Question about Libertarians and Republicans

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lucky

Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
2,919
Location
Calgary, near Rocky Mountains - Canada
In Canada here the people who vote Liberals are moving to the socialist party and the environmental party, so the Liberals are down to 30% or so. This means that all those parties will lose hard and the Conservatives will win nicely.

So the enemy voting for the party they like is really helping our Conservatives.

Down in the USA the best thing you could all do is to promote the Green party, and hurt the Democrats.

...

Which means that maybe it'd be harmful to you to vote Libertarian and hurt the republicans. (though if sounds like the R's are becoming quite anti-2nd)


I am wondering something - could the Libertarians just announce their support for one party, sort of like candidates do during political primaries? There are 2 frontrunners, so Joe Blo announces that he's dropping out and throwing his support behind Jane Suk. Then most of the guys who voted for Blo vote for Suk.

But often Joe Blo gets Jane to add one of his policies to her platform.


So what if the Libertarians threw thier support behind the Republicans, in exchange for them agreeing to uphold and reclaim the 2nd amendment? Has it been considered, or tried?

Another benefit would be that if the Republicans wouldn't agree to the deal, then you'd know for sure that voting for them would not help gun rights. It could also be used like a litmus test.
 
If we can get Newt gingrich to run/get the endorse ment, we're fine.

Otherwise, a Rep is a Dim and a Dim is a socialist.
 
I say again that there is a large voting populace that is voting against Republicans rather than for Democrats. Whether Libertarian or Republican or someone who votes against Republicans, all three of these groups stand to gain by trying to convince this middle-ground-group to vote Libertarian. If you're a Libertarian, you've made success advancing an ideology that you love! If you're a Republican, you've taken away one more vote for a Democrat candidate! If you're the middle-ground-group, you've finally found something that you can get behind and help make a viable alternative in the years to come!

It's win-win-win. Just about everyone on this board does not want to see a Democrat president in 2008. If you're a Republican and you know people that you cannot convert to your party, gently drop a few words about the Libertarian party. The worst this can do is not change a person's mind.
 
It's the same old:

1. vote the lesser of two evils...delay bans and buy time for slow change

vs.

2. screw em', they've pissed me off and I'm voting for my unelectable favorite, damn the consequences

argument.

#2 got us here today. Pick one. The next election will show which fork we took. This argument requires barrels of popcorn, a 6-pack and aspirin.
 
Does it matter? This crop of politicians is the worst I've seen in my 40 years on this planet--and only getting worse.

We went from a Republican-dominated DC that gave us McCain-Feingold and turned a deaf ear to the unprecedented HELL the country raised over immigration--to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and an impotent GWB. If there's ever been a symbol of the futility of writing good letters to bad elected officials, 2006 was it.

I hate to say this, but something momentous needs to happen before this trend is reversed. Meanwhile, pipe-dreaming about a 3rd party candidate getting elected (although it would be great) is like praying for the dead to come alive again. I wish it weren't so, but as someone said, politics is the art of the possible, not of the ideal.

This time, the change needs to come from us, not from the politicians.
 
An interesting thought, but I don't know how practical it is.

Personally, I refuse to vote for a Republican or Democrat for President. I realize my dear Libertarian will never get in...but this Republican-Democrat osscilation is destroying our country, and I will not have any part in it. Whichever party goes in...they are going to grab at the respective rights they deem fit to snatch from us, and I won't support it.

I'll collect ammo, educate, and pray, while keeping my hands free of the blood of our rights.
 
Before marching out all the bluster about voting libertarian, how about waiting to see if there is an actual candidate with any credibility? It's no different with another party. For example, right now there is no candidate on the horizon who well represents what the Republican party is supposed to stand for. Voting Republican just cuz doesn't seem very palatable right now. The Democrats have the same problem. What if you are a Democrat but don't appreciate the far left party leadership and dominance? What if you want to do more than pander to black voters?
 
Its interesting to see the way different countries view "conservative" versus "liberal" or "left/right" when it comes to politics. Leftist guerrillas or Right-wing extremists. Liberals in one country want more freedoms, increased individual liberties, while liberals in another country want the gov't to control your life "from cradle to grave".
 
Last edited:
the whole "lesser of two evils" thing doesn't need to happen this year.
Click to expand...

I would always be careful with that concept. I think there would be a concern that whoever survived the primaries should be competitive with the likely prospects among the opposition. That is to say that a primary has broader implications than simply a chance to vote for someone you like. If I was not focused on who could actually become President, I think that I would be wasting my vote or missing the bigger picture (reality).

Of course, if you want to concede the election and accept the consequences yet demonstrate what kind of candidate you want your party to present, then you can blindly vote for whoever you like. Personally, I would rather not have my vote be irrelevant to the actual outcome.

A primary is a time to be proactive and enthusiastic in who one picks, but after that one may well be voting AGAINST someone rather than FOR them, conceding that being entirely happy with the outcome was unlikely from the start.
 
I think maybe I wasn't clear, I was asking if the Libertarians could ask their supporters NOT to vote for them, but to vote Republican. And in exchange for throwing their support behind the R's, the R's would add some Libertarian policies to their agenda.
 
I think maybe I wasn't clear, I was asking if the Libertarians could ask their supporters NOT to vote for them, but to vote Republican. And in exchange for throwing their support behind the R's, the R's would add some Libertarian policies to their agenda.
Click to expand...

How about we stop playing games and horse races and vote for the best guy regardless of outcome. And if the best is not on the ticket....dont vote.
 
Lucky said:
I think maybe I wasn't clear, I was asking if the Libertarians could ask their supporters NOT to vote for them, but to vote Republican. And in exchange for throwing their support behind the R's, the R's would add some Libertarian policies to their agenda.
Click to expand...

Sorry, Lucky. I didn't address that properly.

At the state level, the Libertarian party has done this at times. Some states allow multiple parties to support one candidate, such that if a voter marks a straight "Party Y" vote and another voter marks a straight "Party Z" vote on the ballot, a candidate backed by both parties Y and Z will receive two votes. I do not recall the technical term for it, but only some states allow it and it is not allowed at the federal level.

At the national level, however, the Libertarian party is unlikely to encourage its constituents to vote for anyone other than an officialy Libertarian candidate--especially for the presidency. They need to make a certain number of votes each election cycle in order to remain de-facto on the ballot during the next election cycle, or else they will have to mount a very expensive campaign to regain ballot access. If they missed enough votes in all 50 states, the expenses and time set-backs could be irrecoverable.
 
Why is there this automagical belief that we should be voting
Republican?

I don't get it, the republican party is broken big time, it
is not worthy of my support.
 
Yeah repubs are just like libys...

Except for that constitution thing

and that whole transfering moralizing into law thing

and that whole foreign policy thing

and that whole financial policy thing

and pretty much everything else thing...

I don't know why they don't vote for them like good girls and boys

Maybe are not so alike after all.
 
Like it or not, a vote against main party A IS a vote for main party B. If you vote against Dems, you are voting for Reps, no matter what your ballot says. And it works the other way. If you are voting against the Republicans, you are indeed voting for the Democrats. Call it what you want, but a vote to take the Republicans out of power IS a vote to put the Dems in power.
 
You know the Republicans are broken when they consider running a Democrat for president. Seriously, if a third party can't capitalize on the current situation, I don't know if they will ever be able to amount to anything.
 
That is an awfully good point RG and MR are way more liberal Democrat than most conservative Democrats I can think of.

And that is the answer to that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

2
  • Locked
Libertarians Support Al Sharpton For President
Replies
15
Views
784
Cactus
C
D
  • Locked
Republicans, RINOS, Libertarians, and Constitution Party
2
Replies
36
Views
1K
hifi
H
Y
  • Locked
The Economist reports on Libertarian convention
Replies
7
Views
651
Boats
B
A
  • Locked
why the orphaning of libertarians, seems a reasonable question
2
Replies
47
Views
1K
DRZinn
D
D
  • Locked
Republicans praise New Deal socialism
Replies
2
Views
438
moa
M
Back
Top