The Libertarian party has a dismal record of getting members elected to office. To those Wolf-Webbers who have Libertarian leanings, what's it gonna take to get our folks elected?

The national party has a much too narrow definition of who can be a Libertarian. The pledge you have to agree to in order to join basically makes you an anarchist..with no role for a properly restrained gov't. It's a very small tent. You must agree to be the most radical of Libertarians, or you're a socialist.

The country was set up, in part, to prevent radical fringe groups from taking over. We have a very slow-moving system of change. The Libertarian party, demands an instant switchover to their goals and uses the excuse of being the "Party of Principle" to disallow any compromise. Critics jump on the extreme positions and that's how we end up being tarred as the party of potheads.

We need to get off our high horse and accept the fact that those who wish to shrink the size of gov't and expand personal freedom and responsibility hold a wide range of political ideas.

Both the Republican and Democrat parties have a wide range of members. That is their success. Each party struggles to avoid a takeover from its radical elements. With the Libertarian party, the radicals set it up and refuse to budge. It's all or nothing with them. They would rather "be right" than get anything accomplished.

Over 6 million people have taken the "Worlds Smallest Political Test" at http://www.theadvocates.org. Over 34% scored as Libertarians with 'Centrists' as the next highest at 31%. Many people feel that the gov't has gotten too big. Many have become disenchanted with both the dems and the reps. These are our people! We should be getting moderate Libertarians elected left and right.

So what can be done to widen our base of support?

4/11/2006 12:42:58 PM

another pointless post

4/11/2006 12:50:20 PM

I really hope you're not taking the results of the World's Smallest Political Test to mean ANYTHING.

4/11/2006 12:50:41 PM

Quote :

"EarthDogg: So what can be done to widen our base of support?"

The answer's pretty much in your post. Come up with a platform that isn't rabidly anarchistic, and put forward candidates that aren't batshit fucking insane.

4/11/2006 12:55:54 PM

^^Regardless, his point stands. the libertarian message sells itself. Support for the ideology is already there to a very extensive degree. it's just a matter of the Libertarian party being totally controlled by extremist ideologues, and the fact that it will be tough to beat the 2-party system even IF the Libertarian party were to mold itself into a viable political organization.

^it sounds like he already knows the answer...he's wondering how to enact such a change in a Libertarian party that just doesn't seem to "get it".

[Edited on April 11, 2006 at 12:59 PM. Reason : adfasdf]

4/11/2006 12:58:47 PM

I got half and half - lib & dem. If you want my vote then you have to show me that you can win. And you have to show me that you can win before you get my vote, not with the help of my vote. Dems are struggling, & I'd rather not defect from them for the lib cause when it would just end up helping the reps win.

4/11/2006 1:04:15 PM

libertarianism doesn't work

look at Katrina for example of why government is actually needed.

4/11/2006 1:13:21 PM

libertarianism is perfectly fine

extremist Libertarianism is stupid.

4/11/2006 1:16:34 PM

The first order of a statesman is to get elected.

Until the libertarian party understands that, it's going to remain an afterthought.

4/11/2006 1:18:34 PM

The libertarian party should fold itself into the Republican party and being swaying the primaries.

That, or nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

4/11/2006 1:24:33 PM

Quote :

"put forward candidates that aren't batshit fucking insane."

No, they can still win...

Quote :

"If you want my vote then you have to show me that you can win. And you have to show me that you can win before you get my vote, not with the help of my vote."

What would it take? One congressman? two? A Senator? In 202, Michael Cloud, the Libertarian senate candidate, won 19% of the vote (368,000) against John Kerry in the Mass. race. Libertarians also put a question on the '02 Massachusetts ballot to end the state income tax and it got 45% of the vote.

What issue in the Democrats' camp makes you want to stay with them?

Quote :

"I really hope you're not taking the results of the World's Smallest Political Test to mean ANYTHING."

OK, let's throw that out. How about you, spooky, take a stand. Do you think the fed. gov't needs shrinking? Do you think personal liberty is threatened at all by the patriot act? Are you paying too much in taxes?

4/11/2006 1:27:29 PM

Quote :

"EarthDogg: No, they can still win..."

Posting an unflattering picture of a Hilary Clinton doesn't make her insane. Which reminds me...

Another part of the prescription for victory:
1. Don't campaign like a 4-year old.

[Edited on April 11, 2006 at 1:29 PM. Reason : PLEASE take the bait...]

4/11/2006 1:29:42 PM

Quote :

"Do you think the fed. gov't needs shrinking? Do you think personal liberty is threatened at all by the patriot act? Are you paying too much in taxes?"

No. Very much so. No.

4/11/2006 1:35:42 PM

Quote :

"libertarianism doesn't work look at Katrina for example of why government is actually needed."

Wasn't it gov't that screwed up the relief effort? Wasn't it the private sector that sent trucks of needed supplies down there while "Brownie" and his crew stopped doctors from helping victims?

Quote :

"The libertarian party should fold itself into the Republican party and being swaying the primaries"

Why the republicans? Libertarians support many of the social liberties that dems hold dear, and repubs disdain.

4/11/2006 1:42:15 PM

Quote :

"Wasn't it gov't that screwed up the relief effort? Wasn't it the private sector that sent trucks of needed supplies down there while "Brownie" and his crew stopped doctors from helping victims? "

government didn't do anything

think what would have happened if we were a libertarian society.

4/11/2006 1:55:58 PM

Quote :

"HAHAHA... YOU GOT RAINED ON. Shouldn't have lived there in the first place, dumbasses. LOL - t3h Libertarianz"

4/11/2006 1:59:58 PM

^^well, first of all, only those who take libertarianism to its ideological extreme would argue against the gov't stepping in for that sort of situation

but look how much the private sector and individuals did to help...it would be substantially more if everyone didn't just expect Uncle to step in and take care of it.


hell, I thought about donating some money, but then I thought, "nah, I'm already paying for the reconstruction through my taxes, and probably more than is really warranted."

4/11/2006 2:09:51 PM

^^ I laughed.

4/11/2006 2:38:42 PM

how many votes did ross perot win in 92 and 96?
how many electoral votes did he get?

how many votes did libertarians get in 2000 or 2002 or 2004?
how many got elected to federal office?

our electoral system is why they wont win.

4/11/2006 2:53:39 PM

I'm a "bad" Libertarian

I won't fully support international free trade until things have been straightened out

government handouts to big business have given large corporations a disproportionate amount of power

once everyone can fairly compete I'm all for it, though

4/11/2006 3:02:15 PM

haha, you're a "bad" libertarian for reasons a lot bigger than those

4/11/2006 3:06:29 PM

Quote :

"Why the republicans? Libertarians support many of the social liberties that dems hold dear, and repubs disdain."

This is true. But just from my experience, it is far easier for me to get a Republican to conceed that Gays can do whatever they want to each other, as long as they don't talk about it in public.

I have never gotten a Democrat to conceed that people can engage in commerce however they want, as long as they keep it secret.

The right to financial privacy has no hope with Democrats, while the right to personal privacy can grudgingly be conceeded by Republicans, given provisions.

4/11/2006 3:10:56 PM

Quote :

"well, first of all, only those who take libertarianism to its ideological extreme would argue against the gov't stepping in for that sort of situation"

So true. The local and state gov't did have an obligation to help. But relying on the gov't to fix things is very risky. Private charities used to do much of the relief work, but over the years we have transferred this job to the gov't. So now we are forced to contribute charity through our taxes..and like Duke said, the urge to help others is much reduced.

We are a very giving society. Imagine how much more charitable we would be if we were allowed to keep more of our income? If the go'vt got out of the charity business, and let good-hearted Americans step in and take over..just as they were doing before.

Quote :

"our electoral system is why they wont win."

Yes the system is designed for slow change. But many political parties have come and gone. I think the democrats are on the verge of implosion. Granted, The U. S. hasn't elected a third-party president since Abraham Lincoln's Republicans displaced the Whigs in 1860, but the local level is very fertile ground for third parties. The Wake County Lib. party should be putting forward state and county candidates with moderate positions who can win.

4/11/2006 3:12:42 PM

Duke, can you outline for me the reasons that I am a "bad" Libertarian?

I'd love to have that clarified

4/11/2006 3:14:06 PM

our electoral system is also expensive, and most libertarians i know either want to keep their money, so they dont give, or they are unable to give large amounts.

for a moderate libertarian to win a state house seat would probably take about $300,000. for one seat. i can go check, but i would not be surprised if all libertarians in nc raised less than that during the 04 election cycle.

4/11/2006 3:16:16 PM

Libertarianism will only take hold on local levels to begin with. Fielding national candidates before there is a local system beneath them is silly. That much you can bank on.

4/11/2006 3:20:07 PM

local government is about as big as anything should get

4/11/2006 3:23:45 PM

Until the Mongols storm the borders...

4/11/2006 3:24:58 PM

I think we can muster a decent militia to handle them

after all... the Mongols don't have firearms

4/11/2006 3:27:02 PM

Quote :

"most libertarians i know either want to keep their money, so they dont give, or they are unable to give large amounts."

Well we don't want to waste our money on "shadow" candidates who aren't serious about their races. There are alot of Libertarians are are very able to give large amounts, to the right campaign. So far that campaign hasn't appeared.

Harry Browne raised $1.4 million for his first run at Prez in '96 and $2.7 million for his second run. Michael Badnarik, a total unknown, raised a little over $1 miilion for his Libertarian presidential campaign in '04.

4/11/2006 3:45:21 PM

ill give you the not wanting to waste your money argument.
especially since people use the same argument to not give to major party candidates in races they cant win (im not giving a dime to any democrat running in johnston county).

but even 3 million dollars for a president is nothing when the main party candidates are getting around 350 million.

http://opensecrets.org/states/election.asp?state=NC&year=2004
in my opinion it would take the amount of money browne raised in 2000 to win a single congressional seat. i doubt that there is that type of money out there. especially since a big piece of funding comes from lobbyists who wont give to a libertarian unless he is currently holding office.

4/11/2006 4:03:39 PM

^
Agreed. And Harry Browne was sharply criticized because he spent only a fraction of his campaign funds on actual advertising. Badnarik is currently running for a congressional seat in Texas. I don't know how much he has raised for that project.

4/11/2006 4:13:51 PM

http://opensecrets.org/races/summary.asp?ID=TX10&Cycle=2006

i would expect the race to be
60% R
30-35% D
5-10% L

and that would be a victory for badnarik in some people's eyes.

4/11/2006 4:16:21 PM

Quote :

"I think we can muster a decent militia to handle them after all... the Mongols don't have firearms"

or

4/11/2006 5:03:42 PM

“What issue in the Democrats' camp makes you want to stay with them?”

Democrats spend tons of money & are socially liberal.
Republicans spend tons of money & are socially conservative.

They are the two who have the best chance of winning. Since I can’t differentiate them on quantity of money spent, I go for the socially liberal. Libertarians stance might be we wont waste as much money & we wont have government invade private affairs thus allowing for more social liberty… but if I turn my vote to libertarian which deprives the democrats to the point where the republicans win then I’ve lost on money, and I’ve lost on social issues.

4/11/2006 5:08:33 PM

yeah i think any party other than Democrat or Republican is too extreme to win in the current political arena

4/11/2006 5:17:45 PM

Quote :

"what's it gonna take to get our folks elected?"

Hell freezing over would be a good start

4/11/2006 5:38:23 PM

Quote :

"Democrats spend tons of money & are socially liberal. Republicans spend tons of money & are socially conservative."

This is very true. However, you have overlooked the financial harm that regulations can inflict upon the economy. These costs must be included when calculating the impact of government. Last I heard, Bush has freed us from some, restricted us further in others, all in all Bush was a wash when it came to regulatory hinderances.

The first president in a long to that didn't fall overwealmingly on the side of regulation.

4/11/2006 6:35:40 PM

Quote :

"LoneSnark: I have never gotten a Democrat to conceed that people can engage in commerce however they want, as long as they keep it secret. "

Have you ever gotten a Republican to say this?

4/11/2006 7:15:28 PM

What has to be done to get Libertarians elected?

As long as the person that wins the election is the one that gets the most votes and there is no instant runoff or no proportional representation, it's not. Our electoral system did not get to its current form without design.

Also, another problem is the entrenched power of the two major parties. Look at this election result from a special election in January for this U.S. House race (courtesy of thirdpartywatch.com). This is a very right district in Orange County. Jim Gilchrist was the founder of the Minuteman Project, representing the American Independence Party, the California arm of the Constitution Party. Compare election-day vote totals to absentee vote totals.

Absentee Voter Results
————————————————-

John Campbell (Rep) 30,895 (53.18%)
Steve Young (Dem) 14,697 (25.30%)
Jim Gilchrist (AI) 10,944 (18.84%)
Béa Tiritilli (Grn) 915 (1.58%)
Bruce Cohen (Lib) 644 (1.10%)

Election Day Voters
————————————————-

Jim Gilchrist (AI) 12,293 35.28%
Steve Young (Dem) 11,229 32.23%
John Campbell (Rep) 10,555 30.29%
Béa Tiritilli (Grn) 327 0.94%
Bruce Cohen (Lib) 236 0.68%


The best way to do is to look at successful third parties in individual states: the Progressives in Vermont (they have 6 elected State representatives, and last month, they won the Mayorship of Burlington, Vermont's largest city), and to smaller extent the Constitution Party in Montana, the Green Party in Maine and Minnesota, and the Independence Party of Minnesota. These efforts are starting to succeed because they ran serious candidates, raised money, spent money wisely, and their stated goal was to win elections, not to go on this Don Quixotic quest to say "we are smarter than you, we just need to educate you to why we are right". Also, the Libertarian Party needs to expel all its members who think the purpose of the party is to "protect them from politics", the so-called government minimalists.

Plus, a state needs to have good ballot-access, or a third party is wasting its time in that state. North Carolina falls in that category.

[Edited on April 12, 2006 at 12:58 AM. Reason : .]

4/12/2006 12:54:23 AM

can you seperate those points out? or at least say why you put in the election results?

and montana shouldnt be allowed in this thread. we live in north carolina (a real state with real people). montana is full of crazy wack jobs.

4/12/2006 12:57:15 AM

^ I would, but I'm tired.

The election results were to show the power of the absentee vote, and how it helps whoever has the strongest organization. Notice how the third-party candidate got the most votes on election day, but still came in third in the race?

Here's an article on the Montana CP. They are guaranteed one win in the state house and are hoping for respectable showings in other CP races in the state house.

http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/04/11/constitution-party-spoiling-montana-house/

[Edited on April 12, 2006 at 1:01 AM. Reason : .]

4/12/2006 1:00:28 AM

haha, montana isn't really full of anything

4/12/2006 1:00:31 AM

for every great idea or position there is a fucking batshit insane idea to counter it

Sane:
Guns are not the problem. They are inanimate objects. Gun control advocates talk as if guns could act on their own, as if human beings cannot control them, so the uncontrollable guns must be banished.

Let us put the responsibility where it belongs, on the owner and user of the gun.

Insane:
Withdraw from the UN

4/12/2006 1:13:11 AM

Quote :

"The Constitution Party opposes what it calls ‘‘undeclared wars’’ like the one in Iraq, any type of abortion, the United Nations and the Patriot Act. It wants to return the country to the gold standard, abolish property taxes and have parents pay for their child’s own schooling."

i cant decide which is worse. that i agree with them that patriot act is bad or that they actually believe this stuff.

4/12/2006 1:39:05 AM

I'm also saddened by how the Libertarian party is unable to get any ground. I believe in both personal freedoms and economic freedoms, so when the only two viable parties are Democrat and Republican, I feel like I have to choose between my desire to live free and my desire to earn free. Now that the dems are down, I think it's a great time for the party to campaign its main points and establish a position that supports both freedoms without being extremist, anarchist, or batshit crazy.

4/12/2006 1:45:36 AM

Quote :

"Plus, a state needs to have good ballot-access"

This is what the NC LP is working on now. Instead of putting their limited resources to work on electing candidates, they are forced to try to get the state to recognize them as a party again. The dems and pubs have written the law here to freeze out third parties with overbearing requirements.

Quote :

"Now that the dems are down, I think it's a great time for the party to campaign its main points and establish a position that supports both freedoms without being extremist,"

Yes! Our party needs to tone down the extreme stuff and emphasize the general themes of personal and economic liberty and shrinking gov't but not eliminating it.

4/12/2006 10:57:22 AM

Quote :

"Don't campaign like a 4-year old. "

4/12/2006 12:35:57 PM

To be a serious party magnitude wise you need to be a coalition of lots of groups and compromise on your values to try to find some medium that’s appealing enough to get lots of votes. Libertarian’s selling point is that their message sells itself. The party’s only selling point would be lost in an attempt to compromise to appeal to the masses. No one fully likes the republicans or the democrats because they work with different groups to compromise, meaning that they are never standing purely for the position you stand for. But if you can’t compromise without losing your only selling point, then I don’t see how the group can become serious on a national level.

The democrats can appeal to minorities, environmentalists, women, gays, and lots of other people without being focused on any one type. The republicans have big spender tycoon types, conservative Christian types ect. I don't see how the libertarians could successfully pander to special interest groups.

4/12/2006 1:09:38 PM

^Well, they would have to pull from other gruops or groups not voting.

If they have 5%-10% now, with some voting dem/rep or not voting.

Realistically, they would need to "steal" another 20% or get people not voting on their side.

Easiest way might be to form alliances. People who want pot legalized might be a good place to start, if they are not already libertarian. After that, not sure... That is the problem right now, most people are being told you have to be one of the 2 main parties.

4/12/2006 4:39:05 PM