libertarian candidates

[varwoche]

I caught parts of the debate on cspan. General impression of candidates: light weights, bordering on clown act. The nominee, Aaron Russo, is a movie producer. He joked that the notion of him as president was drug induced -- I give him credit for honesty. Is this the best the libertarians can do? What about a general, or a former congressman, ok, maybe a state assemblyman, anyone with ANY credentials?

 

[toddjh]

This is part of the problem with minor parties in the U.S. They shoot for the moon and try to get candidates elected to the presidency and Congress, only to find that they have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find people to run.

The thing is, candidates who are really qualified know that they can't get into office if they don't win. The political realities of national elections mean that they pretty much have to run as one of the Big Two. And so the parties are left with unelectable candidates who are, pretty much by definition, too idealistic to stand a chance.

It's all well and good to talk about making a point and running on principle and changing people's minds about the Libertarian (or whatever) party. However, I don't think that really happens on the national scale. People see independent parties as fringe extremists or crackpots -- and be honest, they have a point. It's a vicious cycle.

What the Libertarians should do to break it is focus exclusively on local offices for now -- maybe state legislatures if it looks like they have a realistic shot, but no higher. They need a foot in the door before anyone will take them seriously at the national level. By jumping the gun like they're doing now, they're just reinforcing people's knee-jerk reactions.

Jeremy

 

[Blue Monk]

The political realities of national elections mean that they pretty much have to run as one of the Big Two.

How true.

I always thought it a real shame the Perot turned out to be a flake and self-destruct. Until he boiled down he had a real shot at being a credible third party candidate and had he continued like he started I think he could have presented a real challenge.

Even if he didn't win I think he could have presented enough of a challenge to make people start thinking a third party candidate could be viable and I think that alone would be a good thing for our system.

 

[michaellee]

What about a general, or a former congressman, ok, maybe a state assemblyman, anyone with ANY credentials?

Credentialed or not, the Libertarian and all "third" party candidates for President who have run in the past, and those running now, all know they have an absolute zero chance of winning. This also is true at almost every political level. Third-party platforms and beliefs, regardless of their merits or possible superiority over the Big 2, are never given any attention by the media, if only for ridicule and attack in order to perpetuate the "wacko" third party connotation so many perceive.

I fear this political scenario will not nor cannot change in this country, not at least for the better part of this century. Too many Americans have fallen into what I call a political "dead zone". They care about the country and some certain issues, but the overall attitude when it comes to elections and politics is that they just have more important tasks at hand, and that nothing is really going to change the way the politicians have become in this country, so why truly get excited or involved. This passivity, although certainly interrupted by the John Anderson and Ross Perot third party campaigns, permeates more today than ever before in my 42 years.

This is because most of us adult American citizens have come to accept the way things are run, even though a few rebels appear on occasion. We know that our government has been growing in its size, revenue, spending every year, year after year, and we know what kind of power our incumbent officials have grown accustomed to. And we know the political battlefield between the Democrats and Republicans, the one drawn by an overly interested media: print, television, and talk radio, is a battle which will only be won by one of those allowed to play.

Which side of the Big 2 wins really make no noticeable differences in the lives of 98% of Americans, other than give us an excuse for emotional fodder about issues both Dems and Republicans have messed up ever since they controlled them. Distract us by pointing out the differences between the Big 2 pre-election, then count on us not to notice the status quo has not changed a bit after the election.

The incumbents control it all. They write laws restricting any campaign financing necessary for a third party candidate to have any future chance of putting a dent in an election. The media, institutions of learning, and the most vocal of our citizenry focus on the most arcane sideshow antics of the politic, and do not even think about the possibility of throwing any more ready to burn wood into the fire with the introduction of a viable third party candidate. Even if someone like Perot or Anderson made a run again, the only reason they might get some interest is if they could take the vote away from GWB or Kerry.

If the Libertarian Party ran a truly credentialed candidate, the complaint would be "voting Libertarian is just throwing your vote away" . This attitude occurs even though many might agree with more of the Libertarian platform than that of the Big 2. But we all know its simply David verses 3 Goliaths; the Big 2 plus the media, and that with the current way the show is being run, there is no chance that a majority of Americans are going to jump ship simultaneously, so we go along with it, at least for another 4 years. Then 4 years goes by, and the only things that have changed (grown) are the federal deficit, federal revenue, our taxes, and our sense of entitlement (passiveness).

Then the cycle repeats itself, the same stage with a few new actors along with the familiar powerful faces we have grown to admire (elect).

The idea of a third party candidate running as one of the Big 2 is not possible. Always, the incumbent is one of the Big 2. The powers that be will never allow a third party ticket to run under their tent, for that would probably be the only way a third party would ever have a chance to win. Just make sure not to throw your vote away this year; that would be GWB or Kerry, if you really think about it.

 

[billydkid]

I caught parts of the debate on cspan. General impression of candidates: light weights, bordering on clown act. The nominee, Aaron Russo, is a movie producer. He joked that the notion of him as president was drug induced -- I give him credit for honesty. Is this the best the libertarians can do? What about a general, or a former congressman, ok, maybe a state assemblyman, anyone with ANY credentials?

Well that is incredibly lame. Here we have a man in the White House who only marginally literate and can not string two sentences together out of his own head and you refer to the Libertarian candidates as lightweight. The chosen candidate, Michael Badnarik is a highly accomplished Constitutional scholar. He is a person who has actually managed make something out of his own life without having been a Bush and all the benefits that that entails. I think it would behoove folks to check out Badnarik's website for themselves and to make up their own mind's rather than taking your word for it.

http://www.badnarik.org/default.html

 

[toddjh]

Re: Re: libertarian candidates

I think it would behoove folks to check out Badnarik's website for themselves and to make up their own mind's rather than taking your word for it.

The problem is, voting Libertarian for president under the current system really is throwing your vote away. There's no way in hell it'll happen, and everyone knows it. Electoral reform (instant-runoff voting, etc.) is necessary before any third party candidate has a realistic shot at a national office.

That's why they need to start with local offices, where they can go door to door and actually meet their potential voters and convince them individually that they're not a crackpot. Of course, actually not being a crackpot would be an asset in that area.

Shooting for the moon contributes to the public perception of third party candidates as extremists and weirdos because it proves they have no understanding of (or appreciation for) the political realities of the U.S. -- and who wants a president who can't play the game?

Jeremy

 

[varwoche]

Re: Re: libertarian candidates

Well that is incredibly lame. Here we have a man in the White House who only marginally literate and can not string two sentences together out of his own head and you refer to the Libertarian candidates as lightweight. The chosen candidate, Michael Badnarik is a highly accomplished Constitutional scholar. He is a person who has actually managed make something out of his own life without having been a Bush and all the benefits that that entails. I think it would behoove folks to check out Badnarik's website for themselves and to make up their own mind's rather than taking your word for it.

http://www.badnarik.org/default.html

I've been waiting to come take my medicine ever since I read the paper this morning only to discover that I mis-identified the nominee!

That said... hey, many people are highly accomplished. Not to be president though! Badmarik may well be a bright chap. I'd be glad to consider him for city council, maybe even state assembly.

And just because Bush is "marginally literate" (no argument here) doesn't make these chaps any less of a clown act.

A true whopper of a gravitas deficit.

 

[Art Vandelay]

I don't view a vote for the Libertarian candidate to be a "wasted" vote. I consider it to be sending a message: I am not satisfied with either major candidate. I just don't think I should be forced to vote for a bigot, which are all the Dems and Reps are offering.

As for the two party system as a whole, I don't see that it is really the problem. People think of it as reducing political choice, but that's because they're looking at it from the point of view of the final election. The two party systems takes most of the choice from the final election and moves it to the primaries. If you want to make political changes, that's where you need to start. I don't know how much of the Dean Persona was actually Dean and how much was PR, but he seemed like a better candidate (and person) than Kerry. But he lost. As much as I disagree with that decision, I recognize that that was the will of the American people. Changing the system wouldn't change what the American people want. I think that a lot of these complaints about the two party system are really complaints about the choices that the American people make. People talk about the "Democratic Party" and the "Republican Party" as if they are separate entities with their own agendas, but both of them are completely controlled by the American people. Anyone can register in either party and vote in their elections. So when michaellee complains about the combined strength of the two parties, he's talking about the American people. Saying that the Dems and Reps together control the country is just another way of saying that the American people control the country. It's just phrased it a way that sounds very sinister.


Which makes michaellee's complain

 

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by michaellee [/i]

>>"Which side of the Big 2 wins really make no noticeable differences in the lives of 98% of Americans,"


"...just make sure not to throw your vote away this year; that would be GWB or Kerry, if you really think about it."

So which is it? Is a vote for a Third Party candidate a "throwaway" vote any more than a vote for the Tweedle-dums or Tweedle-dees of the major parties which you say makes no difference?


Fact is, the election of a Third Party President is indeed difficult, but certainly not impossible. Abe Lincoln did it. Perot could have done it had he not betrayed himself as a paranoid looney. The noble crusade of 2004 is the movement to remove and replace the system of closed Presidential debates. That will happen -- the current system being so unjust on its face as to make reform inevitable and a serious movement is now underway to do just that (www.opendebates.org). When all candidates on ballets in enough states to win are allowed to participate in the debates, then anything can happen. In the meantime, candidate Bednarik will soon show to all who hear him, to be far closer in intellect and philosphy to that of the Founding Fathers than either of the two Skull and Bonesmen which the Establishment has put forth as a "choice" to a sleep-walking, brainwashed nation of sheep. In the meantime, the Enlightened citizen will not be so foolish as to throw away his/her vote to one of the lesser of two evils, for the Enlightened citizen well knows that such a vote only counts as an endorsement of evil.

-- Rouser

 

[billydkid]

Re: Re: Re: libertarian candidates

The problem is, voting Libertarian for president under the current system really is throwing your vote away. There's no way in hell it'll happen, and everyone knows it. Electoral reform (instant-runoff voting, etc.) is necessary before any third party candidate has a realistic shot at a national office.

Jeremy

But this is exactly where you are wrong. Voting for someone who advocates policies you don't endorse is throwing your vote away. Is there sort of a reward for having voted for the winning candidate? Progress, for a serious third political party has to be incremental and it is precisely that "wasted vote" malarky that is the biggest obstacle. Let me ask you this, if the major candidate for whom you vote loses is your vote wasted? I think it is obvious that noone, not even the candidate himself, expects a Libertarian to be elected President next November. However, the better he does in terms of the percentage of votes garnered, the greater voice the libertarians will have in the national debate.

There are several Libertarians who have a reasonable chance of getting into office at both the State and National level. The whole point is getting the libertarian viewpoint heard across the nation. That is main function of our Presidential candidate at this point. To me the real waste is to vote for what you don't believe in. If you do that, then how can you ever reasonbly expect to the voice of what you do believe heard in the national debate?

 

[geni]

"Third party" (in the 4th would be a better description) always claim that the major parties are all the same.

 

[toddjh]

Re: Re: Re: Re: libertarian candidates

But this is exactly where you are wrong. Voting for someone who advocates policies you don't endorse is throwing your vote away.

That depends. Who is the alternative? You know and I know that, in 2004, either a Democrat or a Republican will be elected president. Pretending otherwise is just rhetoric and posturing.

Is there sort of a reward for having voted for the winning candidate?

No, but under the current system, there is a punishment for voting for a candidate you are absolutely certain will lose: you increase the risk that the Big Two candidate you like the least will get into office. You know that one of them will win. There's not a doubt in my mind, and I'm willing to bet there's not a doubt in yours. Idealism isn't always a bad quality, but it is in U.S. elections.

It's a problem with our electoral system. If we had instant-runoff voting, I'd be 100% on your side, and I would love to see that happen. But as things stand today, where a split vote can elect a diametrically opposed candidate, it makes no sense to vote for someone who has no chance of winning. You might as well not vote.

Progress, for a serious third political party has to be incremental

I agree. That's my whole point: stop wasting time on unrealistic pipe dreams like the presidency or Congress, and stick with things you actually have a shot at. If that means you're limited to city council and county water commissioner for the next 20 years, so be it. What they're doing now is completely counterproductive.

Let me ask you this, if the major candidate for whom you vote loses is your vote wasted?

You're arguing against a straw man, here. I never said voting for a candidate who loses is a waste. I said that voting for a candidate that can't possibly win is a waste, under our current system. You think anybody cares about you making a point? The Democrats and Republicans are laughing all the way to Capitol Hill, and the voters just say, "Huh. 3% voted Libertarian. What a bunch of weirdos."

It's called "grass roots" for a reason -- you have to start at the bottom.

However, the better he does in terms of the percentage of votes garnered, the greater voice the libertarians will have in the national debate.

Does this happen, though? Recent interest in third parties seems to have peaked with Perot, and then, when that didn't pan out, they lost interest and went back to stick with the Big Two for the most part. Meanwhile, third parties are spending millions on campaigns that can't possibly win, when they could be spending that money in places where they might actually stand a chance.

The whole point is getting the libertarian viewpoint heard across the nation. That is main function of our Presidential candidate at this point.

Is it working? I don't see any progress, really.

To me the real waste is to vote for what you don't believe in. If you do that, then how can you ever reasonbly expect to the voice of what you do believe heard in the national debate?

No party represents my beliefs. Should I write a name in, then? Would that "raise awareness" of my issues? No, it would be dismissed out of hand, just as Libertarians are for the most part. Instead, my choice is to vote for the party which most closely resembles my position that has a reasonable chance of winning. In 2004, that's the Democrats.

The only solution I can see is electoral reform. Like I said, get rid of vote-splitting and I'd agree with you 100%. Until then, it's all just rhetoric. I prefer the practical.

Jeremy

 

[billydkid]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: libertarian candidates

I agree. That's my whole point: stop wasting time on unrealistic pipe dreams like the presidency or Congress, and stick with things you actually have a shot at. If that means you're limited to city council and county water commissioner for the next 20 years, so be it. What they're doing now is completely counterproductive.

eremy

I have no idea what you mean by this. Libertarians run candidates at all levels of government and hold more than 3000 formally elected offices - everything from water commissioners to state senates. In what way is running a candidate for President counterproductive? Libertarians run candidates over the entire spectrum - school board all the way up to the President. They have won more elected offices than any other third party and have had significant influence over many races of national significance.

 

[billydkid]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: libertarian candidates

I have no idea what you mean by this. Libertarians run candidates at all levels of government and hold more than 3000 formally elected offices - everything from water commissioners to state senates. In what way is running a candidate for President counterproductive? Libertarians run candidates over the entire spectrum - school board all the way up to the President. They have won more elected offices than any other third party and have had significant influence over many races of national significance.

My apologies, the actual count is 606 currently serving Libertarians. Incidentally, Perot's party, I forget the name, was not genuinely a political party. It was a cult of personality and went the way of all such cults once the personality has been discredited.

 

[Art Vandelay]

But as things stand today, where a split vote can elect a diametrically opposed candidate, it makes no sense to vote for someone who has no chance of winning. You might as well not vote.

That's absurd. You may not think that it's worth it. Fine. But don't try to claim that "you might as well not vote". Voting for a candidate who has no chance of winning, but who best represents your view, is better than not voting.

I never said voting for a candidate who loses is a waste. I said that voting for a candidate that can't possibly win is a waste, under our current system.

Well, unless you live in a battleground state, and unless the election depends on that one state, and unless the vote in your state comes down to one vote, your vote is a waste no matter what. Seeing as how the chances of that are astronomical, you might as well use your vote the way you want. The fact is, if the guy you vote for loses, your vote was wasted. What's more, if the guy you vote for wins by more than one vote, your vote is wasted. It's pretty much guaranteed that your vote will be wasted. So why are you concerned about it?

You think anybody cares about you making a point? The Democrats and Republicans are laughing all the way to Capitol Hill, and the voters just say, "Huh. 3% voted Libertarian. What a bunch of weirdos."

Three percent is a significant chunk of the electorate. If the libertarians are getting three percent, the other candidates will be looking at how they can get those people to vote for them (or at the very least, not vote for the other guy).

No party represents my beliefs. Should I write a name in, then? Would that "raise awareness" of my issues? No, it would be dismissed out of hand, just as Libertarians are for the most part.

You could write in your own name. Or you could write "none of the above". Or anything else you want. Your vote won't matter any more than any others, but it won't matter any less. With over a hundred million votes, people aren't going to pay much attention to your vote, individually, no matter what you do. So your argument doesn't hold any water.

 

[toddjh]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: libertarian candidates

I have no idea what you mean by this. Libertarians run candidates at all levels of government and hold more than 3000 formally elected offices - everything from water commissioners to state senates. In what way is running a candidate for President counterproductive?

Er, for the reasons I stated repeatedly in my earlier posts: it gives the impression that Libertarians don't know how to play the game. Qualified candidates know they don't have a shot with the LP even if that's the closest party to what they believe, so they don't even bother running, or they try to run under one of the Big Two and (usually) get overshadowed by more impressive names. What's left are a bunch of idealistic extremists with no real experience. They may represent the position of the party well, but they're just not electable. People see this, and it reinforces the stereotype of third parties as naive and desperate.

If, instead, they kept out of major offices, and stuck with state legislatures for a while, then maybe they'd eventually become popular enough to field a governor. After that, maybe a few senators or representatives. Starting from the bottom, you give people a chance to latch on to your policies instead of laughing at you for tilting at windmills.

Libertarians run candidates over the entire spectrum - school board all the way up to the President. They have won more elected offices than any other third party and have had significant influence over many races of national significance.

Any Congressmen? Presidents? Governors? No? Why is that?

Jeremy

 

[michaellee]

Posted by Art Vandelay
So when michaellee complains about the combined strength of the two parties, he's talking about the American people. Saying that the Dems and Reps together control the country is just another way of saying that the American people control the country. It's just phrased it a way that sounds very sinister.

Not just the people. Include the current establishment, both Dem and Rep, who create and use the electoral process rules so as to limit the chances of third party candidates. Think debates. Think finance. Think media. The American people do, in a perfect world, have the final say. Unfortunately, without certain things changing in the way the electoral process currently runs, the American people are not and will not be making their choices based on a fair playing field.
.

posted by Rouser2
the Enlightened citizen will not be so foolish as to throw away his/her vote to one of the lesser of two evils, for the Enlightened citizen well knows that such a vote only counts as an endorsement of evil.

Rouser2- I hope you are right. I have been waiting and watching for many years for something to hit the American people right between the eyes and really awaken them, no matter where the impetus may come from.

 

[varwoche]

The thing is, candidates who are really qualified know that they can't get into office if they don't win. The political realities of national elections mean that they pretty much have to run as one of the Big Two. And so the parties are left with unelectable candidates who are, pretty much by definition, too idealistic to stand a chance.

This implies there were better qualified candidates who declined to run. Are there in fact credible, experienced libertarians with resumes that pass the guffaw test? (In context of running for pres.) You know, like foriegn policy and stuff.

 

[billydkid]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: libertarian candidates

Er, for the reasons I stated repeatedly in my earlier posts: it gives the impression that Libertarians don't know how to play the game. Qualified candidates know they don't have a shot with the LP even if that's the closest party to what they believe, so they don't even bother running, or they try to run under one of the Big Two and (usually) get overshadowed by more impressive names. What's left are a bunch of idealistic extremists with no real experience. They may represent the position of the party well, but they're just not electable. People see this, and it reinforces the stereotype of third parties as naive and desperate.

Jeremy

Oh, I think I'm getting it. Only professional politicians who have spent their entire careers feeding at the public trough are qualified to run the country. All I can say is thank God we have these benevolent overseerers looking out for us wee folk. God forbid anyone should imagine the citizens of this country could be qualified to govern themselves. No, anything as arcane and complicated as running the country needs to be left to the experts.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Not just the people. Include the current establishment, both Dem and Rep, who create and use the electoral process rules so as to limit the chances of third party candidates. Think debates. Think finance. Think media.

You're missing my point. The whole question of how many parties there are is a red herring. So third party candidates don't have a real shot. So what? What's unfair about that? Everyone has an equal chance of getting the endorsement of one of the big two parties. Is anyone frozen out of debates during the primaries? Is anyone prohibited from engaging in fund raising? Are the media not allowed to talk about certain candidates? The two party system is a result of choices by the American people, and the two candidates are chosen by the American people.