Why I Voted for Ron Paul in the Michigan Primary

John McCain on "liberal Democrats" participating in the Michigan primary:

But today on his Straight Talk Express bus (powder blue interior with a musty smell), McCain dismissed the idea by imagining what a “liberal Democrat” in Michigan might be thinking. “Oh, gee. I’ll go find out where the polling place is, drive down, take my lunch hour or whatever it is, so I can vote for one of these jerk Republicans.”

Uhhh, not exactly. My vote for Ron Paul in the primary was motivated by three beliefs:

1. The Democratic primary is meaningless. On the other hand, voting in the Republican primary actually has an impact on the race.

2. Voting in the Republican primary effectively penalizes the MDP and the MRP for their power grab.

3. The rise of Ron Paul is harmful to the well-being of the Republican party as it exists today.

The Democratic primary is meaningless

Last time I checked, elections are supposed to tell us who the public thinks is most qualified for a particular office. The Democratic primary fails this basic "gut check."

There are a lot of people who are going to be confused when they see that their favorite candidate isn't on the ballot. Some will vote "Uncommitted," some will vote for another candidate, and some will write-in their favorite candidate anyway. Simply because voters will be doing all three, the outcome isn't representative of true public sentiment.

So what's so bad about voting Uncommitted? Voting "Uncommitted" is like saying "hey, someone else, decide my vote for me." It's fundamentally undemocratic, and irrelevant to the nomination process. For me, voting in the Democratic primary only legitimizes an inherently illegitimate process. The Republican primary, on the other hand, actually has relevance to their nomination contest.

Voting in the Republican primary effectively penalizes the MDP and the MRP for their power grab.

Every political actor who arranged for the January 15 primary was motivated by self-interest, or a desire to see Michigan play a more important role in the nomination process.

I agree that the current Presidential nominating process is completely flawed. Iowa and NH voters aren't any more deserving, informed, or representative of America than voters from any other state. I personally advocate a rotating regional system that is skewed toward smaller states going first.

But Michigan agreed to the DNC rules, and understood the consequences of violating them. Knowing fully well that the candidates pledged to ignore any state that pushed its primary up, they did it anyway. And in attempting to increase our relevancy, the Governor, legislature, and state parties actually made us irrelevant.

Even more alarming, at least $10 million of public money is going to spent on this farce. Even though the primary is publicly funded, only the state parties control the voter lists, a valuable resource. In what world is that morally justifiable? Are party loyalists so devoted to the Democratic leadership in Michigan that they lose sight of that?

There's no doubt that the individual turnout data from the primary is critically important. Partisan primary vote history is usually a strong predictor of an individual's self-reported party ID and candidate support -- both of which are of immense value to anyone running a political campaign.

So, the best way to penalize both parties is to give them shit data. The more "crossovers" there are, the less meaningful the information about this particular election becomes.

The rise of Ron Paul is harmful to the well-being of the Republican party as it exists today.

Kos believes that a Romney win in Michigan hurts the Republicans the most. I disagree -- the rise of Ron Paul is incredibly harmful to the well-being of the Republican coalition.

Don't get me wrong. I'm an economic populist and Ron Paul's core views are antithetical to everything I believe in. His libertarian vision of drowning government in a bathtub is nothing short of repulsive. A vote for Ron Paul isn't a gesture of support, but a strategic decision to maximize impact.

Ron Paul's presence in the race fractures the Republican coalition. The more he rises, the more the Republican establishment tries to shut him down. Every time this happens, his supporters become increasingly alienated from the Republican party. Remember when Saul Anuzis wanted to exclude Ron Paul from the debates, and his supporters went nuts?

If Ron Paul ends up running as a libertarian or independent, he'll take a lot of otherwise Republican voters with him. We might be in trouble with voters who are attracted to his antiwar stance, but it could actually force the Democratic presidential nominee to move to the left on Iraq. There is a clear benefit to encouraging him to stay in the race.

Democrats are not going to win Ron Paul's libertarian-leaning supporters on economic issues. If we can't have these people on our side, and if the Republicans aren't really representing their viewpoint, we might as well do everything we can to relegate them to a third party. Looking at the New Hampshire exits, there appear to be cross-pressures between Ron Paul supporters and the rest of the Republicans on the Iraq war and feelings about the Bush administration. After being alienated from a Republican party that doesn't want them, we can use these issues to pick up Ron Paul supporters that will vote for our candidates.