I took Katie with me this morning (she’s almost a bigger Ron Paul supporter than I am; she says he’s her “favorite President ever”) out to my local polling place. Now I think it’s weird that the State government is using a religious institution’s building to run a government function, but hey–I’m one of those weird “separation of Church and State”rs. Outside the building was a table where a guy had a sample Republican ballot, as well as this handy-dandy little reference card:

FYI: 100% of the identified Ron Paul supporters (three of the four candidates in each list) are “NOT ENDORSED” by the Republican Committee of Lancaster County, PA. Those candidates are listed at RonPaulPA.com.

You know, this just seems odd to me. I can see a special interest group endorsing certain GOP candidates before the GOP primary, but why would the GOP itself be endorsing particular candidates before the primary election?

Why should their a priori endorsement matter to me? Isn’t that a little bit backwards?

Sorry, I’m just a little bit angry about this. If they’d given reasons for the endorsements (or lack thereof), I might feel better about it. But when they do something like this, aren’t they implicitly saying “those candidates aren’t ‘Republican’ enough”? Fine, make that claim… but support it if you want me to take you seriously!

Just handing over this card, though… party officials are literally dictating to area residents how to vote?! How would it look if your county’s Democratic party was telling all the Democrats to vote for Obama? That’s what this looks like to me.

The purpose of a primary is for me to tell you who to vote for, “Party Officials”; not vice-versa.

Ooh… it just burns me up!

McCain and Romney? I choose to attribute their high numbers to the odd “you’re a bigger hypocrite than I am!” rivalry they’ve got going on. It just begs people to choose sides.

And that’s all the American people want, really. Two contrived “sides” so they can pick one and have the other be the enemy. Anything else would require thinking, and that cramps our style.

Go ahead and try to search Facebook for “Ron Paul”—here’s what I got:

(click to enlarge)

“Search is currently unavailable. Please try again at a later time or right now.” But as much as you try, you still get this message. So maybe search is down, except… if I do a Facebook search for “Paul,” I get this:

(click to enlarge)

So Facebook search is working just fine, but won’t give you results when you search for Ron Paul. Hmm… now why would that be happening?

And does this have anything to do with Microsoft’s recent acquisition of Facebook?

Don’t tell me Ron Paul doesn’t stand a chance!

My personal take on polls like this is that the sorts of web enthusiasts who gravitate toward the open-source community tend to feel like Paul “gets” them more than the other Republican candidates. Those types of people are also far more likely than the average American to do their own “independent investigation” of Presidential candidates, instead of relying solely on traditional sources like newspapers, radio or television network news.

News outlets such as ABC News really do a disservice to this country’s citizens when they focus more on a candidate’s perceived chances of winning than on that candidate’s political beliefs and philosophies. This shouldn’t be a popularity contest–we’re talking about electing the nation’s President, not a high school Class President!

So here’s my suggestion to Mr. Langer: instead of these “who do you think won last night’s debate” sorts of polls, do some research and compile a list of 10-12 congressional votes, public statements or other applicable insights into each candidate’s mind, and begin a series of polls focusing on them. Inform your audience, and then poll your audience on how they feel about the information you provided.

See, then you’d be seen as responsible and mature, and you probably wouldn’t feel the urge to quote 12-year-olds in your defense.