MicroBalrog
member
Would Libertarians benefit freedom more if they lobbied to shift existing parties towards freedom instead of running a separate candidate? Discuss.
...if they lobbied to shift existing parties towards freedom...
Explain, please.
Yes, it would be great if, for example, a bunch of libertarians could
join the Democratic party and push it towards dismantling anti-freedom, anti-liberty, anti-rights programs like Welfare, but I don't see that happening -- especially when socialists delude themselves into thinking they are critters called "left libertarians" who support income-redistribution programs like Welfare
<Sigh> The idea of income-redistribution is antithetical to libertarian principles. Your belief in income-redistribution (Welfare) is not merely a policy disagreement with other libertarians -- it is diametrically opposed to the principles of libertarianism. It is just as diametrically opposed as the Patriot Act or a state-sponsored religion.And it would be great if libertarians understood that as long as they pushed the idea that you have to accept 100% of their mantra or you're an evil neo-Nazi/communist/blissninny, they won't win any votes...
Originally posted by dischord:
Contrary to the screeching of Reps and Dems, this practice rarely risks giving the "worse candidate" a victory.
Originally posted by dischord:
In most districts and states (including Electoral College for President), the margin of victory (or loss) is more than any extra LP votes.
If Perot hadnt spazzed out about the repub's conspiracy on his family, he would have won. At the time, Perot was the best candidate out of the 3.2. In 1992, Ross Perot took enough votes from George H.W. Bush to elect Bill Clinton.
I love the way people talk about 'taking' votes away from the Republicrats. When did they become the owners of them?
That's why I said "rarely" rather than "never."I can think of five example off the top of my head where the vote total for a third party candidate caused the "worse" candidate to win.
This is a temporary strategy.If this is true, then how exactly does voting Libertarian make ANY difference in America? Unless what your saying is that the only time the LP makes a difference it is negative.
Originally posted by dischord:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If this is true, then how exactly does voting Libertarian make ANY difference in America? Unless what your saying is that the only time the LP makes a difference it is negative.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a temporary strategy.
As Moparmike pointed out, third party candidates can win. Unfortunately, for the foreseeable future, the LP won't win (at least nationally). The LP needs to build credibility to attract enough votes to have hope of winning.
Originally posted by dischord:
Perot tipped the balance only in selected states.
Originally posted by dischord:
The Republicans have done a good job of stealing votes from the LP by scaring people with visions of Dems winning.
You don't seem to be getting what I'm saying. I'm actually giving *some* people a way to vote libertarian without risking that negative influence.Glad to see a Libertarian admit that they INTEND to make a negative influence on American politics. Gotta' destroy the village before you can save it, right!
Exactly. It need more votes. The LP will get more votes if libetarian-minded Republicans and Democrats consider voting for it where they have no chance of hurting or helping the Dem or Rep.As for the LP building credibility, the fact is that the opposite is occuring. The LP had 1.06% of the national vote in the 1980 election. In 1996 (the last year I have records for) they got 0.50% of the vote.
But it some states the Perot vote affected nothing. Zip. Nada. In those states, it was "safe" to vote for Perot....which tipped the election to Bill Clinton.