Anyone who claims that your one vote really makes a difference in national elections is delusional.

They’ll be quick to point out the handful of close elections in history, such as the 2004 Florida contest between Bush and Kerry.

But that brings me to my point: Would our nation really be that different today had Kerry won instead of Bush?

Would Kerry have eroded our freedoms and spent our money more than Bush?

I highly doubt it — at least not in any substantive way.

Status-quo Republicans and Democrats are virtually indistinguishable.

As political economist Gunnar Myrdal stated,

Political parties . . . have to take up a fighting position at least at election times when they have to stimulate the lazy and undecided voters to vote, and to vote for them. All politicians . . . have, however, an interest in preserving favorable conditions for the normal day-to-day cooperation and collective bargaining among them all.

He added that,

We tend to arrive at a situation where there is a large measure of agreement among all the political parties. They sometimes even compete in propagating new and constantly more sweeping redistributional reforms as levels of income rise.

In any case, we have seen very few examples, if any, where the coming into power of a more conservative political party has meant a substantial retraction of reforms previously carried through by a party which was further left.

As long as you vote for status-quo candidates, your vote doesn’t matter. Regardless of party, you’re still going to get the same things: unsustainable debt, overblown spending, more inept bureaucracy, more global intervention, less adherence to the Constitution.

The current debate among the GOP is which candidate has the best chance of beating Obama.

I’ve heard countless people say that any of the current GOP candidates would be better than Obama.

Really? Based on what version of history and for what reasons?

Both sides of the aisle gave us the TARP bailouts. Both sides passed the Patriot Act. Both sides vote for entitlements. Both sides give lip service to cutting spending, while our budget and debt continue to balloon.

Republicans: If you vote on the basis of who is most likely to beat Obama, you’ve already lost the battle and your vote is pointless.

This is yet another example of freedom-lovers fighting election-cycle battles, rather than a 100-year war.

To restore our freedoms, we must break free from our current partisan gridlock, where our freedoms are eroded year after year regardless of which party is in power.

In short, we need more Independents and less party loyalists.

Freedom-loving Republicans must stop focusing solely on trying to beat Obama, and instead must shift their efforts to winning a 100-year war for freedom.

Furthermore, all citizens must realize the limitations of elections and put their right to vote in context.

Yes, the right to vote is important. But it’s mostly symbolic of deeper issues.

Freedom isn’t preserved by citizens who do little to preserve it outside of elections, then show up angry at polls.

It’s preserved by citizens who build families and small businesses. Who educate themselves and their children about freedom and the Constitution. Who deeply understand the issues rather than accepting the talking points and 30-second media sound bites from status-quo politicians.

All the populist rantings about beating Obama and the dangers of “splitting the vote” are deceptive distractions blinding voters from the real points:

  1. Vote status quo and you’re going to get status quo — regardless of party.
  2. The impact of your vote is limited and must be put in context. Far more important than voting is how you educate yourself, raise your family, become a producer, and serve your community.