Sunday, October 24, 2010

John Monds and the Lesser of Two Evils

One common criticism of voting Libertarian, or for any third party, is that one is "throwing one's vote away" and the only realistic option is to vote for the lesser of two evils.

Firstly, I would wager that one is only throwing one's vote away if they do something absurd like write in Mickey Mouse or a candidate who isn't running. Otherwise, one's vote has an impact, even if that impact is helping a rival party.

(Voting Green tends to benefit Republicans; voting Libertarian tends to benefit Democrats.)

Secondly, in states with runoff elections for those who don't reach a certain electoral threshhold, one has a choice other than the lesser of two evils.

This WSB poll shows that neither Deal nor Barnes are polling above 50 percent.

If neither party gets more than a majority of the votes (50 percent plus one), it's runoff time.

My suggestion is that people who don't like Roy Barnes or Nathan Deal (and there are a lot of them) vote Libertarian John Monds. If Monds does well enough to force a runoff between Barnes and Deal, then it will be time to pick the lesser of two evils, since Monds will realistically not be among the top two finishers.

This will force the two of them to compete for Libertarian votes, which might affect their political platforms, and will strengthen the hand of the Libertarian Party in general.  After all, voting for a party that managed to force the two major parties into a runoff cannot be described as throwing one's vote away in the same manner that writing in Mickey Mouse is.

In turn, if the Libertarian vote is strengthened, the two major parties will alter their platforms to appeal to them.  Philosophically speaking, that would be easier for the Republican Party, since it strikes me as intellectually dishonest to support small government but at the same time support laws against victimless crimes that spawn big-government bureaucracy and abuses, like the Drug War or unnecessary foreign adventures.


  1. As a moderate neocon I support marijuana legalization but I think legalizing hard drugs would be unwise. In addition what do you mean by "foreign adventures"? Iraq or even Afghanistan?

  2. Also I remember you were Presbyterian and conservatives either subscribe to theonomism (ie Rushdooey, North, Van Til) or libetarianism (ie Machen, Sproul) regarding politics/

  3. See for instance here:

  4. Well, we can always start with marijuana and see what happens. It's the least dangerous of the illegal drugs.

    By "foreign adventures," I'm thinking more along the lines of Bosnia, Kosovo, and Iraq. Afghanistan was a different matter, as we were attacked by a terrorist gang operating in alliance with the government (of most of the territory).

    About Presbyterianism, I'm PC-USA, not PCA or the other more Reformed branches, so I'm generally not involved with "Presbyterian politics."

    I did correspond briefly with Gary North about Christian science-fiction writers and the proper interpretation of "My kingdom is not of this world" though. :)

    I'd consider myself a Libertarian, but my experience as a reporter has taught me that some things government needs to do to facilitate economic growth (schools, transportation infrastructure) and those things need to be paid for.

  5. I think Sproul's description of the situation in ancient Rome needs work.

    For starters, the number of Christians killed by the pagan Roman state was less than "tens of thousands."

    Also, I think the issue was burning incense to Caesar and calling him "Lord" in the sense of calling him a god. After all, 1 Peter does say "honor the emperor."

  6. As for Bosnia and Kosovo it seems to have been a humanitarian intervention-it did work after all in stopping the Serbs from commiting ethnic cleansing and mass murder at very minimal cost in American lives. Also I remember you support Ron Paul who in 2008 ended up endorsing the Constitution Party which opposes goverment intervention in most areas including schools.

  7. The Kosovo War was illegal--the U.S. House did not vote to authorize military action (they tied), although the Senate did.

    The Founders were particularly fearful of the abuse of war powers by the executive branch. After all, they remembered Europe's kings.

    (And both wars had their share of blowback--the Croats ethnically cleansed the Krajina Serbs with our assistance and the KLA deals in heroin and sex-trafficking.)

    Woodrow Wilson used his war powers (WWI) to essentially impose a dictatorship on the US and put political opponents in jail. The Bush Administration "disappeared" Jose Padilla. Not cool.

    And Ron Paul was the only Republican candidate in 2008 who thought the Iraq War was a bad idea and was actually concerned about runaway federal spending. I don't agree with his endorsement of the Constitution Party.