama (for example, Obamacare ain't going anywhere), I cannot stand a president who votes "present" when American lives were at risk. Lack of direction in foreign policy when we're at war costs American lives. Either in or out. Have the balls to take a stand or have the executive experience to gather a consensus. The nation is sliding down a slope. I get it. No reason for American citizens and those citizens serving as troops to die because of a whipped mama's boy.
Led Zeppo October 31, 2012 7:53 AM: "I’m endorsing Romney even though I’m angered by a lot of the nonsense that comes out of the Republican Party... Why? Because my grandmother is a Holocaust survivor... ...Israel is where most of my relatives live now."

And all of this has exactly WHAT to do with America, or the interests of the American people? Oh, that's right, your vote has to do with controlling America so that it acts in the interests of a foreign people rather than in its own interests.

You're not voting for Romney. You don't care squat about Romney, or about America.

You're voting for Israel.
p-dawg October 31, 2012 7:54 AM: @Peter It doesn't matter now. Why should the future be any different?
Positive Dennis October 31, 2012 7:58 AM: Here is what I said on my blog: "but it really does not matter who wins as we all will lose either way—we just lose in different ways depending on who is elected." I compared the election to professional wrestling. http://www.prophecypodcast.com/
Eric Mueller October 31, 2012 7:59 AM: I'm sitting out this year. I'm registered in New Jersey but work in Virginia. I got lazy and didn't register to vote in VA, and forget to request an absentee ballot from NJ in time. I don't feel guilty. It will go to one of the two members of the bi-factional ruling party. I don't care which one gets in. Nothing of substance will change. The only change will be the tone of the networks and lapdogs.
wordwarrior October 31, 2012 8:01 AM: I cannot support Obama or Romney. Neither candidate supports the constitution of the US, nor the freedoms, rights and responsibilities it guarantees. If liberty and freedom of conscience means nothing to them, then the candidates mean nothing to me. They are enemies of the State and should be removed from public office and the public eye.
Just A Little Reminder October 31, 2012 8:02 AM: Stow the reactions to anyone else's endorsement or reasoning, limit your comments to your own intended actions.
aero October 31, 2012 8:03 AM: Let me clarify whom I am not voting for.

I am a racist homophobic capitalistic conservative that has no use for the progressive, socialist, communistic systems and the lazy people that follow and endorse these systems and life style.

Because of the election laws and the bias of the news media we only have two candidates that have any chance of winning. The case of the lesser of two evils it should be clear to you whom I am not voting for.
AlteredFate October 31, 2012 8:04 AM: Voting is an absolute waste of time. When you read and listen to what Americans think on almost any subject, social or political, you must conclude that prosperity has indeed bred contempt. Contempt for reality.

When voting is not limited to the productive male nationalists of a country, those who in the end fight the wars and start the revolutions, then the fate of a nation like the US is already decided.

Those who came before us who were either bereft of an ability to use logic and reason or hostile usurpers doomed us to this path and there is no point where anyone, least of all a single voter in an illegitimate election with illegitimate candidates, can change the path of the country. It must run its course or be stopped short by Armageddon.
Ulmer Miller October 31, 2012 8:05 AM: In my state, there are only two choices: Republican or Democrat. Third party nominees are not allowed. Write-ins aren't allowed either and if you leave the President bracket blank, your ballot is voided completely so I'll be stayin' home this time. Baulk the Vote 2012!!!
Chad Gibbons October 31, 2012 8:05 AM: I'm voting for Gary Johnson. His are the views most closely aligned to my own and his ideology will be the best for this country. Of course, Gary Johnson will not win. This is of no matter to me. My vote is too important to throw away on either Romney or Obama. Our votes do more than just decide who will win (they don't even do that). Our votes tell us what we will and won't accept, and I don't accept either candidate that the GOP and DNC have put forward. Not by a long shot.
gettimothy October 31, 2012 8:08 AM: Romney.

Because I hate Obama and the left. My attention will then turn to dis-inter-mediating Codevilla's Ruling Class (to which Romney and most Republicans belong).
Rob October 31, 2012 8:09 AM: I am voting for Romney because he is white.
RedJack October 31, 2012 8:13 AM: Mitt, for two reasons

1. I wanted to vote on the down ticket items, and leaving the presidental circles empty can get you ballot tossed.
2. It makes my inlaws nuts.

#2 is the main reason I didn't vote for a 3rd party. Childish I know, but still fun.
Rally October 31, 2012 8:13 AM: Bill the Cat and Opus. Because a pair of comic strip characters will do much less damage to this country. And hopefully I can find the t shirt saying "don't blame me I voted for Bill and Opus". Had one in the 80's, though it's long gone now.
Crude October 31, 2012 8:13 AM: I'm not voting, but I'd like for Romney to win. I have little faith in his policies, but I imagine he'd be a marginal improvement over Obama. He has Pat Buchanan's endorsement, who I admire more than any other ex-politician in the country.

But most of all, I like his character. He is the model conservative with his charitable giving. 10-15%? Granted, he's a millionaire. But when conservatives talk about how charity should be a private endeavor, they should look to guys like Romney as the example. He actually seems closer to conservative ideals, in terms of how he lives his life, than most Republican/conservative politicians.
TontoBubbaGoldstein October 31, 2012 8:15 AM: Gary Johnson.

Yes, I know I've already "voted", but I'm a Ron Paul guy and spamming online polls Is. What. We. Do.
Fatso McGraw October 31, 2012 8:17 AM: I live in WI, which apparently is actually up for grabs this time. I will be writing in Rand Paul (not Ron). Rand holds positions on The Patriot Act, the Fed, and foreign policy that align with mine. Unlike his father Ron, Rand I think does have a future simply by virtue of his youth.

I despise Obama and everything he stands for. He's a pathetic dweeb who's been coddled and congratulated his whole life simply for getting out of bed in the morning. I believe that Romney is a better person. But so what. I don't want to have my hands stained with that disaster, as fun as it would temporarily be on election night to see the MSNBC crowd crying and being able to say "I helped with that." Too much long term damage for a little temporary joy.
Miguel D'Anconia October 31, 2012 8:21 AM: I won't be voting for any federal offices this election. Because the complete disregard shown to the Consitution and voter sentiment by the TARP, bailout, obamacare, Patriot Act, wars, etc. I consider the US government to be illegitimate. Also, voting for the lesser of 2 evils is still voting for evil. My consience won't allow me to support evil.
VryeDenker October 31, 2012 8:24 AM: Why not Zoidberg?
Procol Harumph October 31, 2012 8:26 AM: "In my state, there are only two choices: Republican or Democrat. Third party nominees are not allowed. Write-ins aren't allowed either and if you leave the President bracket blank, your ballot is voided completely"

Is this really true, or are you being satirical? If it's true, then which state, if you don't mind my asking? I've never heard of such things, and I can't imagine how they'd possibly survive a serious legal challenge.
stg58 October 31, 2012 8:28 AM: I will be voting for neither candidate for President.

I am one of the founders of Oath Keepers, and I currently serve on the Board of Directors. Voting for either Romney or Obama would be an unacceptable compromise to the oath I swore twice to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Both candidates have engaged in explicitly anti-constitutional acts, statements and legislation, and therefore are unworthy of my vote. Exhorting current serving Americans to keep their oaths and then casting a vote for either one of those clowns would be hypocritical to the extreme, and a betrayal of my principles.

If you vote for an oath breaker, you become one yourself.
Kyle In Japan October 31, 2012 8:31 AM: Not going to vote because, currently being on the other side of the world (guess where), it's far too inconvenient. However, if I was stateside, I'd vote for Ron Paul or Chuck Baldwin, because they seem like the only guys who have a clue.
TontoBubbaGoldstein October 31, 2012 8:31 AM: Oh....was talking with an older Republican member of my family the other day. He was urging me to vote for Romney because he would "do what it takes" --- massively cutting entitlements and slashing the size of the Fedgov, cracking down on illegal immigration, repealing Obamacare etc.
I of course pointed out that Romney, himself doesn't even claim he will try to accomplish this, plus Republicans dismal record of keeping conservative promises. ("No nation building....", Read my lips...." etc.)
His response: " Of course, he can't say he'll do these things and get elected.

And *they* say Obama supporters are delusional.....
.
Salt October 31, 2012 8:32 AM: Not voting. Have not voted since early 90s. Once the red pill took effect I realized voting has been a sham for a long time.

One Congressman especially got my attention in this regard. That was James "beam me up" Trafficant, a democrat no less. He played the game but also often spoke the truth. He rocked the Party boat. They got rid of him for doing less than many get away with.
Clint October 31, 2012 8:32 AM: I am not voting. First, none of the available candidates are worthy of a vote (I am sure there are some fine write in candidates, since there dozens available, but most are just vanity candidates, and I don't feel like wasting my time).

Second, I have not intention of validating a process that gives me such pitiful choices. I will again vote when there is someone worthy of a vote and/or if they ever give me the option of voting for secession.
Kentucky Packrat October 31, 2012 8:34 AM: Milady and I are horribly conflicted on the presidential race, because both candidates are cheerfully willing to push the petal down and drive the bus straight over the debt cliff. Even the third parties hold no sway for me (I voted Libertarian last time, I think; I have no love for Johnson this time). I am tempted to vote for Obama, since he will let the festering wreck die faster than Romney would.

The worst election though is Chandler versus Barr in the 6th Congressional District in Kentucky. Chandler can't run on his recent record, because the main use of a minority party in the House is to obstruct the majority party. Plus, Kentucky Democrats are more conservative in general than a lot of national Republicans; running on Obama's coattails is insane. OTOH, Barr is an airhead and Fletcher flunkie who has no business being dog catcher, much less a representative. Therefore, both started slinging mud early and often, to the point now where they have nothing negative left to say about each other....

Milady threatened to run as a write-in candidate against them, with one plank: if I win, I will get a bill passed to have them both horsewhipped. I told her that if she'd run, I'd find the money, even if I had to sell body parts.... :)

I'm not sure that the banning of dueling was such a good idea. At least then gentlemen who acted that way could be legally threatened with death for acting like a boor. The only problem with a Chandler/Barr duel is that one of them might survive....
Hermit October 31, 2012 8:35 AM: I wrote in Cthulhu (why vote for the lesser evil...), then promptly lost my ballot. If I happen to find it, and happen to be near the ballot drop-off, I might be bothered to turn it in. I think I've voted only once, and that was for Chuck Baldwin last time around.
ridip October 31, 2012 8:36 AM: My wife and I will not be voting. Choosing between a bankster's lackey and a bankster is no choice at all. With respect to the economy Obama might do slightly less damage but I'm not even convinced of that due to his searing ignorance. Taking the economy off the table I still could no sooner vote for a Mormon president or the continuation and further expansion of Bush's foreign policies under Obama.

Disentangle us from foreign entanglements; extract us from the grasp of the bankers and corporations; and reduce the size of government, then I'll consider voting for you. Otherwise, I'm done with play the charade.

"Game over, MAN!"
Rollory October 31, 2012 8:43 AM: Not voting. On every policy of substance, Romney is no improvement.

Obamacare: Romney was the inspiration. I will believe that he will repeal it when I see it actually happen.

Immigration: Romney is for it.

Banker misbehavior: Romney is part of that crowd.

Finance: Romney has not said or done anything to indicate any serious approach to the national debt or the ongoing deficits.

Foreign policy: Romney's counter to Obama is that Obama hasn't been interventionist enough; Romney wants to start a war in Syria.

As a marker of societal health, homosexuality in the military and in public life: Romney has made it clear he will not oppose it.

People vote for Romney as a symbol of either a vague "other guy" or strictly partisan "go team red", not because he actually represents anything good.
Procol Harumph October 31, 2012 8:46 AM: I'm voting for Romney even though I dislike him and dislike Obama more. I have three basic reasons:

1. Although they don't differ substantially, Romney, unlike Obama (and I mean REALLY unlike Obama) at least has a practical understanding of what money actually is, what it does, where it comes from and where it goes. I'm not convinced he'll use that knowledge to actually improve anything, but still, it's slightly comforting to recall that at least he doesn't think money is magical, as Obama clearly does.

2. On foreign policy Obama is slightly more sane in that he is willing to hold Israel ever-so-slightly at arm's length and seems less likely to embroil us in an insane and insupportible war against Iran. I would like to think that Romney is just talking out both sides of his mouth w/r/t Iran in order to appease the Sheldon Adelsons of the world, and that when he gets in the actual cockpit he will be more thoughtfully hesitant to get itchy with Iran. But I may be wrong. A lot of the real, genuine skinny on this issue, the stuff you really use to make decisions, is almost certainly super-classified. What we in the public know about it is smoke. On the bright side, an Iran fiasco would be so catastrophic to this country that it will in all likelihood be the catalyst for a radical re-alignment, or perhaps even the end of the current illegitimate regime. So who knows.

3. The main reason I'm voting for Romney has nothing to do with policy preferences. It's this. Romney is not going to get any serious percentage of the non-white vote, and he also will not get the suicidal white liberal bien-pensant anti-white (viz. anti-self) vote, and he'll only get a portion of the white working-class vote which hasn't yet come round to understanding that the Democratic Party of their youth now hates them and wishes to eradicate them. So in other words the complete tally of the national Romney vote will constitute a rough de facto census of how many non-insane white people are left in this country. This information will be very useful when the country gets down to the serious discussion (as it now inevitably must) of some form of continental partition and secession along racial lines.
Nate October 31, 2012 8:47 AM: I refuse to participate in the sham election process of the nation that currently occupies my beloved Confederacy.
Starbuck October 31, 2012 8:49 AM: I couldn't bring myself to vote for Obama or Romney. I did vote for Gary Johnson.

I am hoping a lot of people put in a protest vote this year. like 30%+. Maybe that would get someones attention. But then it might be the wrong kind of attention.

And it hasn't been more then 100 years since we had civil war veterans. The last veteran of either side died in 1956. So it has only been 56 years since we had no civil war veterans.
Anonymous October 31, 2012 8:54 AM: Write in Cthulhu. Why vote for the lesser of two evils when you can vote for evil incarnate!?!?
Nate October 31, 2012 8:55 AM: This comment has been removed by the author.
Tank October 31, 2012 8:55 AM: Choices:

The current occupant - HAHAHAHAHAHA.

Romney - only good reason I can think of voting for him is the opportunity to watch certain people try not to cry on TV. Actually, Romney is a better choice, but after hearing him on (1) use of the military and (2) immigration and (3) let's face it, sundry other issues, I can't bring myself to vote for him. On balance, if he's elected and passes immigration "reform" and he "helps" Israel, he might be worse. At least if Zero is elected, R's will oppose him.

Johnson - maybe, it's him or no one.

I will vote R on some of the state and local offices - I know some of the people, and they're way better than the D's, who are lunatics.

Also, a couple of state bond issues to vote against.
Nate October 31, 2012 8:56 AM: The only legitimate reason to vote for Romney is to see Chris Matthews have a stroke on live television.
Alexamenos October 31, 2012 8:58 AM: Not voting because I've better things to do.
fred October 31, 2012 9:02 AM: Virgil Goode - Constitution Party (known some places as the taxpayers party).

A few (mostly) very brief snips...

* favors a noninterventionist foreign policy
* opposes illegal immigration - seeks stricter controls on legal immigration
* supports the right to bear arms
* supports replacing the income tax with a tariff-based revenue system supplemented by excise taxes

The party supports the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment, which allows Congress to tax income, and the Seventeenth Amendment, which requires the direct (popular) election of Senators. The party holds that each state's membership in the Union is voluntary,

These are a few reasons. There are certainly others.

That said, Virgil of course, won't win. Between the right boob and the left boob I tend to slightly hope for the right boob because it will result in all the media boobs going apoplectic (which should at least be entertaining).
JCB October 31, 2012 9:02 AM: Not voting. The main reason is the state desperately wants me to, so this is my way of flipping them the bird. The only real (peaceful) protest left is to not vote. If they held and election and no one came, TPTB would certainly still do what they want. But at least they wouldn't be able to trumpet a mandate from the people, and they might just start to take their constituents seriously.
Steveo October 31, 2012 9:09 AM: I'm writing in Ron Paul.

If your choice will not (& can not) stand on principle and you know them to be a liar, then it is both moronic and childish to be upset when they act in a manner contradicting what they told "you" they would do. They are being true to themselves while excelling in a process designed to choose the best of their kind - liars.

Are you upset when the best swimmer wins the gold at the Olympics? No?
Why should you be upset when the best liar wins public office?

Our electoral process has devolved into Liar's Olympics. That is our fault and the shame is on us.
A Wiser Man Than I October 31, 2012 9:11 AM: I will not be voting. Neither of the major candidates will do anything to reduce our debt load, and both candidates are prone to dropping bombs on foreign countries that ought not concern us in the slightest.

And, what is arguably worse, neither Obama nor Romney has produced a practical program for setting bankrupt boomers adrift on ice floes.

Maybe in 2016...
sth_txs October 31, 2012 9:12 AM: Not voting. I'll still be hammered by taxes and inflation and more stupid laws that infringe upon my person. No Ron Paul's available either. Voting Libertarian also a waste of time, one because the system has laws that work against them gaining any ground, and that Bob Barr stupidity in 2008 did not help. I like Gary, but not enough to waste my time knowing voting is a fraud.

Other than a bond issue or some amendment to vote for or against, not worth worrying about.
JI October 31, 2012 9:15 AM: Don't like either Obama or Romney - wrote in Ron Paul in absentee ballot. RP has been consistent in his message about fiscal reform and restoring liberty for many years, heck probably since before Obama smoked his first joint in the "Choom Gang".
Dr. J October 31, 2012 9:18 AM: Sorry, the election has already been held. Goldman Sachs voted Romney.
Cheddarman October 31, 2012 9:23 AM: I supported Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012. I will vote Constitution Party candidates for all offices where they have a candidate.
Jake October 31, 2012 9:24 AM: Not voting cause I don't want to support any of them and it doesn't matter anyway:

If I did think my vote mattered I'd probably vote for Obama. Not out of any kind of agreement with his positions, but because I'd rather have a bumbling ineffectual president at odds with an adversarial congress than a competent guy with executive experience and a friendly congress. If given the chance to choose your enemy why choose the most effective one?

Plus, family get-togethers w/ my conservative republican family are more enjoyable when everyone's making fun of the gov instead of just me.
Konstantinos October 31, 2012 9:25 AM: Oh, to be an American Jew these days . . . look who they have to choose between. One candidate has no issue with Israel's nemesis' desire to turn her to a sheet of glass, while the other candidate wants to baptize you after your are dead.
Cryan Ryan October 31, 2012 9:27 AM: There once was a fella named Ryan
Who noted our pols were always lyin',
but since our wimmen and youth,
could care less about truth,
he now is just watchin' and cryin'.
jack October 31, 2012 9:31 AM: HongKongCharlie October 31, 2012 7:23 AM

I agree with charlie on this and will hope and pray that once in office R will have an epiphany and do the right things.
I tend to agree with Nate at 5:31 am. But, further up the page, Nate that war was lost; if you don't want to revive the First Alabama in some form get over it.
sb- October 31, 2012 9:31 AM: I will be voting for Randall Terry.

He is the only one with any credibility on abortion having founded operation rescue. He is also the only one discussing the fiscal insanity that is our banking system. He has absolutely no shot of winning since he is only on the ballot in 20 states, and for the sole purpose of running ads to show Americans how they have slaughtered an entire generation of their own children. He does, however, at least give me someone to vote *for*.

Until we address the moral problems, which can only be addressed by getting rid of the godless perverts currently running the country and turning to Christ fearing men, no law will ever restrain evil men. Honest money requires honest men. And you do not have honest men in a godless society that murders its own children for the salvation of its hedonism.
Tim October 31, 2012 9:33 AM: I'm not sure which one I want to vote for yet. They both have qualities that I like. More PATRIOT Act. More NDAA. More Dept. of Homeland Security. More TSA. More snooping on citizens. More drones over America. More federalization of our local police. More wars. More Federal Reserve. More government spending. And the best part, neither of them give a damn about that stinking piece of paper called the constitution.

What is not to like about either one of them?
Historicus October 31, 2012 9:34 AM: I'll be writing in Dr. Paul and voting for the local candidates with the most libertarian values.

If you vote for Romney with the expectation that he will restore Constitutional legitimacy, you're deluded. The Republican establishment is a crooked mob bent only on making money and keeping power. They will talk a good line so that conservative/Christian voters will be hooked by the bait of "conservative judges". Until the downfall of America, abortion on demand will be legal - if only to keep the conservative base energized and voting.
Lulabelle October 31, 2012 9:34 AM: I'm voting for Gary Johnson. Maybe next time around, the Libertarians can receive funds from the PECF:

"The Presidential nominee of each major party may become eligible for a public grant of $20,000,000 plus COLA (over 1974). For 2012, the grant is approximately $91,241,400 for each major party nominee. With the exception of the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, every major party nominee has accepted the general election grant since the program's inception in 1976. Candidates themselves may not raise any other funds to be used for campaigning during the general election period.

Public grants of $18,248,300 went to each of the major parties for their conventions in 2012.

Since no third party candidate received 5% of the vote in 2008, only the Republican and Democratic parties are eligible for 2012 convention grants, and only their nominees may receive grants for the general election when they are nominated. Third-party candidates could qualify for retroactive public funds if they receive 5% or more of the vote in the general election."

It's a long-shot, and maybe the Libertarians would be as corrupt as the other two parties (okay, probably).....but it couldn't be a bad thing to shake up the system.
NateM October 31, 2012 9:39 AM: In the time since i’ve been legally able to vote I have only seen ambitious politicians who have managed to do nothing but screw things up despite their best intentions of making a positive change. This has led me to the following conclusion: Change is not feasible. This thought sort of came together when I was watching yet another political add where the incumbent was being accused of being absent during most votes in the last session of congress and I realized, I would rather have someone who does nothing, than someone who either 1) accomplishes something big, that will likely turn out to be another congressional boondoggle or 2) spends their entire session fighting and creating acrimony with the opposing party, not only not creating much positive but unintentionally negative results as well. So I intend to vote for the the candidate with no ambition to do much more than collect a paycheck and enjoy the title, rather than vainly hope they might do something worthwhile and being perennially let down. Even in the office of president I would rather have a vain pompous ass who had no sites beyond making himself look good and protecting his legacy for the next 4 years so he can safely pass the buck when he’s gone. That is why I will be voting for Obama.
toothy October 31, 2012 9:39 AM: Havn't decided yet.
Options I'm considering:

Not voting.
Write in Ron Paul
Vote Constitution or Libertarian party.

I'm hedging more towards the first two options.
CunningDove October 31, 2012 9:41 AM: I am abstaining this year. Gary Johnson is a pathetic excuse for a Libertarian who thinks his name recognition will help him get votes as a Libertarian candidate. If the Lib. Party had actually nominated someone that understood first principles, I would again go to vote for the Lib. Party in my district. However, unless or until I see that the LP actually stands for what it says it is about I will continue to abstain.
Stilicho October 31, 2012 9:44 AM: Not Sure for President in 2012, because President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho endorsed him!
dh October 31, 2012 9:46 AM: I live in Florida, and I am voting for Pres. Obama for re-election.

Although I am very liberal, Pres. Obama has been a vast disappointment, as predicted, on almost every front. He is clearly economically illiterate, and is simply hoping to kick the can down the road a bit. The liberal-ideology is not popular here, and there are good reasons for it. Unlike many liberals I am happy to admit that I do not value economic or personal freedom as much as other things, including collective security. I pay 48-52% of may gross income in all forms of taxes, and I would happily pay more to stabilize the nations finances. Also, as an atheist, I readily and happily agree with VD's proposition that to be an atheist you must also agree that there is no such thing as evil. I do not "believe" in a universally defined concept of evil, or good. I believe mortality and ethics are relative.

I support Pres. Obama for re-election because of narrow band of policies:

a. Unlike his opponents, even third party ones, he has a clear policy against torture. This isn't difficult. There isn't a gray area. It's shameful to live in a nation supposedly of laws that has no problem torturing to achieve political or military objectives.

b. I am uninterested in personally or by proxy fighting in Gov. Romney's three promised wars. If we accept his plans at face value, he has committed to fight three new wars, plus possibly re-invade Iraq. I am not willing to invade North Korea, I am not willing to invade Iran, and I am not willing to go to either Syria or Libya.

c. I do not care about Israel as a nation, and I don't care whether it exists tomorrow or the next day, and the evidence suggests I suspect Pres. Obama agrees with me. There is no American national interest in preserving the state. Any conservative, or Christian, who feels otherwise is free to personally support Israel, through financial bonds, or simply by going there to fight against Israel's enemies.
JartStar October 31, 2012 9:46 AM: Cthulhu. The one hidden in the depths will soon awake!
Josh October 31, 2012 9:47 AM: I will not be voting because I refuse to consent to this system. The only candidate worth voting for, Ron Paul, was rejected by the idiotic base of the Republican party, proving themselves to be spineless, cowardly, drooling retards with their "get your government hands off my medicare" and "bomb scary brown foreigners for Jesus" signs. They've made it very clear that us Ronulan types are not welcome in their party. Fine by me, have fun getting your feeding tubes shut off by the Romneycare death panels.

Romney is a bankster, a babykiller, a gun grabber, and a warmonger. I cannot endorse or vote for those policies. Obama has been a disaster, and is likewise a babykiller and a warmonger. Gary Johnson is a lying, pandering, self promoting fraud who supports federal homogamy and babykilling, and has made the libertinism of the dope smoking, sexual harassing, leather jacket wearing proto-hipsters at Reason and Cato the centerpiece of his campaign instead of our monetary and foreign policies. I cannot endorse or vote for him. Virgil Goode supports the war on drugs, so he's out.

The final reason I am not voting is that I find public acts of self pleasure distasteful, and I by not voting I am rejecting this most sacred sacrament of the American civil religion. And if Diddy is going to tell me, "vote or die," I say, in the immortal words of Steven A Smith, "Nigga please."

Per Rothbard, I will be rooting for Obama, as his laziness is preferred to Romney's executive ability and earnest desire to prove himself to his father by being more activist and more interventionist.
Enoch Powell October 31, 2012 9:48 AM: Initially I wasn't going to vote for Romney because I have a problem rubber stamping politically-correct cowardice and multiculturalist treason. Romney is particularly cowardly when it comes to the lively, vibrant, diverse, hostile invasion of third-world savages currently destroying the U.S. so I wasn't going to vote at all.

But it occurred to me that it needs to be publicly demonstrated that millions of White people will reject that evil, affirmative-action parasite Obama. That overgrown adolescent traitor and criminal race hustler needs to be utterly repudiated, and the only people who can do that are Whites. Good things will follow. Maybe not enough at first, but it's a start. At least Romney is a White adult.
jm October 31, 2012 9:49 AM: I will not be voting. The reason? Alea iacta est.
extraodinaryrendition October 31, 2012 9:52 AM: I support Pres. Obama for re-election because of narrow band of policies:

a. Unlike his opponents, even third party ones, he has a clear policy against torture.

You need to do some research regarding this one. Seriously.
Mildman October 31, 2012 9:53 AM: Romney, because his policies, though not perfect, are better than Obama's. He won't watch Americans die on foreign soil while doing nothing. He opposes Obamacare. He won't bow to foreign leaders. He doesn't hate America. He is more pro-life and pro-marriage than Obama. He won't befriend radical Islamic groups. His personal character is better than Obama's. And finally, the parties and the press will be less likely to cover for his mistakes than for Obama, who to the press and Democratic party is a virtually infallible demi-god. Also, to see Chris Matthews have a conniption.
MendoScot October 31, 2012 9:56 AM: Not a US citizen and don't live there, so for what it's worth...

I would vote in whatever way I thought might contribute to denying the winner the claim to "a popular mandate". The last time I voted before abandoning the UK it was for Screaming Lord Sutch and the Monster Raving Loony Party, although I would have voted for Enoch Powell had there been a legitimate way to so. That said, I would vote for Cthulhu provided the vote would be counted.
Giraffe October 31, 2012 9:58 AM: I'm voting for Kristi Noem because she's hot. She's the anti-Hillary.
Kentucky Packrat October 31, 2012 10:00 AM: The only legitimate reason to vote for Romney is to see Chris Matthews have a stroke on live television.

If it would happen, I'd happily campaign for Captain Magic Underoos. However, I suspect that MSNBC will know the fix is in and give him the magic happy pills ahead of time.

Watching Matthews' head explode on live TV would almost make watching that cesspool worth it.
JD Curtis October 31, 2012 10:02 AM: From NC reporter...

Catholics will decide the election
HardReturn¶ October 31, 2012 10:03 AM: I can't stomach incumbent Fearless Leader or the generic GOP Establishment Corporatist challenger. So I'm voting for Johnson. Even though a few social things about him bug me, it's not enough for me to obsess about it.
For US Senate I'm voting for a no-chance no-party guy, because the R and D demonstrated in the one TV "debate" I saw that both are establishment jackasses. For state offices mostly R's; for local offices mostly no-party candidates; and a couple D's peppered in at local and state level because I know them personally and have some respect for them.

A few months before he passed away in June, my dad strongly encouraged me not to become indifferent about voting. He was a zealous, conscientious, civic-minded, old-school voter. I've lost enthusiasm for voting for all but local matters, because democracy does not seem to scale up very well, more voting does not necessarily bring about more liberty, and like so many others I'm exasperated by the two main parties. I am still struggling with this dilemma, but for now I'll keep voting to honor my dad.
swiftfoxmark2 October 31, 2012 10:06 AM: I am going to write my own name in. It isn't because I am qualified to be President or I'm arrogant enough to think I would do better than any of the candidates, it is simply because I don't agree with at least 85% of what any of the candidates stand for. I used a few online poll systems that included all the candidates and their stances on the issues and the best was the Constitutional party candidate Virgil Goode came close with 78% (try this site if you're interested).

If I don't have a high standard in my elected officials, it would be better not to vote. And because I am tired of these moral busybodies telling me that they know better than me on how to run my life, I think writing my name in is better than not voting. It at least tells our overlords that I know how to run things in my life and I can do better.

My wife will, of course, follow my lead.
The Deuce October 31, 2012 10:09 AM: I'm voting for Romney. I've got no illusions that he's going to rescue the economy, or seriously depart from the neo-Keynesian and monetarist consensus that got us into this mess. I'd be extremely surprised if he did anything about the banks and the government's empowerment of them. He will, no doubt, simply try to hold off the necessary economic bust in his own way, and go along with whatever Bernanke does. In terms of official foreign policy, I doubt he's going to differ radically from Obama.

But there's official policy, and then there's actual policy. I doubt that it's official foreign policy to hang our consulates out to dry when attacked by terrorists, then lie about what happened and to attack the free speech of some nobody film producer in order to misdirect the public, and to cover the whole thing up. But Obama did that, with the assistance of the media.

I doubt that it's official policy to supply Mexican drug cartels with 1000's of high-powered weapons without even notifying the Mexican government, so that hundreds of Mexicans including dozens of children at a birthday party can be brutally massacred, along with American border patrol agents, and then to cover it all up and obstruct justice by abusing executive privilege to hide the records and halt the investigations. But Obama did that, again with the assistance of the media.

I doubt that it's official policy to destroy Constitutionally-protected freedom of religion, but that's exactly what the Obama administration is knowingly doing with the HHS mandate. Again with the assistance of the media.

I'm voting against Obama because of the things he's done. He's a national disgrace who doesn't deserve to represent this country, or even a popsicle stand for that matter. Hell, he doesn't even deserve to be on this side of prison bars. Romney may not slow the decline or produce tangible benefits for the majority of the country, but at least I can help to exact a tiny bit of justice by getting rid of the current crapweasel.

Furthermore, there is a nonzero chance that Romney will overturn Obamacare and the HHS mandate along with it, and at the very least I expect that he won't attempt to encroach on the freedom of religion any further. I believe that this country is headed for collapse either way, but that one of the few things we can influence is how oppressive and tyrannical the federal government becomes in the meantime, as it becomes increasingly desperate to maintain control.

Finally, I'm sick of hearing Obama's voice, I'm sick of hearing the worship of his moronic acolytes, and I'm sick of the media covering for him on everything. I want a President who is recognized to be just a man, and not some sort of deified cult leader. At least if Romney does anything like the crap Obama has pulled, I can be sure that the media will cover it, and his followers won't just worship him blindly in blissful, rapturous ignorance.
the abe October 31, 2012 10:11 AM: The democratic process has become a false religion and vain philosophy. Vox's quips about the "Cherry Blossom Throne" have transcended the confines of irony and hyperbole and have taken on a litteral connotation in all but name.
Daniel October 31, 2012 10:11 AM: I'm going to vote out of habit, mostly because I experience a nostalgia in the tactile pleasure of filling in bubble forms. I live in a small enough community that I've had some luck throwing bombs on local do-gooder issues, as well, but that also has something to do with property owners being the only people who care at all (yea or nay) about those things. The unlanded may corrupt democracy with their feelgood state and national issues, but are too stupid as a group (plenty of exceptions, but if they can think, they likely vote contrary to their kind, anyhow) to even recognize what the local issues mean. Also, we have an anti-drone, anti-camera Sheriff candidate.

A write-in for Ron Paul will not register, will not appear on any tickers, and, outside of voting for Obama or Romney, would be the least productive use of a vote. Instead, I hope to add my vote to one of the tiny piles of existing candidates in opposition to the two-party system.

On my ballot (Iowa), there's a local arch conservative (in the common sense of the word, not libertarian), private businessman who, for fun, got himself nominated for President of the U.S. - kind of a "bucket list" sort of thing to do. He just wanted an official ballot of him running for President.

He himself was going to vote for Romney... until Romney sued.

So my reasons are as follows:

1) Have an identified candidate other than the Unity Party (GOPDonkey) register in the count. That means no write-in.
2) Nominate a leader with whom I will have personal access (his phone number is listed, and I can easily visit him at his place of business)
3) ...and most important, stick my thumb in the eye of the micromanaging, dictatorial, backstabbing, and, well, Mormon banking style of uberunity politics.

To hell with Romney. Enjoy your landslide, you dirty, cheating leftist utilitarian. As for me?

Jerry and Jimmy Litzel '12 all day, every way, as often as they'll count my vote.
Huckleberry - est. 1977 October 31, 2012 10:12 AM: I will not cast a vote for President of the United States of America, but I have already voted for local ballot measures, the county DA, and district water board members.
I was momentarily tempted to vote for Rosanne Barr on the ballot as the perfect FU vote, but no, I wouldn't do that, even as a joke.
To the asshats who insist that you can't complain if you don't vote, you are the problem. A vote is consent. If you sign your own death warrant, don't complain when the hangman comes for his due...
robh October 31, 2012 10:12 AM: I'll vote Romney. Not because i like him or have any hope he would alter course for the better, but because I won't have to hear about Moochelle jetting around with her entourage on my dime. Call me a single issue voter.
Spectator October 31, 2012 10:16 AM: I'll be writing in Alan Keyes, so I can proudly say "I didn't vote for THAT Nigga"
Kentucky Packrat October 31, 2012 10:19 AM: He won't watch Americans die on foreign soil while doing nothing.

No, Romney will send even more Americans to die beside them.

As I get older, I am getting isolationist. Bring every single Army troop home, and bring the Marines in to Navy bases only. If we can't secure an embassy with 10-20 Marines, close it. Let the rest of the world police itself on land, and effectively protect our shipping interests with our Navy(*). That's it.

(*) This includes really dealing with the Somali pirates. Any US or allied ship in the area gets Marines on board (preferably with SMAW/SRAW shoulder rockets for sinking small boats). Pirates get shot or sunk on sight, and survivors get hanged on the spot. Land ports or bases get visited by Mr. Tomahawk and his friends. No mercy, no quarter.
dh October 31, 2012 10:23 AM: > (*) This includes really dealing with the Somali pirates. Any US or allied ship in the area gets
> Marines on board (preferably with SMAW/SRAW shoulder rockets for sinking small boats). Pirates get
> shot or sunk on sight, and survivors get hanged on the spot. Land ports or bases get visited by Mr.
> Tomahawk and his friends. No mercy, no quarter.

(I say f**k it, and just start issuing letters marque again, and paying reasonable bounties for pirates. This is not a new problem. Plus any ships/goods taken from pirates are prizes.)
meistergedanken October 31, 2012 10:28 AM: I was tempted to vote Romney, only because I know he won't: expand section 8 housing and destroy my neighborhood [like Obama has and has said he will continue to do], and he won't appoint a "wise latina" or butch lesbian to the supreme court. But I ended up writing in Ron Paul on my absentee ballot, and I voted on various local issues.

This two party system of ours is pathetic. Maybe the parliamentary system is better - at least we would get a couple more viable choices.
rho October 31, 2012 10:30 AM: I'll continue my tradition of not voting for the third presidential election year in a row. (I last voted for Harry Browne in 2000.)

I don't vote for the same reason I don't play 3-Card Monte, eat my dinner off the floor or pick my own pocket.
patrick kelly October 31, 2012 10:30 AM: Romney is going to win all the electors from Texas, so I'm going to abstain from voting for P or VP, and only vote local stuff.
swiftfoxmark2 October 31, 2012 10:33 AM: To the asshats who insist that you can't complain if you don't vote, you are the problem. A vote is consent.

I totally understand what you are saying and I am fine with people not voting, but not voting is also consent. It basically tells the State that you don't care about what they do so have at it.
Vidad October 31, 2012 10:37 AM: I'm voting the following:

Write in Ron Paul for president.

Then, all other politicians on the ballot without an R or D next to their names get my vote. If there's only an R and a D in the race, I'm skipping that vote. If there's more than one third-party candidate, I will vote for the Constitutionalists or the Libertarians.

Any politician that promises more money to schools is on my dead list. Screw them.

I will vote no on all new rules and yes on any tax cuts, including ones for special interests like "disabled veterans" or whatever, even though I think the tax cuts should apply to all. Anything that cuts revenue is fine by me.
Randy M October 31, 2012 10:38 AM: I expect I'll vote for Romney. Had I not been following Vox's site (and similar linked from here) for a few years, I would probably vote for him more enthusiastically expecting some significant difference.

Here's the best rationalization I can come up with now: The progressive elite and liberals informed by them view Romney as some sort of cross between the Pope and Calvin Coolidge. Maybe Oliver Cromwell reincarnated or something. And they view Obama as an enlightened hipster God-King. Since my vote won't make a difference anyway, I'd like my statistically insignificant voice to be in support of the former rather than the latter.

Also, Romney is less likely to bail-out fiscally irresponsible states like mine (California) and that's the only way we'll learn. State and municapality bankruptcy are going to be a big story in the next few years unless some kind of magic happens.

Also, I like The Duece's answer at 10:09.
Megabozz October 31, 2012 10:38 AM: Abstaining. I live in red-state Mississippi, therefore voting for a 3rd party will be a statistically insignificant blip, if it even shows up in the country results at all.
Cloud William October 31, 2012 10:47 AM: I will be voting for Gary Johnson. I refuse to waste my vote by giving it to a candidate who does not need it.
Mark Cook October 31, 2012 10:48 AM: I refuse to vote for either of the two choices that have been served by the ruling party (Republicrats). Since I have the right to vote; since I have the ability to write in a candidate; I will vote for Roy Moore (The Ten Commandments Judge). He is the only man I know in public service who did not compromise but stood his ground and suffered the consequences.
Mark Cook October 31, 2012 10:49 AM: This comment has been removed by the author.
Curlytop October 31, 2012 10:49 AM: Not voting.

Given that Uganda has more transparency in their elections than this country, I find the process as laughable as the election results that came out of Iraq back when Saddam was in power. Between Romney's kid owning the company that runs the voting machines in Ohio and Obama's typical Chicago-style voter fraud, why anyone would think their vote mattered is beyond me. But push the button on the electronic voting machine if it makes you feel good.
Joel October 31, 2012 10:49 AM: Until we address the moral problems, which can only be addressed by getting rid of the godless perverts currently running the country and turning to Christ fearing men, no law will ever restrain evil men. Honest money requires honest men. And you do not have honest men in a godless society that murders its own children for the salvation of its hedonism.

This. There will be no redemption for this country apart from Christ. So I will not be voting for either the quasi-Muslim Marxist or the Mormon corporatist. Even Virgil Goode doesn't excite me, given his continued support for the Patriot Act. I'll be sitting this one out.

Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain. - Psalm 127:1

Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.

Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling.

Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him. - Psalm 2:10-12

The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God. - Psalm 9:17
Mark Call October 31, 2012 10:49 AM: "Come out of her, My people..." Do not participate with evil, in a corrupt system.

"Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness..."

I "un-registered" to participate in the unconstitutional system years ago. The Founders called it "withdrawing consent", since THAT government once rested on the "consent of the governed.

And - as I've written at length before - I challenge someone to find ANY place in Scripture where a majority vote worked out for anything less than evil. From the 10-2 'vote' that Caleb and Joshua lost during the Exodus, to Samuel and the people who wanted a king "like all the other nations", to the voice vote for Barabbas...the lesson should be clear:

"Do not follow a crowd to do evil." Exodus 23:2, et al.
James Dixon October 31, 2012 10:50 AM: I will have 4 options on my ballot: Romney, Obama, Stein, and Johnson. Of those, it is my considered opinion that Johnson would be the best for the country.
Booch Paradise October 31, 2012 10:51 AM: I'm not planning on voting for anyone. The lesser of two evils idea does not factor in a powerful and righteous God. To vote for evil is to demonstrate a lack of faith for a Christian. If I vote for anyone it'll be the constitution party, but I have not done due research there yet.
harry12 October 31, 2012 10:55 AM: .
On my mail-in ballot, for US president I wrote in Nigel Farage . Won't get counted but I SO wanted to vote for someone who talked sense!
.
Charles Checkpoint October 31, 2012 10:56 AM: I'm not interested in who will be President of the USA in 2012.

I am, however, keenly interested to know who, in 2025, will be...

1. President of the Republic of Cascadia;
2. Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of the Lakes;
3. Emperor of the Greater Texas Empire;
4. Chief Warlord of the City of Chicago;
5. Emir of Diversistan (a/k/a Greater San Francisco);
6. First Mofo of Blackistan;
7. El Jefe of Pooristan;
8. Premier of New Israel;
9. President of the CSA; and
10. First Nanny of New New England.
DrRansom October 31, 2012 10:57 AM: I am undecided. I still don't know whether to stand on principle or to take the least of worst options path.

Honestly, I will probably ask my grandfather what to do and just do that. He's a self-made brick shithouse that farmed for 60 years, through the depression and all that...sometimes maybe it's just best to give my vote to someone who's wiser than I. *shrug*
Mutly October 31, 2012 11:05 AM: I will vote "no" on the school referendum. Paying to educate the results of other peoples genetic experimentation is a waste.

"Yes" on voter ID (not that it will make a difference). Sure why not make them present the fake ID they got made 2 days before. It will at least provide humor as poll watchers I know steam for months about the new ways their democracy is broken.

"No" on the Marriage amendment. Perhaps if the american church remembered that was supposed to be more then a 503C organization it would lead. Defining what marriage is at a state level is like defining what water is. Doesn't change the composition just adds the need for committees.

Otherwise I'll vote libertarian. Not that any of them have a chance, but they never include a none of the above option. Maybe if we just flushed the office and went without for 4 years.
Sam Scott October 31, 2012 11:13 AM: I am not voting for three reasons:

1. No one is in jail following the fraud that led to the financial crisis, and that is on President Obama. Mitt Romney is a member of the class of people who caused the financial crisis in the first place.

2. I was registered to vote in Massachusetts, and the state will go Democratic no matter for whom I vote.

3. I moved to Israel two years ago, and my lack of interest in either major candidate did not inspire me to get an absentee ballot before the deadline. I'm more interested in the Israeli election in early 2013. I'll probably vote for the new Likud-Yisrael Beiteinu combined party.
Sam Scott October 31, 2012 11:14 AM: ^ moved to Israel five years ago.
Giraffe October 31, 2012 11:14 AM: I'm voting yes on the law that provides bonuses for the top 20% of teachers, grades their performance, eliminates tenure. Only downside is a scholarship program for students that want to be teachers in this state.

I figure anything that pisses the teachers off this much has to be a good thing.
Logos October 31, 2012 11:15 AM: I don't vote in any federal elections because that legitimizes what has become an unconstitutional, criminal operation. Will vote straight "R" in state and local elections, though.

Libertarians and anarchists protest that I'm splitting hairs and should oppose government on all levels. But I'm a "polyarchist" who believes that the only way to restrain government power is by multiplying it into numerous competing units. Think of it as anti-trust applied to governments rather than businesses. Anything that enhances small-scale, local power offsets large-scale, distant power. (Ironically, libertarians often resort to the large-scale power of federal courts to stamp out local laws they dislike, which is supremely self-defeating.)
Servant October 31, 2012 11:17 AM: Contrary to many, I am (have) voted for Romney. He is white, adult, has a brain, is not an affirmative action experiment. Is he dangerous to the constitution? Remains to be seen, could not be worse then Obama who (for whatever reason) is particularly competent at subverting the constitution.
Don't like gay marriage (don't think the government should have any say in marriage). But having served (20 years 18 days) in the military, I take particular offense to leaving an American ambassador (or any American) to the jihadist of this world particularly when help was (literally) just around the corner.
Boetain October 31, 2012 11:19 AM: Romney.

First of all, I am just tired of Obama and Biden. They bore me. They are pathetic and I am tired of hearing the idiotic drivel that oozes from them.

Second, Romney will do better with appointing Supreme Court justices, and other judges for that matter. I know Vox scoffs at this reason. But let's do the math on the Obamacare decision, for example. 80% of the Republican appointed judges voted the right way. 0% of the Democrat appointed judges voted the right way. Pick any other decision you have a strong opinion on and run the numbers. A repuke president is just more likely to appoint a better judge.

Third, a vote for a third party candidate (instead of voting for Romney) is mathematically like 1/2 a vote for Obama.
Porky? October 31, 2012 11:22 AM: I'm voting for Obama because...biggest economic crisis since great depression contraceptives healthcare children gays Bain Osama obesity windmills.
Notorious P.I.G. October 31, 2012 11:24 AM: Vote Obama - FOR TRAYVON MUTHA#&%^@S!!!!!
Phil Mann October 31, 2012 11:30 AM: Shredded my ballot a couple of weeks ago so I wouldn't even be tempted.

As Vox noted a while back, if your single vote somehow did affect the outcome of anything important, the courts would decide how you voted anyway.
Res Ipsa October 31, 2012 11:34 AM: I wrote in Ron Paul last election and I'm going to again unless I change my mind and go for Gary Johnson.

I believe a vote for the lessor evil, is still a vote for evil and I won't do it. Will my action make a difference? Nope.
glacierman October 31, 2012 11:35 AM: I am unable to vote in your American Election.

If I were, it would be Mitt.

He is the lesser of evils, but has less totalitarian and socialist leanings than Obama, who believes that the forced "sharing" principle is better than the freedom to choose principle.

As I recently read, Jesus is not choosing the Republicans or Democrats or Greens or Libertarians to get behind.

Jesus is coming to lead.

Those who get behind Him are those who bring His Kingdom to this earth, in its many forms, and good government is one of them. When Kingdom principles and values are front and center America (and any other for that matter) will be walk into the destiny they have been created for. When God has the ear of the President, all the other voices will not be as shrill, demanding this and that like we have seen for the past 100 or so years. Time to pray for the President, whomever he is, that he would be tuned in to hearing and obeying. The people just need to humble themselves, repent and pray for God to heal the land.

Freedom to follow the leading of God's Spirit.

America has a choice.
tz October 31, 2012 11:39 AM: Ron Paul write in - I already voted absentee. There were a few proposals that were worth registering an opinion on.

There is no constitution party, or they are too far off the radar and Gary Johnson is a pro-abort, and Karl Denninger has summarized lots of other reasons. He is going to vote anti-spider.
Edjamacator October 31, 2012 11:40 AM: Virgil Goode or Ron Paul. Still not totally sure yet. I don't care to vote for lesser evil anymore and it's not Biblical. My wife argued this with my father a bit and brought up the story of Gideon. God kept telling him his army was too big and cut it down, and He can do the same with voting. He doesn't need us to worry about our numbers or perceived strength. He can put whoever He wants in power in power if He so chooses.

I would like to vote on whether or not to disband the lamestream media and replace it with people who aren't liberal lapdogs. That would be a vote to get excited about.
YIH October 31, 2012 11:42 AM: I moved from one FL county to the next and have yet to re-register. I guess I could vote in my old address (which is still on my State ID) but I'm not sure if that's even legal.
I voted for Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party) for President in '08 because I could not bring myself to vote for either 0bama or McCain and IMHO he just as awful but would have been awful in a different way (bailouts, even more so-called wars, and Congress would have obstructed anything else he did).
I don't see Mittens as much better than 0bama but not enough to vote for legally or not.
Laramie Hirsch October 31, 2012 11:43 AM: I will vote for no one. I will not vote because both candidates are virtually the same.

Also, though, the Republican party--to which I formerly belonged--demonstrated its concern for my interests and the sensibilities of the grass roots movement. They demonstrated how little they care about what individuals have to say or think at the Republican Convention, and throughout Ron Paul's campaign.

The Republicans are indifferent to the individual. The Democrats are insane. Add to this that the whole election is controlled anyway, and you have a recipe for: what do I care?

Watching people talk about one candidate or another during this election is like watching someone argue about football. Steelers or Packers? Pepsi or Coke? Salt or pepper?

Election 2012: Who cares?
patrick kelly October 31, 2012 11:46 AM: "I totally understand what you are saying and I am fine with people not voting, but not voting is also consent. It basically tells the State that you don't care about what they do so have at it."

I care about them like I care about the local Greek and Russian mobs, except I would vote in their elections if I could because they might change stuff I care about.
debbs October 31, 2012 11:51 AM: In the long run, and by long run I mean less than a year, I don't think either candidate will be good for the nation. A write in vote is a throw away so I'm voting for my own best interests. I think a small burst of economic confidence is more likely with a Romney win than with an Obama win. I have property going up for sale. So Romney. On a more positive note, he's kinda-sorta not Obama.
Aeoli Pera October 31, 2012 11:52 AM: I'm writing in Ron Paul. There are two parts to the game theoretic logic:

1. He mostly represents me, and he has a non-negligible following. If I could only stomach perfect representation, I'd write in myself.

2. I want the "lesser of two evils" party to change itself to try and pick up some votes from the Ron Paul bloc. I don't care which party that turns out to be.

In an ideal game, we could drip-feed votes randomly in return for good behavior. But pulling it off would require Ron Paul to actually endorse a candidate after a good behavior, and I doubt he understands this.
eisenbarde October 31, 2012 11:53 AM: The results of my local elections don't matter much to me because I intend to get off this sinking ship of a state by next Spring.

I wont be voting in my new place of living for awhile because I think it is absolutely unethical for transplants to have a say in elections for at least one or two cycles.

As far as the national election goes, I'm torn between voting Gary Johnson out of principle or for Mitt Romney out of pure spite for every Obama voter in my family who have explicitly expressed that I should never vote for that Very Bad Evil Man (tm).

It's gonna be kinda funny once the food trucks stop coming and the water pipes are busted.
Dan in Texas October 31, 2012 11:54 AM: I won't be voting. I have removed my consent to be governed. I now consider myself ruled against my will so I will not do anything to add to the illusion of legitimacy for the system.

As for the person quoted in the blog post concerning Israel; isn't it funny how those on the right go on about Obama bowing to "foreign leaders" but anything short of giving Netanyahu a hummer is unacceptable?
Aeoli Pera October 31, 2012 11:55 AM: I'll be writing in Alan Keyes, so I can proudly say "I didn't vote for THAT Nigga"

You know, I've suddenly had a change of heart.
John-GT October 31, 2012 12:06 PM: I was unoriginal. I voted for Beelzebub figuring I'd just cut out the middleman.
JCclimber October 31, 2012 12:06 PM: I am endorsing Bill the Cat. He understands me in a way that no other candidate has ever understood me before. Why, when I shook his hand, and asked him what he thought of invading another country with American troops, he turned his head and hawked up a nice big hairball. That is exactly my position too.

Then, I asked him his thoughts on the big banker bailouts (TM), and I'm pretty sure the *ackk* coughing sound that he made expressed the same disgust for the whole Federal Reserve that I feel. You see, Bill the Cat cares, he cares enough to come to my liberal area of San Francisco, and because his Secret Service agents were carrying guns, I am certain he supports the gun rights of his fellow Americans too. Although some of his agents looked suspiciously animal-like when I saw them in better lighting....but who am I to judge Secret Service agents. Plus, he had a cute little penguin with him wearing a bow-tie. What other presidential candidate has that kind of a mascot?

Oh, and I voted for him for my college student body president back in the 1980's in a write-in ballot. He ended up winning that election (seriously), and the college changed the voting rules so that he couldn't win the next year. So I know he understands how unfair the electoral process can be in Kalifornia. Plus he has experience of being president for at least 1 year.
JCclimber October 31, 2012 12:13 PM: Oh happy day, I see someone else will be voting for Bill the Cat. We've got momentum!!!

Or I may write in Ron Paul like I did in the last election. I'm in Kalifornia so Obama will win regardless, even if he is found to have murdered 12 year old children during his college years and rapes every intern within 1 mile of the White House while eating GMO-tainted feed-lot beef. And drinks 24-oz sodas afterwords to the tune of Ted Nugent songs.

I'm really voting so that I can vote against every tax Proposition on the Kalifornia ballot.
Other Josh October 31, 2012 12:15 PM: In my Oklahoma district, I will be voting for Jim Bridenstine. That's it. I will skip the presidential vote. There are some local gov't questions on the ballot. Anything that increases taxes, bureaucracy, or gov't activity will be rejected.
willneverpostagain October 31, 2012 12:18 PM: I will not vote at the State or the Federal level, since I live in IL: there is no point in it. Dems will win across the board.

I always vote at the local level, mostly tax and bond issues: I have a policy to never vote higher taxes for myself.
Loki of Asgard October 31, 2012 12:18 PM: Vote for me. If you must be ruled, and you must, at least it will be by someone with impeccable taste in clothing. Additionally, I do have a track record of silencing droning "intellectuals"--see my artful work in Stuttgart--while looking smashing in a silk scarf. Considering your collective affection for loafer-wearing cruelty artists, this should appeal to your tiny minds.

Loki 2012. I do what I want, and so can you.
Pretzel-logic October 31, 2012 12:27 PM: "Most important election evah!"
Markku October 31, 2012 12:33 PM: I endorse Obama, because when USA economically annihilates itself, Europe will be in a stronger position.
WaterBoy October 31, 2012 12:39 PM: Gary Johnson. His stance on most issues is the closest match to my own. He will not win this election, but my wasted* vote is one more number toward the total to show other people how it's done: you will not change the current two-party system by voting for either of those two parties.

All other seats will be voted on using the same metric. They, too, will be "wasted" votes, since none of them will win either, but the same principle needs to be demonstrated repeatedly.

The only things I aim to affect are local/state referenda.

*Wssted only applies if the goal is to get a certain person elected. That isn't the case, here.
WaterBoy October 31, 2012 12:40 PM: Wssted = Wasted
pretzel-logic October 31, 2012 12:41 PM: White Horse Prophecy or the Mahdi Prophecy. This is what it's boiling down to. One or the other. (hillary anyone?) Throwing my vote away! Ron Paul.
bw October 31, 2012 12:42 PM: Haven't voted for ages.
I do not believe POTUS, Congress, or even SCOTUS makes any meaningful decisions whatsoever, and certainly none of their own volition. There is an EM House for every one. Follow the Money and the Agenda.
Politicians are simply whores for the Cryptocracy - the public face for the peeps to emote over. They take the heat or the praise, while the Real Business goes on as usual, with the Media doing its part - failing to ask significant questions or point out the obvious, if not actually participating in cover ups and mis-direction.
Slut Whores, all....
The Collective religious fundamentalism is triumphing over the Individual. Nothing short of a Military Coup or Financial collapse will stem that tide.
Res Ipsa October 31, 2012 1:04 PM: Wssted = Wasted

Hitting the auchentoshan early today?
Difster October 31, 2012 1:05 PM: I had intended to write in Ron Paul. However, when I moved to Texas, I didn't register in time to vote in the Presidential elections so I'm not voting at all.

My write in vote for Ron Paul would have been purely symbolic of course and nothing more than a reflection of my support of the man and his integrity.

I would have written in Peter Schiff or Tom Woods for VP.
Aviendha October 31, 2012 1:06 PM: I held my nose and voted for McCain.
I wrote in Ron Paul early this week. WA = absentee ballots.
Log October 31, 2012 1:10 PM: I voted for Ron Paul. I choose to vote for the good, rather than the lesser of two evils. Ron Paul, whatever his faults may be (such as the inherent self-contradictions within anarcho-capitalist philosophy), is a true friend to liberty, as established by his every vote, every speech, and every book he's written. He is, as Moroni in the Book of Mormon, one who "seeks not for power, but to pull it down." (Alma 61:9) I believe in human liberty, and in abiding the Mormon creed, so helpfully phrased by Brigham Young as "mind your own [damn] business." Ron Paul exemplifies this principle.

In the end, at the judgement bar, I shall be called to account for my vote, and in this I shall have a clear conscience, having voted to free them who are in thrall to tyrants who destroy and reign with blood and horror on this earth. Ron Paul is the only candidate whose foreign policy - "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none" - is consistent with D&C 98:33-38.
IM2L844 October 31, 2012 1:17 PM: Santa Claus

I think he has a few of planks wrong in his platform, but, what the hell, maybe I can get back on the good list.
philip October 31, 2012 1:20 PM: I've been brainwashed. I'm not voting.
McUltra October 31, 2012 1:21 PM: I am still undecided between not voting at all, and voting for Romney.

I might vote for Romney, however, because:

He's white. I don't expect him to roll-back anti-racism (or feminism or a whole bunch of other crappy cultural trends), but I think it would be reasonable to expect that he wouldn't push it (or them) as much, and that his appointments, especially for Attorney General, would be mostly white, and that the net effect would be at least a tacit roll-back of what seems like, and has been confirmed somewhat in US statistics, open season on whites.
Difranco October 31, 2012 1:23 PM: This is a bit dated; but this is my reason for not voting.

In John Locke's Second Treatise of Government any legitimate government must first obtain direct consent of the governed. This is later reaffirmed by the unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America. What is consent?

consent 1) n. a voluntary agreement to another’s proposition. 2) v. to voluntarily agree to an act or proposal of another, which may range from contracts to sexual relations

Consent must be obtained in two forms. The first form of consent is obtained through the establishment of government. When establishing government, a form of government must be presented to those who are to be governed for their approval. This very thing is happening in the world today as I write this note. The European Union had convened a constitutional convention to draft a governing agreement. The resulting EU constitutional document is then presented to those to be governed for their consent. The Netherlands, Ireland, France and others have all rejected this government proposal while other nations such as Spain and Greece have consented to the EU Constitution. However, when consent is not given but taken things can go very wrong. This too is currently being demonstrated on the world stage as the people of Iraq do not consent to the form or manner of government being handed to them and thus resulting rebellion against those who would yoke them with illegitimate government.

The second form of consent must be obtained for the operation of government. This second form of consent arises from the fact that the right to liberty is unalienable. One cannot rightly consent to a government that rules without going back to the people for their ongoing consent. It is through the election process and putting people into public offices of an established government that provides consent to government. The very act of participating in the mechanisms of established government is what provides consent and the tacit approval of the actions of the government's agents. This is why the media has acted as a mouth piece for the government and to campaign for the various "get out the vote campaigns" because it is your 'civil duty' to vote. What nobody else tells you is that is your civil duty not to vote, to not consent to an unconstitutional, morally bankrupt, and illegitmate government. Less than 20% of the governed adult population of my county voted in the 2006 elections. Could one really consider this consent of the governed?

Every two to four years we are told that "this" election is most important election of our lifetime or 'in our age'. You have to ask yourself how has the government changed things since the last election cycle? Do you consent to the following:

No Child left behind
The War on Drugs
The War on Terror
The Patriot Act
Government Death Squads (http://www.cato.org/raidmap/)
Corporatism
Inflation of the Monetary System
Banking Cartels
Income Taxes
Undeclared Wars
Bailouts (Rescue?) for the Rich
Theft of Property (Kelo v. New London)
Domestic spying on citizens

This is only a small sample things that a voter provides tacit consent to when they participate and have their voice heard!
the bandit October 31, 2012 1:25 PM: I endorse Ted Cruz, because the establishment will go into conniptions when a tea party candidate is elected to Washington. Because of SOPA, I am voting against Lamar Smith, and for the libertarian candidate John-Henry Liberty, who looks rather wet-behind-the-ears, but has a cool surname (if indeed that's his real name).

Oh, you meant the presidential election? ...what difference does it make?

(Though I will be casting a Libertarian vote in that race to contribute toward the possibility of more national credence & debate access in the future.)
RobertT October 31, 2012 1:27 PM: I'm amazed at the number of people responding who are wasting their vote on a silly protest vote. Nobody knows, nobody cares. You're standing on the sidelines smirking while the world rushes past right in front of you. Me, whether I'm right or wrong, I prefer to be in the middle of the fight. VD's right, MPAI.
Noah B. October 31, 2012 1:32 PM: "I endorse Ted Cruz, because the establishment will go into conniptions when a tea party candidate is elected to Washington."

Ted Cruz is the only one I know I'll be voting for at this point. I have to check on all the other local candidates again. He's not from my district but it would be great to see the MPAA/RIAA puppet Smith voted out. I don't think the odds of that are too great though.
Daniel October 31, 2012 1:32 PM: Let's leave the criticism for other posts. There's a request that comes with this post to only endorse, not get off on rabbit trails.
Daniel October 31, 2012 1:33 PM: Oops, that was in regards to RobertT's post, not Noah B.'s. Endorse your candidate, don't rip mine.
HCain2012 October 31, 2012 1:34 PM: "I'm amazed at the number of people responding who are wasting their vote on a silly protest vote."

Why is it wasted?
HCain2012 October 31, 2012 1:35 PM: "Let's leave the criticism for other posts. There's a request that comes with this post to only endorse, not get off on rabbit trails."

Good point.

Forget it, RoberT
kh123 October 31, 2012 1:44 PM: Was the German population as responsible for the success of the Ja! campaign as they were for Dresden several years later.

Hence, no vote from me.
Loki of Asgard October 31, 2012 1:44 PM: You're standing on the sidelines smirking while the world rushes past right in front of you. Me, whether I'm right or wrong, I prefer to be in the middle of the fight.

Watching from the sidelines as people are trampled by the rushing world is quite amusing, actually. It is made even more so when the downtrodden put themselves deliberately in its way, thinking that their presence will slow the great behemoth known as "history".

I think you use the phrase "bonus points" to describe what you get for waving your arms and shouting about the desire to be relevant and to have an impact.

I, personally, enjoy this regular performance while eating the Midgard invention you call "popcorn".
I am not an Idiot October 31, 2012 1:45 PM: Not going to vote and don't care.
Desert Cat October 31, 2012 1:45 PM: Standing in the gap, with finger raised to the powers that be, I wrote in Ron Paul.

That's my "do not consent". Down-ballot, there was plenty to vote against.
mrl October 31, 2012 1:51 PM: We have early voting until tomorrow. Already voted for Virgil Goode. Haven't voted Republican since George Bush first ran. Was able to vote all Independents for the first time. I personally can't vote for Republicans or Democrats they don't stand for the truth and won't fix the mess.
WaterBoy October 31, 2012 1:54 PM: Res Ipsa: "Hitting the auchentoshan early today?""

That was just the reptilian part of my brain taking control for a few sssecondsss.
ApolloKioku October 31, 2012 1:56 PM: I am writing in Ron Paul for president, leaving everything else blank, and voting NO on a Fire Department Levy increase. The only reason I'm really voting is so I don't have to slog through crap from my parents during Hunting Season/Thanksgiving.
Anonymous October 31, 2012 1:58 PM: Ok,

Who here voted for Alfred E. Newman?

More than once?

Frenchy
Good Will (aka The Mormon Hamster) October 31, 2012 2:01 PM: Romney, because...

(1)I want a competent, true American adult at the controls during the crash landing;

(2) Revering and upholding the U.S. Constitution as a divinely inspired document is actually a tenet of the LDS faith;

(3) He's damn smart, a clever politician, and a man of demonstrated personal virtue (all of his flaws, failings, foibles and flip-flops aside);

(4) He is the pragmatic choice.
RC October 31, 2012 2:08 PM: The system is utterly corrupt so I am continuing to vote no by systematically liquidating all U.S. financial assets and moving them to countries where capital is appreciated and can be put to productive use.
MassFOID October 31, 2012 2:21 PM: "Romney, because...

Revering and upholding the U.S. Constitution as a divinely inspired document is actually a tenet of the LDS faith;"

Please cite evidence that Mitt reveres the US Constitution.

Please...
MattN October 31, 2012 2:29 PM: A little story about the last election. This blog has helped influence me from a straight up Republican to some combo of conservative/libertarian/classical liberal depending on the issue. I remember deciding after McCain supported the bailout, and acted like a jackass threatening to cancel the first debate because of the economic crisis, that there was no way I could vote for him. I decided on Chuck Baldwin and actually felt like I was doing something wrong when I voted for him. In retrospect it was a great decision that I'm glad I made. As for this election I'll either vote for Goode or write in Ron Paul. I would consider skipping but there are actually a large number of important ballot issues in my state.
CR106 October 31, 2012 2:32 PM: Virgil Goode.

He is a valid 3rd party candidate. Ron Paul won't get enough write in votes.
Sheila October 31, 2012 2:37 PM: I'm not voting. Neither candidate represents my interests (White ethno-nationalist, paleoconservative/libertarian). Neither candidate will do anything to slow this country's demise (stop all immigration/population replacement, cut all entitlements, stop all foreign advetures). I will neither hold my nose nor choose the evil of two lessors. I cannot bear to line up among the Chinese, Indians, Arabs, recently-arrived-in-North Texas angry Negroes, and DWLS, so I'm not voting in local or state elections either.

My husband abhors Obama and still retains some neocon tendencies (military brat) so he voted Romney. I don't even know if I care who wins. On the one hand, I want Obama to be putatively in charge when TSHTF and I've come to side with the "worse is better" camp in certain regards; on the other hand I'd love to see the liberal anguish and black rage if their messiah were trounced. Still, I'm so philosophically disengaged from this aberrant incarnation of the U.S. that even schadenfreude doesn't particularly motivate me to give a damn.

Stilicho - LOVED your poem. Led Zeppo - spot on.
Azimus October 31, 2012 2:59 PM: I'm not voting for president. However I am voting for the other Federal elections for Wisconsin.

My hope is that one party will run the Executive and the other the Legislative. The only time we have any peace is when neither party has both - thus the last 2yrs have been great and I'd like to see two more.
tiarosa October 31, 2012 3:25 PM: POTUS/VPOTUS: didn't cast a vote

Senate: Ted Cruz

Congress: Bill Flores (won't do much damage)

I'm a Ron Paul supporter since 2008 but a write-in would have had no effect.
Sensei October 31, 2012 3:31 PM: Already voted absentee, wrote in Ron Paul. Most fun I've ever had voting.

It's not a pro-Obama or wasted vote either, as I live in Alabama which will probably go +70% Not-Obama (not much love for Romney in these parts but he's the not-Obama).

I hope tons of people in 'safe' states vote 3rd party or write in Ron Paul, it might send a message to the Republicans that although the Tea Party movement was a failure as a movement, their 'base' considers themselves more closely represented by the Tea Party than the current batch of neo-cons and so-called moderates who pretend to represent them in Babyl-er, Washington.
Anonymous October 31, 2012 3:35 PM: Not a citizen, but would vote for Romney because I'm curious to see the results of his tax plan.
It is a new experiment, and not obviously flawed.
Redlegben October 31, 2012 4:01 PM: Romney - Oil.
Drew Smith October 31, 2012 4:07 PM: I'm voting for Gary Johnson. Because not voting accomplishes nothing, and because Ron Paul withdrew. A strong showing by Johnson would be an effective rebuke of the Republican Party.
MendoScot October 31, 2012 4:23 PM: "Wssted = Wasted"

Hitting the auchentoshan early today?

And who could blame him?
Desert Cat October 31, 2012 4:45 PM: I did *not* vote for Gary Johnson, because after Karl Denninger was done with him, there was nothing left to vote for. Gay marriage? The hell?! We're in a depression caused by the Bankster Party! And people know it. If you're the alternative, then FFS go after them!

And Virgil Goode? He actually wants to *ramp up* the intensity of the drug war. BZZT! "Constitution" Party, my ass.
WaterBoy October 31, 2012 4:46 PM: Now that I think about it, I should imbibe several glasses of the stuff before going, to ensure literally wasted voting.
Jack Amok October 31, 2012 5:05 PM: Romney for two things he said: "I like firing people", and "47 percent."

The federal government needs lots of people fired. Obama won't do it. Romney might, so I'll go with the "might."

But the bigger reason is the 47 percent. Romney may shift a bunch of government cheese to banksters, but it'll be a hell of a lot easier in a few years to kick a handfull of banksters et al off the dole that it will be to kick half the country off of it. Romney will start the hard work now, making it easier for the next guy to finish the cleanup.
tdm October 31, 2012 5:11 PM: I don't know or understand much. Since I have been reading voxday I have learned a little about economics. For this reason I will vote against anything that will give more money to the government.
TheVillageIdiotRet October 31, 2012 5:40 PM: Not Registered:
I condemn evil I don't support it.
Including Universal Suffrage.
Democracy is not only a killer of cultures and economies.
It's the killer of goddam empires.

DannyR
TheVillageIdiotRet October 31, 2012 5:43 PM: Not Registered:
I condemn evil I don't support it.
Including Universal Suffrage.
Democracy is not only a killer of cultures and economies.
It's the killer of goddam empires.

DannyR
Mr. B.A.D. October 31, 2012 6:32 PM: I'm voting for Johnson. Although he is pro-choice, viability would actually be a huge leap forward for pro-life and much more than any republican has or will do. I would write in Ron Paul, but Johnson is certified in every state which means my vote still has a chance of doing something good like getting the Libertarian party on the stage with the rest.
Gerd October 31, 2012 6:59 PM: Excellent!
With Ritt Momney poised to take over the remnants of the Old Republic, we can now complete the FULLY OPERATIONAL DRONE DEATH STAR! and take over the galaxy,,,ummm,,,I mean the country.

Wraps hisself in his evil black velvety cloak and stomps off for milk and oreos.