Loss of Senate turned on libertarian votes

Status
Not open for further replies.
RealGun

RealGun

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Messages
9,057
Location
Upstate SC
A True Blue Libertarian
Stan Jones, the Also-Ran Who Changed the Hue of Politics

By Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 12, 2006; Page D01

BOZEMAN, Mont. -- Stan Jones, a Montana libertarian widely known for his peculiar blue skin, can arguably be said to have recast the political complexion of the U.S. Senate, turning it from Republican red to the same color as his face.

In any case, this is what the 67-year-old candidate accomplished last Tuesday: He won 10,324 votes in the make-or-break Senate race in Montana, a contest that Democrat Jon Tester won by just 2,565 votes over three-term Republican incumbent Conrad Burns.

full story in Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/11/AR2006111101004.html
 
Yeah! It's the damn libertarians' fault!







It couldn't be that the R and D candidates weren't all that great, could it?
 
Excellent. See if either side ignores the Libertarian voters next time.

If you're expecting people here to get all outraged that the Libertarians "cost us a Republican Senate" just sit tight--those guys will be along shortly. I'm not one of them. The Republicans HAD the Senate AND the House AND the White House and they didn't do what they had to do to keep them. It's that simple.

If that Republican wants to blame anyone for his loss, he can blame himself and his party for letting it come down to <3,000 votes.
 
It's been virtually impossible to tell the Republicrats from the Democans for some while; by contrast, it's never difficult to spot the Libertarians: they're the candidates who not only have values, but articulate them and live by them.

There weren't many Libertarian candidates on my ballot, but the few I could find got my vote.
 
Even in hindsight, I cannot see where the Republican controlled House, Senate, and White House EARNED my vote in the election.

It wouldn't have been that difficult to earn my vote, but, in the end, I have to look in the mirror every morning. I don't want to be looking at someone who voted for a person or persons that they despise politically just because they despised someone else a little more.
 
Eh, I don't think it heralds any great influence by Libertarians in the future. You could just as easily look at the Virginia Senate elections and say that the Greens cost the Republicans control of the Senate. The problem is when you get down to vote margins that small, it is likely easier to just increase your voter mobilization programs than it is to change the party agenda to be more accomodating to those groups.

And elsewhere, the LP wasn't very successful. The 2004 LP candidate (Badarnik) ran for Congressional District 10 in Texas. This is right next door to Ron Paul's district and Badarnik had the advantage of name recognition from the 2004 campaign. Despite that Badarnik pulled in just over 4%, which is pretty good compared to other 2006 races until you consider that in 2004 the LP had 15.2% of the vote in that district.

Hopefully, the Burns loss will give libertarians a little louder voice within the Republican party; but the truth is that Burns ties to Abramoff are what cost him the election. If there is anybody to blame for losing the Senate, it is Burns and the Republican party.
 
Whatever happened to voting on principle...
This ain't football, but it seems everyone's voting for a 'team', even
if they don't represent your best interests.
I want freedom, folks, and the republicans and Democrats are both
miserable failures on that measure. Of course, the Party faithful who have
guzzled the koolaid will never see evil in their own party. As soon as this tendency comes up in a conversation, I end it as a waste of time.
Flecks of foamy spittle on the lips are also an indicator of the True Believer.
:D
 
I wonder if a runoff election would be a logical change, when no one gets over 50%. I don't see it as different than the primaries in principle. SC has primary runoffs.

I think that would be especially important when it comes to electoral votes, with electors bound to cast their votes according to the election results in their districts. The prospect of winners with no majority mandates just doesn't seem very savory and fuels the argument for using the popular vote for President. We have been encountering just too many instances where the outcome was doubtful and was clearly influenced by votes for additional parties likely hurting one of the top two more than the other.
 
I was a Republican, still am if the voter affiliation means anything...

But philosophically, the Republicans left ME when Ronald Reagan left office.

George Bush (I) pushing for a "New World Order" and spending us into the poor-house with monumental national debt and deficits.

George W. Bush (II) getting us into a senseless war which is NOT about terrorism but is only using that as a cover story, AGAIN running up huge debts and deficits, basically selling our country financially to foreign interests, shipping American jobs overseas because it benefits big business, tax cuts and loopholes for the super-rich, hiding the real inflation behind a wall of smoke and mirrors, eroding our Constitutional rights to privacy and free speech.

So... you tell me - is one "evil" really much the lesser than the other? A lot of Americans are having trouble seeing much of a difference. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I hope the Republicans see this as a wake up call and decide to come back towards their roots, towards the core values that many of us cherish. If not, a lot of people who used to call themselves Republicans will be looking for a ticket that they can truly support, not just hold their nose and pull the lever for.
 
Hm. I had never heard of range voting. Seems like a decent idea, though I've only yet skimmed the website.
 
I have read the Liberatarian platform and while I do like some of their ideologies, just like the other two parties, there are also those that I do not like. My problem has recently become choosing the lesser of the three evils. And, yes, I do take into account whether or not a candidate has a chance to win.
It goes back to the lesser of three evils. If a libertarian and a republican candidate are close, then whether or not a candidate has a chance to win over the most of the three evils is a deciding factor.
While I do not blame the libertarians for the loss of the senate, I believe that voter that claim to vote their conscience (voting third party) are being a bit naive. I also would like to see a more than two party country, but by giving the third party candidate (whether it be green, libertarian, or whatever) their 5% per election, we are not accomplishing this.
I do not know how to break the two party stranglehold on Washington. But I do know that what we are doing is not working. I'm not sure I trust either of the other two parties anymore. I do not care to wait until they screw this country up enough, because by then even a third party won't be able to fix it.

But God Bless America for giving us the chance to vote. At least we have a voice.
 
basically selling our country financially to foreign interests, shipping American jobs overseas because it benefits big business, tax cuts and loopholes for the super-rich,
Click to expand...

Huh? That smacks of a Lou Dobbs rant. Are you sure you remember Reagan right?
 
look at the range voting example

In the range voting example, the candidate that won actually received the lowest number of "won ballots". That strikes me as a problem with that method.

Range voting may work well for bees and ants, but bees and ants are not side-tracked by issues of self-advancement. Humans on the other hand are going to game the system, and vote to advance their own agenda. I suspect that most voters would not be accurate judges of their own ability to judge the candidates, either.

To tie it into the thread-- if we could come up with a different voting system (whether condorcet, range voting, or IRV) I think that the two major parties would have to modify their planks. I know that I'd find it easier to vote for an Libertarian candidate in that case.

<NOTE: IRV fails the monotonicity test and condorcet can fail to produce a clear winner.>
 
If a libertarian and a republican candidate are close, then whether or not a candidate has a chance to win over the most of the three evils is a deciding factor.
Click to expand...

When has this ever been the case?

The Libertarian and Constitution parties (near mirror images) align themselves with the pinciples on which this country was founded. No R or D in my lifetime has ever done that.
 
RealGun, had the Republican been more liberty minded and/or America Firstish he would have gotten those votes. It is good that he lost as a result of a libertarian running also. Maybe the next Republican candidate there will be more liberty minded and less statist/internationalist.
 
I was a Republican, still am if the voter affiliation means anything...

But philosophically, the Republicans left ME when Ronald Reagan left office.

George Bush (I) pushing for a "New World Order" and spending us into the poor-house with monumental national debt and deficits.

George W. Bush (II) getting us into a senseless war which is NOT about terrorism but is only using that as a cover story, AGAIN running up huge debts and deficits, basically selling our country financially to foreign interests, shipping American jobs overseas because it benefits big business, tax cuts and loopholes for the super-rich, hiding the real inflation behind a wall of smoke and mirrors, eroding our Constitutional rights to privacy and free speech.

So... you tell me - is one "evil" really much the lesser than the other? A lot of Americans are having trouble seeing much of a difference. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I hope the Republicans see this as a wake up call and decide to come back towards their roots, towards the core values that many of us cherish. If not, a lot of people who used to call themselves Republicans will be looking for a ticket that they can truly support, not just hold their nose and pull the lever for.
Click to expand...
Spot on!
 
RealGun, had the Republican been more liberty minded and/or America Firstish he would have gotten those votes. It is good that he lost as a result of a libertarian running also. Maybe the next Republican candidate there will be more liberty minded and less statist/internationalist.
Click to expand...

First of all, I simply presented the story.

You make it sound like one should vote LP just because the opponent was a Republican. The deal is that the Republican was an A rated incumbent. The story is a case in point for the argument made many times that voting third party can be counterproductive to the interests of gun owners. Libertarians, at least some of them, voted for liberty but got a Democrat. Not only that but it is mathematically valid to say that they changed history by giving control of the Senate to the Democrats. With all due respect to Senator-elect Tester, the effect was an anti-gun vote.

I am quite aware that Burns is under investigation, but he was eligible to run, not found guilty of anything that would remove him from the ballot, and if he were to ultimately leave the Senate would likely be replaced with another Republican.

I believe it was the NRA position by way of their endorsement biases that the first priority was maintaining a GOP majority. Losing that majority is surely the reason for all the doom and gloom in the aftermath.

So, the real point I saw in the story was that voting third party might sound good to some, but it can make one part of the problem instead of part of the solution. The story may not be a perfect example, but if it doesn't illustrate the point, the reader refuses to see it. I don't really need to offend anyone, but I have always had this question about whether libertarians (as we see them here) need to be anti-establishment first and gun lovers second.
 
Not only that but it is mathematically valid to say that they changed history by giving control of the Senate to the Democrats. With all due respect to Senator-elect Tester, the effect was an anti-gun vote.
Click to expand...
You keep repeating this fallacy. Why?

Just because someone voted for a Libertarian does not mean that had there not been a Libertarian on the ballot they would have voted for a Republican.
 
Weak assumptions ...

1) Not every Libertarian finds less evil in the Republican side of things than the Democrat side. Can't assume that every vote for a Libertarian "would have been" for a Republican, because that just isn't true. I suspect it's true that most are (and I bet someone can present some stats saying just that), but it would depend on the actually available candidates.

2) Further, not everyone who'd vote Libertarians would necessarily bother to vote at all when the choice is "same poop, different pile." I'd have made the drive and skipped the classes to vote in this midterm election if there'd been a strong slate of freedom-supporting candidates for me to support.

3) People are restless, life is fatal, voters are fickle. Lots of people are sick of the war in Iraq, and forsee no especially good outcome to be likely, and favor minimizing (or ending outright) the U.S. occupation there. Even though plenty of Democrats voted for the war (some of them later voting against it, of course), Republicans are perceived as the party of war, Democrats the peaceniks. On this count, I suspect a lot of Libertarians' 2nd choice candidates would have been Demos.

timothy
 
The libertarian party articulates a platform that would probably be better than that of the GOP and DEMS. However they have minimal chance of having any one elected to either house in Congress. They have zero chance at this time to have enough people elected to make any kind of a difference
in the legislative process.

To date all the Libertarian party has done has been to act as a spoiler for
the GOP. The Dems have a solid socialist base. The chance of another
party being able to erode into the entitlement voter base that constitutes
the majority of their constiuency is minimal at best.

The GOP however invarialbly loses when 3rd party candidates garner many
votes. This is good for the Democrats and bad for the GOP. It is also bad for
any conservative American.

I would dearly love to have a viable alternative to the current 2 parties.
At present there is none and none appear likely to show in the foreseeable future. All we get from third party talk is a division amongst the non
socialist voters. That gives the socialist voters the power and that is not good.

Remember, it was a third party candidate, Perot, that cost Bush senior his second term and brought us Billybob Clinton and the circus act that came with him for his 2 terms. There are many that argue Perot was a nonfactor.
However In any election where a 3rd party candidate takes approximately 20% of the vote he cannot win but can definitely affect the outcome.
 
Uh, do the Republicans in the 60% of the electorate that DIDN'T vote bear any responsibility? Or is it just those nasty ol' Libertarians? Disparaging someone voting for a candidate who represents his philosophy because your candidate lost is pretty lame.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

X
  • Locked
Republican Senator Introduces Bill Which Would Tax Internet Purchases
2
Replies
27
Views
844
Marshall
M
M
  • Locked
Senate blocks changes to Patriot Act deal
Replies
7
Views
501
Gunfire
G
T
  • Locked
Montana Senate Race
Replies
8
Views
675
Dan from MI
D
D
  • Locked
Katherine Harris announces run for U.S. Senate in 2006
Replies
8
Views
622
TarpleyG
T
D
  • Locked
Libertarians staging a political invasion
Replies
0
Views
608
Drizzt
D
Back
Top