No. of Recommendations: 5
The Mistake That Is the Libertarian Party

http://www.volokh.com/2012/11/05/my-wsj-op-ed-the-mistake-th...

while I am as libertarian today as I was then, I have come to believe that the Libertarian Party was a mistake.

The reason is simple. Unlike a parliamentary system in which governments are formed by coalitions of large and small parties, our electoral system is a first-past-the-post, winner-take-all one in which a winning presidential candidate just needs to get more than 50% of the vote. This means each contending "major" party is itself a coalition that needs to assemble enough diverse voting groups within it to get to 51%. Hence the need to appeal to the so-called moderates and independents rather than the more "extreme" elements within.

To the extent that a third party is successful, it will drain votes from the coalition party to which it is closest and help elect the coalition party that is further removed from its interests. The Libertarian Party's effort will, if effective, attract more libertarian voters away from the candidate who is marginally less hostile to liberty, and help hand the election to the candidate who is more hostile to liberty.
____________________

The Tea Party has been much more successful in advancing libertarian causes in just a few years than the Libertarian Party in its entire existence. Too bad they're so racist.

--fleg
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
More like too bad the Tea Party got infected by religious nuts.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
In an electoral college system; it behooves voting for a third party candidate when one lives in a state certain to be won by the democrat/republican candidate[Tn, NM}to express your displeasure of the lack of a fiscal conservative, small federal gov't candidate.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
In an electoral college system; it behooves voting for a third party candidate when one lives in a state certain to be won by the democrat/republican candidate[Tn, NM}to express your displeasure of the lack of a fiscal conservative, small federal gov't candidate.


Here's the problem: Don't believe the polls. The only states that I believe are 100% in the bag for Obama are CA, NY and IL. Beyond that, I think everyone is in play. Most people hang up or slam the door when a pollster appears on the phone or at the door, but that doesn't mean that the resident doesn't plan to vote.

Bush won Florida by only about 500 votes in 2000. I would hate for my vote of conscience to be responsible for Obama getting a second term.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
the L party has imo put up wackjobs in the past who I wouldn't even consider voting for.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
More like too bad the Tea Party got infected by religious nuts

Is there any reason for this insult? If someone wrote "atheist" in place of "religious," you'd most likely be all over them for their bigotry.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Here's the problem: Don't believe the polls. The only states that I believe are 100% in the bag for Obama are CA, NY and IL. Beyond that, I think everyone is in play. Most people hang up or slam the door when a pollster appears on the phone or at the door, but that doesn't mean that the resident doesn't plan to vote.

My counter argument is both parties are free spending & will lead to bankruptcy. Perhaps an Obama re election will cause sufficient outrage to fuel the tea party insurgency to finally lead to sanity in federal gov't spending. A vote for Romney won't save our country from bankruptcy. Romney really hasn't supported the Ryan plan. And the Ryan plan is a weak knee proposal that won't lead to solvecy until 2040. And that 2040 number is based on current defense spending levels-that Romney will violate- & consistently above-average economic growth is an unrealistic dodge to avoid hard policy choices. Sorry Charlie, the republican party lies just as much as the dimocrats.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The only states that I believe are 100% in the bag for Obama are CA, NY and IL.

You might as well add Maryland to that list, which is why my husband and I both voted a straight Libertarian ballot.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
tiscott0
In an electoral college system; it behooves voting for a third party candidate when one lives in a state certain to be won by the democrat/republican candidate[Tn, NM}to express your displeasure of the lack of a fiscal conservative, small federal gov't candidate.


Voted Libertarian in 96, 2004 & 2008. Living in TX, I feel the same way. This time, straight ticket Republican because I want to send an "anti Obama" message.

What's cool is all of my immediate family voted that way: me, DW, DS & DIL, DD#1 and newly 18 DD#2.

decath
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Voted Libertarian in 96, 2004 & 2008. Living in TX, I feel the same way. This time, straight ticket Republican because I want to send an "anti Obama" message.
_______________________

I too vote Libertarian here in NY

I voted Republican for the same reason.

I was tempted to vote for the Working Families Party just to clearly repudiate Obama even more, but I was afraid one more vote might end up keeping them on the ballot
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The only states that I believe are 100% in the bag for Obama are CA, NY and IL.

You might as well add Maryland to that list, which is why my husband and I both voted a straight Libertarian ballot.


Add OR too.

--fleg
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
Is there any reason for this insult? If someone wrote "atheist" in place of "religious," you'd most likely be all over them for their bigotry.

I'm not an atheist. I'm firmly agnostic and have no opinion on what religion is correct or if any is.

My comment is based on bitterness that the Tea Party has largely wasted their efforts the last two years by making sure religious nuts get onto the ballot; Angle in Nevada is the most glaring example. Reid had no chance of re-election if the Republicans just nominated someone who never mentioned religion or allowed it to affect their policy agenda.

The Tea Party is a purely fiscal movement as far as I'm concerned or should have been. Infecting it with those who viewed social issues as equally important or even on the radar by comparison blunted the goal of getting rid of big government socialists.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Reid had no chance of re-election if the Republicans just nominated someone who never mentioned religion or allowed it to affect their policy agenda.

Same with Boxer the first time she ran. Repubs ran a guy who wouldn't shut up about abortion and the sanctity of marriage after rejecting a popular libertarian type who didn't get into social issues in the primary. The rest is history.

--fleg
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The Tea Party is a purely fiscal movement as far as I'm concerned or should have been. Infecting it with those who viewed social issues as equally important or even on the radar by comparison blunted the goal of getting rid of big government socialists.
--------------

The Virginia republicans do this all the time. The latest is requiring ultrasounds before abortions. All it did was make a lot of people (including a lot of republicans) mad because, well, ultrasounds are invasive. And they've done lots of other dumb things like not let a well-liked NoVA repub run for the senate. So it went to a democrat.

arrete
Print the post Back To Top
Advertisement