Libertarian Presidential Tickets

The Libertarian Party has been on the past 9 Presidential tickets...

1972: John Hospers and Theodora Nathan
2,691 popular votes (0.003%); 1 electoral vote;
1976: Roger MacBride and David Bergland
173,011 popular votes (0.21%)
1980: Ed Clark and David Koch
921,299 popular votes (1.1%)
1984: David Bergland and James Lewis
228,705 popular votes (0.25%)
1988: Ron Paul and Andre Marrou
432,179 popular votes (0.47%)
1992: Andre Marrou and Nancy Lord
291,627 popular votes (0.28%)
1996: Harry Browne and Jo Jorgensen
485,798 popular votes (0.50%)
2000: Harry Browne and Art Olivier
384,431 popular votes (0.36%)
2004: Michael Badnarik and Richard Campagna
397,367 popular votes (0.34%)

 

The Libertarian Party would do a lot better if they'd open their doors to people who don't hold every single tenet of libertarian ideology. The Democrats and Republicans do well because they're "big tent" parties. There's no reason that the Libertarians can't be too. There are plenty of people in both major parties who want to reduce the size of the federal government. The Libertarians should welcome them.

Their website continues to alienate people by saying things like "You aren't really a libertarian if you favor government inspection of meat" and other ridiculous things like that. When they host events like "Guns For Kids" or whatever it was called, they piss off a lot of people.

And as long as they continue to nominate candidates based on ideological purity, rather than, say, a respectable candidate who shares MOST of their core beliefs, they'll continue to get less than 1% of the vote. The closest they've ever come to a serious candidate is Ron Paul, and even he was too extreme for most Americans. Harry Browne is a very intelligent guy, but he simply alienates large sections of the electorate every time he opens his mouth.

If they want to spread their message and get a substantial chunk of the votes, they'll nominate someone like Drew Carey.

 

Kandahar, The Republican and Democratic parties aren't the most popular because they are "big tent" parties, they are popular because those are the only two parties that the majority of the country actually hear about on the news.

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

Only parties heard about on the news? I heard about the liberarians on the news dring the election, and I heard about Nader constantly, the fact is the 2 main parties have enough different wings of them so that the vast majority of people fit in somewhere.

 

you did? thats funny b/c i sure as hell didnt. i only knew about kucinich after investigating on the internet. what news channel do you watch? maybe i just haven't found the right one

 

Really, I would say the main reason they don't get much of the vote is because people see the democrats and republicans as the only 'real' parties... Like back before the election, I heard so much crap about a vote for nader/badnarik/whoever is a vote for kerry, or is a vote for bush and shit like that. People just don't seem to take them seriosuly or actualy believe that eventually it may be possible to get a candidate in that isn't from either of the current main parties. Plus, while they might not be doing so great as far as presidential elections, the number of libertarians in other offices is growing fairly steadily.

 

But they've been campaigning for 30+ years! Electing a few hundred dog-catchers and school board members nationwide isn't as big of an accomplishment as they like to pretend it is. They need to start campaigning more seriously in congressional races.

 

But as they get more and more people into ever higher office, eventually they continually become better none, and people may feel more confident voting for them for president. It's a start at least.

 

Yeah I completely agree. People are afraid of voting for third-parties because they think if they do the side they favor more will lose. People don't understand that we need another party in here so everything is really about the politics of the country and not the politics of politics

 

Kandahar is right the Lib. Party not a big tent party, it spends more of its resources pissing off people than it does recuiting people
Mark my words it will never break 1% of the National vote

 

Harry Browne's problem was that he spoke in rhetorical terms and didn't back his statements up with principle. He didn't illustrate a plan as to how the private market could replace government sponsored programs. His simpleminded answer was always that "government doesn't work." When you have a society which has become accustomed to accepting the notion that government programs have the best way of solving our problems, people become nervous when you say that you'll take that away. When trying to sell the public on how the free market will be better for the populace in the long run, you have to illustrate a plan as to how you'll make this come about!

Well, Carey 'threw his hat in the ring' at the last moment before the convention. Unfortunately, he was dropped after the first round of voting.

This, I will confess is one of the problems with some of the activists within the organization. If we could better communicate how people will be better off with freedom than with political programs and can do this in a dignified manner, I think we'll be better off.

 

I think the LP's main objective right now should be lobbying for instant runoff voting. While I do not agree with the LP's political beliefs, I think that IRV would be a major plus for our political system, so that a person could cast a vote for a minority party without fear of it helping one of the majority candidates. In the last election, I'll bet many people voted for Kerry because they could not bear the thought of four more years of Bush, but they didn't really like Kerry that much.

Alex

P.S. This is coming from a hardcore Democrat e.g. someone who's candidate would surely suffer from IRV

 

It works both ways. There were many people who voted for Bush who were simply anti-Kerry. Lack of voters' choice makes for disenfranchisement and apathy, thus lower voter turnout. In the case of the wasted vote or the spoiler vote scenario, I get criticisms mostly from Republicans.

I am familiar with IRV and I'm willing to look at that as well as other options for voting alternatives.

Again, this is not necessarily true! I think that voters come from widely diverse political orientations, so you never know what to predict.

 

The farther away a party is from getting elected, the farther away its policies will be from reality. That's what's wrong with the Libertarians right now. Some of their candidates have been complete kooks chasing ideological purity.

 

I hate Libertarians, most all of them eventually become Republicans

 

What an idiotic remark.

Do you have anything remotely intelligent to say?

 

I do hate the fact that Tucker Carlson calls himself a libertarian and agrees with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and most of Bush's Policies.

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

I agree. I hate that, too. There are a lot of neocon Republicans who refer to themselves as libertarians, when almost everything they spout goes against what true libertarians stand for. There are people on these boards like that, too. They will push the Bush agenda, yet they will insist that they are libertarians who uphold the Constituiton.

But I also get peeved when I hear frauds of the far left, such as Noam Chomsky, referring to themselves as "libertarians." Noam Chomsky is as far away from a libertarian as you can get. I believe he refers to himself as a "socialist libertarian," when both words are a complete contradiction of each other.

Socialism is the polar opposite of libertarianism, and vice-versa.

Neoconservatism is also the polar opposite of libertarianism, and vice-versa.

It just so happens, unfortunately, that many of the people I see referring to themselves as libertarians fall into one of those two catagories.

I think a lot of people who call themselve libertarians do so on the most superficial terms. If they are for the legalization of marijuana, they think that automatically makes them a libertarian.

 

libertarianism %age is going down from last year... Awesome.. what the fuck does it matter though? Not a damn bit. They never stood a chance in the 1st place... No matter who is in control of a government, the end result is the same.... FUCKED!

So lets waste our time and debate between 2 ideologies that will never gain power.

 

so your happy to work within the parameters that the ruling class set?