Chris Proudly Wastes His Vote on Gary Johnson

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Subscribe: Email | RSS

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Audio and Transcript – Here’s a quote from Chris, who is wasting his vote on Gary Johnson instead of one of the “ideal candidates”, check out the rest in the transcript and audio, “Me and my wife had our ballots mailed to us for the first time this year, and it was by far the best thing that we ever did.  When it came to the local initiatives, we knew how we were going to vote on that.  The interesting thing was, this year, the spot for where we were going to vote for president was actually the last spot for both of us to fill out.  For about the last four elections, she’s always wrote in none of the above and I’ve always pulled the trigger for whichever one I thought was going to win anyway.  We both ended up voting for Johnson this year.”

 

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike:  Chris in Montana is first up today.  Hello, Chris.

Caller Chris:  Hey, how you doing?

Mike:  All right, sir.

Caller Chris:  Me and my wife had our ballots mailed to us for the first time this year, and it was by far the best thing that we ever did.  When it came to the local initiatives, we knew how we were going to vote on that.  The interesting thing was, this year, the spot for where we were going to vote for president was actually the last spot for both of us to fill out.  For about the last four elections, she’s always wrote in none of the above and I’ve always pulled the trigger for whichever one I thought was going to win anyway.  We both ended up voting for Johnson this year.  We ended up going to the YouTube videos and reading newspaper editorials.

Mike:  Wait a minute.  You did what?

Caller Chris:  We actually did research while we were voting.

Mike:  You’re not supposed to do that.  What is wrong with you, you dunderhead?  You’re supposed to listen to this channel all day long and then conclude that you’re wasting your vote if you don’t vote against Obama.  Voting for Gary Johnson is not voting against Obama, Chris.  You are going to be accused of treason, of sedition, of being a traitor, of being an imbecile, of being a moron.  If anyone else on this channel finds out I fielded a phone call from you and that you and your wife voted for Gary Johnson, I may not survive this evening.  I may not make it through the day.  Why are you torturing me?

Caller Chris:  I’ll tell you what the most interesting thing was.  I actually got her to change her vote.  Like I said, for the last four elections, she’s always wrote in none of the above.  She just doesn’t believe in anybody.  After listening to the guy, you have no choice but to say he actually makes sense.

Mike:  You’re speaking of Governor Johnson.  I played Gary Johnson clips from the third-party debate today.  As I tweeted out, what’s not to like?  There it is, boom, bam, right there.  Why wasn’t he in the debates twixt Romney and Obama?  That’s because these elections are basically decided by a few people that are members of posh clubs in Washington, DC or New York, or maybe they’re members in both.  The fact that you, in Montana, researched.  Take my advice, don’t mention this on your Facebook page, don’t Tweet this out.  For God’s sake, don’t call any other host other than me and tell them this.  You might be condemned to purgatory by a particular host for saying you actually voted for Gary Johnson.  You’re going to be sent to hell.

Caller Chris:  Absolutely.

Mike:  I’m being facetious, by the way.

Caller Chris:  We got into a debate, however, before we both pulled the trigger for Johnson.  It always made sense to me, instead of just having two candidates, maybe a third on our ballots, why don’t we just have ten?  We got into a discussion that if we had a very strong third candidate or fourth candidate or ten candidates, would we end up having to run into a runoff?  If it was just three candidates, would 34 percent win?  I think 34 percent would win.  She thinks we’d have to have a runoff.  If we end up with a runoff, you’d end up with a two-party system anyway, which I absolutely despise.

Mike:  Let’s just say you had ten candidates.  Provided that you had one that had a majority of electoral college votes, that person would be the winner.

Caller Chris:  That’s kind of what I thought.

Mike:  I’m not sure.  I’m going to have to actually re-read the electoral procedure of the electoral college to make sure that it’s not a majority of all the elector ballots cast.  There has been no presidential runoff.  I believe whoever it is that attains the most amount of electoral college votes would be the winner.  For example, in 1860, it wasn’t just Lincoln and the Democrat on the ballot.  You would have had I think five candidates in 1860.  To answer your question, yes, I think it would be a good thing.  It may make the body politic that much smarter if they have to research and think their way through a field of ten candidates as opposed to two.  With two, you can just flip a coin to make a choice.  With ten, you may have to go, “I can’t vote on that if I don’t know.”

Caller Chris:  I did have one more question for you, kind of a history question.  Why are we stuck with, is it 531?

Mike:  535.

Caller Chris:  Why are we stuck at that number since 1929?

Mike:  Since 1919 actually.  That is a very good question.  The House of Representin’ is supposed to be apportioned by the decadal census.  In other words, there’s supposed to be a census, according to the Constitution, taken every ten years.  That information is then used to craft congressional districts.  From every census all the way up until 1919 — 1919 was the last time there was an apportionment.  In the 1920s, the Congress saw [mocking] “Man, we can stop this apportionment stuff.  Our districts will grow, our power will grow, and it’ll be harder and harder to kick us out of office.”  Incumbency went from 2.62 years in 1919 to almost 11 years by 2010.  Let me try and make that a little easier to digest.  If you went to Congress in January of 1921, after the last apportionment, the average tenure of a member of the House of Representin’ would have been 2.6 years, meaning they had a little more than one term under their belt as the average tenure for a member of Congress.  By 2010, that number had exploded to almost 11 years now as the average tenure.

Caller Chris:  How do we —

Mike:  Rethink the American union is what I say.  We’re going to have to divvy power up.  You’re not going to have the 50 states, 50 senators, House of Representin’ divided 700,000 to 900,000 constituents.  That is just not representative in any way, shape or form and it needs to end.  I say that one of the ways to do this, and people have not come around to Churchian thought but a couple hundred years from now they will and I’ll be regarded as some sort of a genius ahead of his time.  The way to do this, to me, is to have the people, of their own free will and volition, decide that four million people is the largest amount of people that you want to be in a state.  That’s the largest number.  This will produce the most happiness and safety for the people, states that are less than four million in population.  That would mean that almost every state in the current union would have to subdivide and secede from the state that it’s currently a part of and write their own constitution, form their own states and state legislatures and get back to the process of self-government.

Let’s just take my state of Louisiana for example.  This would mean here in Louisiana that we would have two or three states.  Each one of those states would gain something.  You would gain two United States senators.  You would also gain the ability to apportion your congressional districts.  Let’s just say you would only have two members of Congress.  If you subdivided even the Congress into regions, say we chose six regions, then you could get your representation to somewhere down around 200,000.  You see where I’m going with this.  The point is to devolve power away from Mordor on the Potomac River.  That should be all of our goal. You are not going to accomplish this by electing more John Boehners.  You’re not going to accomplish this by electing more Rand Pauls either.  You’re going to have to engage in a systematic change.

You could still retain the Constitution.  It’s going to have to be amended but you could retain it.  The people have got to start thinking about this in a proactive manner.  We shouldn’t be afraid of this.  I don’t understand why people are afraid of this.  There is legislative misery spread across the amber waves of fuel today.  There’s less misery usually where you call home, in your town councils, in your city councils, in your mayors offices.  Sure, there are corrupt people but there is less misery, less tyranny there.  It’s a product of the states’ propaganda that we should fear self-government.  We’re not currently governing ourselves, Chris.

End Mike Church Show Transcript