Just in case this wasn't clear in the description of this forum - these questions are for l/Libertarians ONLY.

First, I'm sure many of you have heard the mocking commentary about throwing your vote away when you vote third-party. My first question is - how do you rationalize that voting Libertarian is not throwing your vote away?

Second, and this is more for big "L" Libertarians, have you ever comprised your vote and voted for a main party candidate just because you wanted to make sure the other main party candidate lost? Or do you always vote straight-ticket Libertarian on principal?

First question:

Voting for any candidate that won't deliver what you're voting for them for is throwing your vote way. Libertarians are generally voting for less government or for more individual liberty. Will a major party candidate deliver either? With very few exceptions, no. Between a big government Democrat and a big government Republican, there really isn't much to choose on that biggest of all issues. When there is a major party candidate with a realistic chance of victory -- because without that you may as well be voting Libertarian anyway -- who is dedicated to reducing the size of government and increasing individual liberty, I'll happily vote for them. But that isn't often, is it? If the reason you're voting is to indicate your support for the LP platform, voting for the LP does that better than any other vote could. But on those rare occasions when there is a real pro-freedom candidate with a D or R next to their name, you'd be wasting your vote if you passed them up.

Second question:

Yes, certainly. Despite what I wrote in answering the first question, some candidates are bad enough that keeping them out of office is an important objective. Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-SC) for example is on my "must defeat at all costs" list because of his crusade against "Fair Use" and digital privacy. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) likewise for his hatred of the Second Amendment. On the Presidential level, I pay attention to the polls and see how my state is going to go. If my state's electoral votes are already locked up, then I can ignore trying to change the result and just register my protest.

By 1980 the Socialist Party platform of 1924 (from Friedman's book Free to Choose) had been almost completely enacted, despite few electoral successes. Third parties influence the major parties. If Libertarians could just get to the 5% level they would be a significant force in American politics.

What Izdaari pointed out is true. You can look at polls and decide if you wish to vote for a major party candidate or register your Libertarian position. In 2000 I voted for Browne. I live in Texas where Bush beat Gore by 30% of the vote. Had I lived in Florida I might have voted differently.

Likewise, Hugo. I live in Washington, which went for Gore by a large margin, I forget the numbers but large enough that my vote wouldn't have changed anything. That being the case, I voted for Browne without any concern about the result.

Not sure I'd do it again though because I have problems with the extreme dovish/isolationist line Browne is taking on foreign policy lately, to the extent that on that issue he's darn close to a Noam Chomsky clone. I'm hoping for a more reasonable LP nominee next time around, and it doesn't appear I'm alone on that. It could be a big convention fight.

Not much of a Browne fan myself. My vote in 2000 was sort of a "yellow dog" Libertarian vote.

I voted for Bush in the last election only because I didn't want Gore to win. I'm more of a cross between Libertarian and Republican.

Same here. I would consider voting for a libertarian only if they were slightly more socially conservative.

CP

Pat - this thread is for l/Libertarians only. I thought you were a Neo-con.

Hey,

I voted Browne in 2000. And I've worn it like a badge.

I've never felt voting for a third party is a wasted vote because your voice is being heard, and it's saying those two people (rep/dem) aren't good enough for me, it's saying a two party system isn't right for me, it says I want this person to be the President. The only wasted vote is the one not cast.

I've always said vote LP no matter what... but this year I'm not so sure. Nolan himself says his “chances of winning could be demonstrated with a snowball in one hand and a blowtorch in the other", which doesn't exactly scream I think I can. My main concern is that Bush isn't in our White House in 2005 so I'm torn this time around... plus, I think I like Kucinich. But are his chances any better than Nolan's?

LP or DK

I guess I wait to see who get the nods before I really decide.


PEACE!

I firmly believe that you vote for the one you think is best for the job. Nothing else makes any sense, I vote Libertarian when I think the candidate is actually going to do a good job. The Libertarian ticket is the only viable third party in our political system and if the other two candidates are dumber then a box of rocks, why not vote Libertarian? In one Presidential election I actually voted for myself, even though I was the only one. I believed that Daffy Duck could have done a better job but he was not on the ballot, so I voted for me. Given the choice between Mondale and Reagan I think that me and Daffy were preferable. I didn't throw my vote away, I voted my conscience.

Isn't there a law stating that if a canidate recieves a certain amount of of the vote (I think it was 4 or 10%) that their party would recieve government funding? I could be wrong, but I remember it from an article about Newt and the Green party a few years ago.
BTW I'm sorry I'm not declared libertarians I just haven't studied government and all of the parties in depth to know which one I should affiliates myself with. From what I have heard so far I think I am either a Republican or Libertarian.

I totally agree with you. This is a topic that comes up often in conversation between the "big parties" vs. "small parties".

A good example of a "realistic chance of victory" situation occurred recently in the California Recall Election. The republicans had two choices: Schwarzenegger and Tom Mclintok. For those of you who aren't familiar with Mclintok, he is currently the state senator, and could be called the epitome of conservative republican values. The vast majority of GOP voters who would have cast their vote for him jumped on the Schwarzenegger bandwagon, which is fine because after all he is a republican. But the conflict lies in the fact that Mclintok was the candidate whose politics best represented those voters. And when confronted, traditional republicans (especially talk radio personalities) would cite the "realistic chance" argument.

Here comes the Libertarian part. Popular radio show host Larry Elder who for the longest time has been described as a "firebrand libertarian", spent most of his show during the election arguing for Schwarzenegger. The only time Mclintok was discussed, was primarily regarding callers and Elder expressing their views encouraging Mclintok to drop out. He currently describes himself as a "Republitarian".

Zac,

Right. The thing with Schwarzenegger is he's probably more a pragmatic centrist than anything else, but in general he comes down on the side of fiscal conservatism, lower taxes and social liberalism. That combination makes him at least a quasi-libertarian pragmatic centrist, sort of like Jesse Ventura, and certainly a huge improvement over Davis.

What's more, there's the realistic chance of victory thing -- I seriously doubt McClintock could have won in California which has become a pretty liberal state since Reagan was governor, a state that a fiscal conservative and social liberal can win, but that a real conservative probably cannot. Even most conservatives realized that and went for the Terminator. I wouldn't consider that unprincipled of them, just realistic -- they really are better off and getting something closer to what they believe in with a moderate Republicn governor compared to the incompetent and corrupt liberal Democrat they had.

Since you are from Texas, I must ask - would you vote for Ron Paul if he ran as a Republican??

- Rick

Well, I'm not from Texas, but I happily voted for Ron Paul when he ran for President as a Libertarian and would be pleased to do so again if he choose to run as a Libertarian or as a Republican.

Agreed. Politicians should be ashamed of themselves around him. How he keeps his integrity and ideals in such a cesspool, I will never know, but will always admire.

- Rick

third party candidates have virtually no chance to win in a major election. that being said, the roll of the third parties serves to influence major party candidates and legislation. the more votes the libertarians get in an election the more likely the winning candidate will pay attention to libertarian issues.
i for one couldn't care less what label a particular piece of legislation carries. as long as it is founded on the principle of personal liberty.
i vote libertarian. i have stopped voting against people and things. vote against gore and you get the patriot act. vote against bush you get a clinton. i have chosen to influence the winner. someday, when utopia happens, a libertarian will be elected. until then, my vote counts behind the scenes.

my answer to the second question is yes. in the last election i was horrified by gore. and more to the point, what gore represents. i voted for bush mainly because he wasn't gore. i also voted for clinton because he wasn't bush.

as i said above i vote libertarian from here foreword. i have learned from my mistakes.

-dave

Actually I have emailed Paul encouraging him to take on Bush in the primaries. No response.

I have, as well. I've also signed a petition urging him to seek the Libertarian nomination. He is better than anyone competing for it right now, and has a better chance of winning than any of them. Especially with all the disillusioned conservatives and paleoconservatives out there.

- Rick

It's simply not true! For us Libertarians anyway. The Dems and Repubs don't pay attention to a .46% of the vote party! Not on the National level anyway! I too wanted to believe this during my first 8 years in the Party! That I was making my voice heard! Then I woke up and realized that you gotta have a little more than 1% or 2% (much less .46%) to get their attention! The reality is that we still have to choose between what we consider to be the lesser of two evils IF we want to Actually Have an Effect on the people who will ACTUALLY have the power! As long as the party is limited to electing a few "dog-catchers" and "water-masters", I see no purpose in waisting scarce resources trying to elect a PRESIDENT who would (even IF elected) face a Republicrat congress overriding his Veto until the end of his/her Presidency. I still vote Libertariarian when the outcome is certain one way or the other(just to keep the party alive), but if there's any chance of a left wing socialist Democrat(the Evil Party) gaining power over MY LIFE... I vote for the ever so Slightly less harmful Republican(the Dumb Party)...I think we should kill of the Dems and then take over the Repubs like the Socialists did with the Democrats! But what do I know?

While I am an avid Libertarian, the current American Libertarian party is not.

Until they actually put true libertarian concepts forward as platform publicly and stop coddling big money disgruntled Republicans, I can not in good conscience support the party.

So since I can not in good conscience vote Libertarian, "The lesser of two evils" for me is simple - who poses more of a threat to liberty?

In my opinion, the current Republican party is far more anti-liberty than the current Democratic party (with the notable exception of gun control). They are the highest priority threat to liberty and the constitution from my point of view. Therefore, until the Libertarians actually have a party I can support, I will cast my vote for Dems, to stop the Republican party as best I can.

Er... I think you need to stop putting Libertarian in the Party slot then. If you cannot in good conscience vote for a party then you ain't a member of that party. The Libertarians are a party dedicated to minimal government, at one time I thought the Republican party was the lesser of two evils as the party of less government. The last four years have substantially weakened that belief.

This misperception is exactly why I don't vote Libertarian currently.

It supposed to be the party of liberty first. The "big government" issues grow from that - not the other way around.

I can not see how anyone dedicated to liberty could have ever voted for the Republican party since the 1950's or 60's - their authoritarian approach to policy causes far more harm and far outweighs any "big government" dangers the Dems ever posed.

I suppose you are right about the not declaring myself a Libertarian. However, the true Libertarian ideals drive all of my political decisions. So while I find the current party to be ineffective and non-libertarian in nature - I hold out hope that we can change it from within.

Obviously, you are one of them socialist libertarians, in other words you are not a member, and never will be, of the Libertarian Party. So you are unfairly participating in this debate. Just because you consider your politics as libertarian does not justify labeling your party as Libertarian. I guess I could label myself a Democrat, because I ain't too happy with the GOP, and participate in the Democrats only debates. I mean I could be a Democrat, if they simply came my way on economic issues.

Really? What justifies it then?

I am a registered Libertarian. I attend party events. I have voted for Lib candidates in the past. I have donated to the party. I participate in mailing lists, discussions and debates on Libertarian issues. All of my political values are Libertarian values.

You seem to be posing that unless someone votes with the current party every time - and toes the current party line - even though they personally feel it is contrary to liberty - that they have no right to call themselves a Libertarian.

That is a very odd position to take.

I will vote for the candidate that I can, in good conscience, support in an election - the one that I believe can further the cause of Liberty best.

I feel the current Libertarian leadership and party are misguided - this does not invalidate me as a vital party member.

Libertarians are supposed to value and reward dissent - not expunge the offending member simply because they disagree.