Should the libertarian party let the people vote for the nominee?

[Alonzo]

It has come to my attention that the Libertarian party, the party of freedom and choice, refuses to allow the public to vote on their nominee. This is a violation of the basic democratic principles that this nation was founded on and and should be condemned without reservation. It makes no sense to advocate freedom and choice on one hand, then deny those very things to people when selecting a nominee. They should be boycotted until the undemocratic policy is changed.

[NortheastCynic]

LOL.

Good luck with the boycott, Zo.

-NC

[micfranklin]

Superdelegates are a waste of tax money anyway, so people should choose their nominee and from what I see I know who it is.

[PostmodernProphet]

how do you know all the libertarians didn't vote......Barr won 324-276......do you think there are more than 600 of them?......

[firefox]

My guess is that all the good ones gave up on the LP and joined the FSP (http://www.freestateproject.org/) ;) More on topic though, if the LP is so small and having so many internal problems as it is, adding in the general public, which is NOT libertarian for the most part, wouldn't make things any better, IMHO.

[Alonzo]

My guess is that all the good ones gave up on the LP and joined the FSP (http://www.freestateproject.org/) ;) More on topic though, if the LP is so small and having so many internal problems as it is, adding in the general public, which is NOT libertarian for the most part, wouldn't make things any better, IMHO.

Couldn't they have closed primaries, and only allow registered libertarians to vote? True, the turnout would likely be very small, but it wouldn't result in the contradiction that currently exists. They could have people vote in the nearest libertarian office, assuming there's at least one in the state.

Or, probably a more reasonable alternative given its size, they could have people mail in their ballot, and then designate delegates based on state results.

[NortheastCynic]

All of which would cost what?

Anyone?

Anyone?

Bueller?

Money.

That's the answer to your question, Zo. It has nothing to do with ideological inconsistency [which made no sense to begin with, advocating for less gov't interference in life has nothing to do with electing Presidential candidates for a private Party], it has everything to do with cash, money, dollar bills and the LP's lack thereof.

-NC

[Alonzo]

northeast, so you're saying that the libertarian party lacks the funds to count votes mailed to them? If they can cash checks mailed to them, I fail to see why they can't count checked boxes. No one's asking for a speedy count.

[NortheastCynic]

Well Zo, no one's asking for a popular vote either.

But to answer your question, slightly more organization is required to create ballots, mail out ballots, organize a schedule for the election, advertise the elections, etc. than to cash checks mailed to you.

In addition, another reason why we don't use a popular vote is that generally, our candidates are fairly low-profile and don't really campaign. Most LP members know only what they can research about candidates, making it difficult to make an informed decisions. No such problem exists with party elites [AKA delegates].

-NC

[Alonzo]

Well Zo, no one's asking for a popular vote either.

But to answer your question, slightly more organization is required to create ballots, mail out ballots, organize a schedule for the election, advertise the elections, etc. than to cash checks mailed to you.

-NC

So a party with national ambitions cannot send out letters to registered party members, or even phone calls or e-mails, saying "Please return ballots by May 30th"? Or they can't post flyers and mail out letters saying "Please come by our office on May 30th and place an X next to the nominee you want"? If they can't then that's sad.

[NortheastCynic]

Sad indeed, but it's the reality of 3rd party politics in these United States, Zo.

-NC

[Alonzo]

Sad indeed, but it's the reality of 3rd party politics in these United States, Zo.

-NC

NEC, why is it that college students can plaster the town with flyers for university events, but the libertarian part cannot?

[NortheastCynic]

Because college students don't have to send flyers to 300,000+ people located in 50 states and several intercontinental territories.

-NC

[Alonzo]

Aren't there state offices that would handle that? I can't believe that the libertarian part doesn't sent out flyer's to their members already.

[NortheastCynic]

State Libertarian Party's are b-roke. Hence the lack of any kind of serious campaigning on the state and local level and hence my call for more national LP support for state parties and local elections.

-NC

[Rage]

It has come to my attention that the Libertarian party, the party of freedom and choice, refuses to allow the public to vote on their nominee. This is a violation of the basic democratic principles that this nation was founded on and and should be condemned without reservation. It makes no sense to advocate freedom and choice on one hand, then deny those very things to people when selecting a nominee. They should be boycotted until the undemocratic policy is changed.

This country isn't a democracy.

[Alonzo]

This country isn't a democracy.

And the libertarian party is no different then. They want to change the country but engage in even less democratic practices than either major party.

[NortheastCynic]

Zo, do we have to do this again? Do I have to explain why again?

Aside: the argument you're making makes no sense. The LP isn't a democracy. The USA isn't a democracy. Therefore they're hypocrites.

That is completely illogical.

-NC

[Alonzo]

NEC, I still don't honestly believe that they can't conduct a campaign through the mail or have members come down to check off boxes. Unless you have evidence showing how broke they are I just don't believe they're that broke. But I didn't ask you the question, as I already know your answer.

[Rage]

Or is it just 'the' answer that was given, and your looking for a different one?

[Alonzo]

Opinion was given, not evidence. I believe NEC believes the reasons he gave, it's just I don't. And without evidence it's simply two opinions isn't it?

[NortheastCynic]

Yes, Rage, that is the case. Zo doesn't like the answer so he'll ask someone who may give him one he can attack.

Zo, all you have to do is look at state LP websites [like this one (http://www.lpmass.org/index.php)] to see how lacking in funding they are. Hell, we didn't have state parties in every state until relatively recently.

So if you don't like the answer, fine. Just know that it's the right one.

On Edit: It's not my opinion that they're broke, it's a fact. Like the sky is blue and John McCain is old.

-NC

[Osborn F. Enready]

The Libertarian Party isn't "centralized" enough for Alonzo.... ;)

Is there a suprise here?

[NortheastCynic]

It also doesn't have enough of other people's money.

-NC

[Osborn F. Enready]

Amen NEC.... AMEN! ;)

[Milton Bradley]

Is Zo a registered Libertarian?


I mean, I could understand wanting to participate if you think your vote in the primary mattered, but I think this is just another sad attempt at marginalization.


So I guess the real question would be...


Why doesn't the media go to the same trouble to inform us of this other option, and our chance to participate in this parties primaries?


I'll provide the answer if anybody wants me too.

[Alonzo]

Is Zo a registered Libertarian?

Yes, I am a registered Libertarian. I paid my $15 dollars to the state party just like everyone else.

[Rage]

Why doesn't the media go to the same trouble to inform us of this other option, and our chance to participate in this parties primaries?


I'll provide the answer if anybody wants me too.

The media is completely controlled by the democratic party. Why else would you only see so much more coverage about +democratic activities and -conservative ones. You don't have to know the fact to infer that one.

The most coverage I have ever seen of the libertarian party on T.V was when bob barr made an appearance on the colbert report.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Rage said:
The media is completely controlled by the democratic party. Why else would you only see so much more coverage about +democratic activities and -conservative ones. You don't have to know the fact to infer that one.

I disagree here. I would agree that much, or MOST of the media is left-biased, but FOX NEWS is certainly as RIGHT BIASED as the whole of the rest of media is left biased.

As Milton said before in another thread, another forum......show me someone more right biased than Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer? I can't think of ANYONE....that is "as" reputable as the ones mentioned, except of course, their copycat talk radio wannabes, like Rush Limbaugh, etc.

Left Right is a false argument though, since they are all based on big-government, pro-authoritarianism..... there is no choice.

[Burning Giraffe]

It has come to my attention that the Libertarian party, the party of freedom and choice, refuses to allow the public to vote on their nominee. This is a violation of the basic democratic principles that this nation was founded on and and should be condemned without reservation. It makes no sense to advocate freedom and choice on one hand, then deny those very things to people when selecting a nominee. They should be boycotted until the undemocratic policy is changed.

The Libertarian Party is not predicated on the kind of Democracy that Democrats and Republicans are accustomed to promoting, primarily because it is utterly ridiculous to expect the average libertarian voter to know who best to nominate. And while our delegates aren't perfect, its the people who are most involved with the Libertarian Party that have the most power in the nominating process.

The reason why the Republicans and Democrats constantly birth out these revolting candidates (pretty much the worst their parties have to offer) is because their primaries are so democratic. The Republicans winner take all system is a little better than the shared delegate system the Democrats use in the majority of the States, but still, you are letting an uneducated public determine your parties candidates. This is not only dangerous, but it takes both parties down to their lowest, most reprehensible common denominators.

Remember, that Democracy is just another name for Mob Rule. It's not the end all be all of political virtue and in most cases, it is quite the opposite of that. I sincerely hope that the Libertarian Party keeps the nomination process as a Party Issue, allowing those most involved in Libertarian politics to make the most important decisions for our party.

[Alonzo]

The Libertarian Party is not predicated on the kind of Democracy that Democrats and Republicans are accustomed to promoting, primarily because it is utterly ridiculous to expect the average libertarian voter to know who best to nominate.

So the elites know best? You don't like democratically elected leader?

LET MY PEOPLE VOTE!

[NortheastCynic]

:madlaugh:
I knew you'd find an answer you'd like, Zo.

Don't you dare let the reasons that I stated get in your way, now.

-NC

[Burning Giraffe]

So the elites know best? You don't like democratically elected leader?

LET MY PEOPLE VOTE!

Yes, of course the elites know best. The part-time Libertarian who hasn't done anything but watch MSNBC or Bloomberg shouldn't be determining the leaders of our party. Don't get me wrong, I was pulling for Mary Ruwart and I really dislike Wayne Root, but I entrust my delegates to do their part, and they did, overwhelmingly supporting Ruwart! :) Thus, I feel well represented.

[4Reaganomics]

I still can't believe they went with a professional gambler as VP candidate

[Burning Giraffe]

I still can't believe they went with a professional gambler as VP candidate

Well, I don't see why anyone should hold that against him. It's his views on the Fair Tax that bother me.

[Mia]

A lot of libertarians have turned Republican and are working for change within that party.

I might even be forced to do the same.

*horrors*

[Burning Giraffe]

A lot of libertarians have turned Republican and are working for change within that party.

I might even be forced to do the same.

*horrors*

It won't work - just as many Republicans are turning libertarian because they (recently being inside the party) know that its a corrupt morass of special interests and power hungry Big Government liberals. No libertarian stands a chance in the Republican Party, outside of select representatives (i.e. Ron Paul).

[Osborn F. Enready]

Burning Giraffe said:
Yes, of course the elites know best. The part-time Libertarian who hasn't done anything but watch MSNBC or Bloomberg shouldn't be determining the leaders of our party. Don't get me wrong, I was pulling for Mary Ruwart and I really dislike Wayne Root, but I entrust my delegates to do their part, and they did, overwhelmingly supporting Ruwart! Thus, I feel well represented.

I myself would have much rather seen Ruwart than any of the other candidates, including Barr. I don't think I am going to be able to support Barr, but if its between Barr, Obama and McCain on my states ticket with no write-in, its going to have to be Barr.

Burning Giraffe said:
Well, I don't see why anyone should hold that against him. It's his views on the Fair Tax that bother me.

Ditto for me. The entire concept of proposing a new tax system that will simply replace the old one in cost and scope, is simply unreasonable.

Burning Giraffe said:
It won't work - just as many Republicans are turning libertarian because they (recently being inside the party) know that its a corrupt morass of special interests and power hungry Big Government liberals. No libertarian stands a chance in the Republican Party, outside of select representatives (i.e. Ron Paul).

Again I agree, but I hope Paul won't continue to carry their party banner on his name and title. After the utter disrespect shown by the party against Paul during the debates and his campaign, I hope he considers dropping their label as it only soils his name to be associated with what is left of that party.

[Mia]

I disagree. I've seen changes made here on a local level, and imo that will continue to grow. That is why I'm considering signing up.

Working within the current structure, whatever it is, almost always works better than trying to create a new one.

However, I can also do the same thing in the democratic party. One of the candidates identified by the 'campaign for liberty' is a democrat, and I might feel more comfortable in that realm.

There are meet up groups all over the US organized to carry on with 'phase two' of Ron Paul's Revolution, and I don't see anything better/more worthwhile going on!

Once you choose a party and get involved, you can get into a position to vote, speak, etc.

If we don't participate beyond voting, we can't complain about the government/legislation we get.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Mia said:
There are meet up groups all over the US organized to carry on with 'phase two' of Ron Paul's Revolution, and I don't see anything better/more worthwhile going on!

If we don't participate beyond voting, we can't complain about the government/legislation we get.

Two statements I thoroughly agree with. ;)

[Englehard]

Considering that Bob Barr is a base alienating jack ass, I would say to let the people vote. Well they should any way regardless of how I feel.

[IndieVisible]

It has come to my attention that the Libertarian party, the party of freedom and choice, refuses to allow the public to vote on their nominee. This is a violation of the basic democratic principles that this nation was founded on and and should be condemned without reservation. It makes no sense to advocate freedom and choice on one hand, then deny those very things to people when selecting a nominee. They should be boycotted until the undemocratic policy is changed.

I wouldn't worry about it, the vast majority of Americans have always boycotted the Libertarian party :lmao:

[william the wierd]

In order to have closed state primaries and there were some this time around state bureaucracies have to be dealt with like the attempt by north carolina to outlaw all 3rd parties earlier this year. Short of Barr or someone breaking 10% primaries as the main means of selecting LP candidates is just not in the cards. For that matter large numbers of delegates simply couldn't afford to go to Denver.

[Defensor]

We probably would have been spared the nomination of Barr-Root if the LP candidates were chosen this way. But I don't like the primary systems used by the Republocrats much either.

[Alonzo]

I wouldn't worry about it, the vast majority of Americans have always boycotted the Libertarian party :lmao:

Yay! My protest is working!

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo said:
Yay! My protest is working!

I find it odd that your championing one of the only replies here that could be construed as "insulting", and is most likely the least contributive to the debate.

:ponder: