How does he even have an infinitesimal chance? If Gary Johnson were allowed in the debates, he would have a chance at winning a state, perhaps New Mexico, perhaps Wyoming, perhaps New Hampshire. If he won even a few electoral votes, the election could go to the House. This happened with Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson. At that point, all bets are off. Johnson could be a compromise solution.
But that isn’t even the point. If he were to get exposure in the debates, actual constitutionally limited government views would be heard. They currently are not. If people heard these ideas, they would gain momentum. With momentum, things have a chance of changing.
Those in control, however, love the status quo. They love getting government protection.They love buying influence in. DC. There is no way they, the corporatists, will allow Johnson in the debates. He is a threat, even if tiny. They can not have that. Corporatists, by the way, have no party. Both the Ds and Rs do their bidding. For example, why does Goldman Sachs donate to both Obama and Mitt? Because, like Rick Hendrick when it comes to Jeff Gordon and Jimmie Johnson, they don’t care who wins. Either way, they get paid.
Plurality voting is one of the ways the corporatists maintain power. Plurality voting makes no sense on any objective level. Please read Gaming the Vote by William Poundstone for more on this. http://www.amazon.com/Gaming-Vote-Elections-Arent-About/dp/0809048930
“Spoiling” the vote for one of the major parties (most recently, Nader “spoiled” Florida for Gore – this is not a partisan subject) demonstrates vividly the ignorance of plurality voting. By demonstrating its ignorance, perhaps it can change.
Hoping that the current system will result in any different outcome, after 150 years, is … well…. uh… belied by history. (Quick aside: I could have said something like “fucking stupid” instead of “belied by history,” but I do my best not to be a douche. I know, I know, I often fail. But at least I’m aware of the problem).
I’m not voting for Johnson because he can win. I’m voting against giving my consent to corrupt corporatism. Kinda like Ayn Rand wrote about the “sanction of the victim.’ Voting for Romney is sanctioning your own theft. Maybe to a lesser degree, but so what? Think about this: Do you think Dagny Taggart would vote for Mitt?
If she voted at all, she wouldn’t. Same for Hank Rearden, John Galt, Francisco D’Anconia, etc. They would never sanction their own victimhood. Not at the end of the book, anyway.
Principal, my friend, matters. Beating the other guy is not a principal. Freedom is a principal. Our founding fathers were willing to kill and die for it. I”m just trying to change a demonstrably failed process by not supporting it. One day, I hope you will, too.
Read Etienne de la Boettie’s Discourse on Voluntary Servitude. http://mises.org/document/1218/
Read Lysander Spooner’s No Treason http://jim.com/treason.htm
I do not agree with all of either one, but they both challenge our thinking. And that is a good thing.