Illinois: Who should I vote for – OR – Ballot access

Being registered in Illinois where Obama won the Senate race by a 30-point margin (and lost in my home county by the same), there seems to be next to zero chance that the state will vote Republican for the first time since Reagan. As such, I’d be throwing my vote away if I vote for a Democrat or a Republican. The only goal I can hope to reach with my senatorial and presidential votes is to help ensure future ballot access for a third party or two. Disregarding certain joke candidates and the rather scary Socialists and Constitution types, should I be voting for crazy tree huggers or crazy capitalists?

The old hippy lady runnin’ on the Green ticket for the Senate seems a little, well, odd. Is the party dead in Illinois? Is the Libertarian party any more or less likely to lose ballot access than the Greens in the near future? Should I split the vote and go for a lib Presidential candidate and a Green in the Senate?

Please keep in mind that I don’t give the slightest bit of a hoot about any of the following when formulating a response:

  • Abortion
  • Gun ownership

And I do care rather a lot (obviously) about consumer, privacy, and fair use rights. I’d love to see the borders opened up to substantially higher numbers of immigrants, and I wish to see barriers to international trade continue to be chopped away. I’d like to see poverty abated in the third world, and feel that the problem in the United States is miniscule in comparison. Obviously neither the Greens nor the Libs are a good fit, but neither are the (D)s and (R)s. Any thoughts?

4 thoughts on “Illinois: Who should I vote for – OR – Ballot access”

  1. You could send them an email asking them how they would vote on issues important to you. Maybe we should start the Digital Freedom Party

  2. I could if I had thought to do so prior to the last week before I must submit my ballot – Looks like I’ll split it Green/Lib. Always have thought that a Green legislature and a Libertarian President (ala Flynn) would be much more useful than the current one-party system.

  3. Constitutional Party? Maybe?
    Ron Paul style?
    I know it’s a little late, but Chuck Baldwin is a little more concerned with our civil liberties… which are constantly under assault from both the left and the right… Barr has been too lenient on both sides.

  4. Cameron: If you take a close look at the Constitution Party’s 2008 campaign site you’ll see that it is far more important to them that we close the borders to the majority of migrant workers, pull out of the intergovernmental organizations so instrumental in keeping the post WW2 peace, and start erecting Smith-Hawley style barriers to trade. They have a number of policies that make sense, but the ones where they spend their strongest language are the ones where they’re scary proto-fascist isolationists. Barr may be flawed, and in many of the same ways, but at least he was less so, and much more conservatively spoken and calm besides.

Comments are closed.