For third party voters.

[Desertdog]

Ladies and Gentlemen,
I respect your rights to vote for anyone you want to.

What I don't undestand is why you think that a third party member running as a Republican or a Democrat will totally make them/you unable to represent your parties ideas and beliefs.

Are you a Christian and a member of a church, a Mason, an Elks Club member, a Lions Club member, or a member of any number of organizations.

Although you belong to one or many organizations, don't you still believe in what your party stands for? As a member of one of the main parties, you don't have to change your core beliefs, just as you don't change your core beliefs to join any other organizations you belong to.

An example is Zell Miller, Democrat, that often votes for Republican bills and is scheduled to speak at the Republican convention.

If the above items are true, why can't your candidates run as a Republican or Democrat and still try to get your ideas into law?

I think that if you joined the Republican party and ran against some of those Dems or RINOs you would wind up in the winning group.

Ty it, you might like it.

 

[deanf]

 

[tyme]

What I don't undestand is why you think that a third party member running as a Republican or a Democrat will totally make them/you unable to represent your parties ideas and beliefs.

Did anyone say that? If a libertarian managed to be chosen for the Republican ticket, that's who I'd vote for. All other things equal, I'd rather vote for a libertarian with a shot at the whitehouse or Congress than a libertarian without one.

I'm curious if anyone has any ideas how to go about re-aligning the parties so one is for statism (both personal liberty restrictions and economic/foreign policy domineering) and the other is for real liberty.

1) Is it possible to convince people to start voting Libertarian or Socialist (both parties already exist) rather than Demoncratic and Repuglican? How?
2) Is it possible instead to change the parties from the inside out? How? Which party should the Republicans be changed to?

Option 2 is probably easier in most respects, since option 1 hasn't worked in over a hundred years. Still, it's theoretically possible since it happened in the 19th century, though only one party shift occurred at a time.

 

[Treylis]

If the above items are true, why can't your candidates run as a Republican or Democrat and still try to get your ideas into law?

Uh... you know, a hell of a lot of us try. I know a lot of people seem to think that if all Libertarians re-registered, voted and ran as Republicans, then everything would magically turn perfect--or at least start getting better--but the fact is is that this actually happens in massive numbers. There are a lot of Libertarians out there who get sick of none of us getting elected to national-level offices or the alleged ineffectiveness of the LP, and so try to shift the major parties.

However, the major parties right now are so rotten to the core with both left and right-wing statism that surgery to fix the problem isn't going to help. We're not just amputating a limb here--or all four limbs--but the head itself. And, well, you just can't pull that kind of trick off every day.

(And, speaking of Zell Miller, you should hear the vicious denunciations of him by his fellow Democrats and other left-leaning folks on the web.)

 

[publius]

What I don't undestand is why you think that a third party member running as a Republican or a Democrat will totally make them/you unable to represent your parties ideas and beliefs.

Ever heard of Dr. Ron Paul? I voted for him when he ran for President as a Libertarian in 1988. I was disappointed when he jumped to the R party and won a House seat. I figured he'd sell out. He hasn't. He has only once (that I know of) voted for a law he believed was unconstitutional, and he came out and admitted what he was doing at the time. The issue was partial birth abortion, and you can see what he said here.

He went along with a very broad view of the commerce clause. For more on commerce clause abuse, see this thread.

But apart from that one lapse, Dr. Paul has remained quite constant in his positions and his votes over the years. Of course, he's also the only man in the R party more marginalized than Alan Keyes....

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

1) Is it possible to convince people to start voting Libertarian or Socialist (both parties already exist) rather than Demoncratic and Repuglican? How?

I think it is possible. The internet gives a voice to a lot of groups that didn't have one prior to its widespread acceptance. It is like your own personal broadcasting license in many ways. I think this will make libertarian ideals easier to spread and also make it easier to address the misconceptions about them. At the same time, I find that for every eloquent defender of libertarian principles, there are some that aren't quite as eloquent who do little but confirm the image of the LP as fringe wackjobs.

2) Is it possible instead to change the parties from the inside out? How? Which party should the Republicans be changed to?

I think this is the easier approach. I also think the Republicans can be changed to more libertarian ideals. Checking out the Republican Liberty Caucus website, I notice they were able to elect 7 libertarian-minded Representatives to the current Congress. Even more encouraging, if you check out their "liberty index" that rates politicians in Congress, you find that the top ranked guy isn't a member of the LP or the RLC; but a straight through the old Republican party Republican. That seems to indicate fertile ground for a takeover.

Option 2 is probably easier in most respects, since option 1 hasn't worked in over a hundred years. Still, it's theoretically possible since it happened in the 19th century, though only one party shift occurred at a time.

I think option 1 is a rare shot to begin with and was only possible in the 19th century because communications was less developed. There was time for sentiment to grow and change and take the major parties unawares. In the modern age of the Internet and 24/7 news cycle, I don't see that happening. I think that any traction a third party gained would be eliminated as the major parties assimilated all or part of the platform to insure their own power.

It seems to me that leaves us with either getting involved en masse with a major party and changing it from within using the convention/delegate and primary processes - or forming a major outside party formidable enough to be worth assimilating. The danger in the second approach is that you are always vulnerable to some other third party stealing your thunder.

If you are the Republicans and looking to assimilate votes based on the 2000 election, the LP delivered only 384,431; but the Greens delivered 2,882,955. If you add up all the votes for Greens/Socialist and all the votes for Reform/LP/Constitution/Natural law, the socialists come up with about 3 million and the rest come up with 1 million. Looking at that, I think the conclusion both major parties would reach is that they can pick up more votes by moving towards socialism than they could by embracing more Constitutional principles.

If you go the outside approach, you have to win big or you are setting yourself up to be totally marginalized without even a voice in one of the major parties.

 

[ProGlock]

I'm voting for as many libertarians this November that are on my ballot.

If you don't want change, then just keep voting for Democrats or Republicans.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

If you don't want change, then just keep voting for Democrats or Republicans.

And voting for the LP in THIS election will bring change how?

 

[ojibweindian]

And voting for the LP in THIS election will bring change how?

It'll split the vote and Kerry rides to the top.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

It'll split the vote and Kerry rides to the top.

Actually the LP probably won't even be in a position to do that. Using 2000 as a basis, the LP only swung one state (New Mexico - and assuming you could have convinced every LP vote to vote Republican) and it didn't affect the outcome of the election.

Now, had they gotten 600 more votes in say - Florida. That would have affected the outcome quite a bit. Unfortunately I doubt the Republicans would have looked at it and said "If only we had those 600 Libertarian votes". I think they would have looked at the nationwide votes the Greens posted and thought "Wow, we could move a little more to the left and pick up all those moderate Democrats that don't get along with the Greens."

In order to show the kind of numbers a major party would notice, the Libertarians would need about 2.4% of the vote and Kerry would have to win. 2.4% doesn't sound like much; but it would be about eight times the votes they got in 2000 and twice as good as their best showing ever in 30+ years.

 

[Standing Wolf]

...why can't your candidates run as a Republican or Democrat and still try to get your ideas into law?

Neither the Republicrat nor the Democan party has any principles whatever.

Unless it's an extremely close election, I'm planning to vote Libertarian this November.

 

[fix]

Neither the Republicrat nor the Democan party has any principles whatever.

So you include Ron Paul in that statement? It seems that the Libertarians are not even willing to compromise on registration now! You must believe every word AND you must carry the banner.

 

[Gordon Fink]

To be fair, Standing Wolf, both the Republicans and Democrats do have some principles, though sometimes they are contradictory.

~G. Fink