Posted on 05/21/2008 10:01:44 AM PDT by mukraker
I'd like to ask my fellow FReepers what you think about the Presidential candidacy of Bob Barr?
Given our current choices for President, Obama, Clinton & McCain, is Bob Barr a good alternative this year?
I know no one will agree 100% with any candidate's positions. But, instead of not voting, would a vote for Bob Barr be an alternative you would consider?
As a disappointed Republican, I'm considering going Libertarian this year. I like most of their positins, especially on safeguarding Liberty for All. I'm tired of carrying Big Brother with me everywhere I go. I'd like to see the Constitution brought back into American governance.
Your thoughts? Thanks.
In my state, one votes for specific named delegates committed to specific candidates. In your system, how would the delegates be selected? Would they be appointed by the state parties? If you think there was a conspiracy to select delegates supporting a specific candidate, how would you system prevent the state parties from conspiring?
If 50% were required to get delegates committed to one’s name, then we would not have this steam-roller effect that comes with someone winning an earlier state by a small margin and using that victory to launch past other candidates in the mind of the media.
In fact, this system could reject ALL the candidates. That would have been a good idea this year.
And selected local delegates at a national convention could probably do a better job of picking a candidate as do popularity contests in each state. Representative democracy....the republican ideal.
Nonetheless, the popular vote could still win for a candidate IF some candidate were the clear choice of the majority of primary voters.
Otherwise, no way the candidate should be someone unable to win in state by state contests.
“In fact, this system could reject ALL the candidates. That would have been a good idea this year.”
As a pragmatist, I have ‘mechanical’ issues with this approach. Who selects the ‘uncommitted’ delegates and how do you ensure that they really are ‘uncommitted’?
I do have issues with the current system where one candidate with a plurality gets 100% of the delegates. Perhaps, a combination of systems would be best where a candidate with at least 50% (or some higher threshold, perhaps 2/3) of the vote gets all the delegates. If no candidate breaks the threshold, then the delegates are awarded proportionately to the actual vote might work.
I do share your appreciation of the republican field this cycle. It seems you really wanted to vote ‘None of the Above’ and I wasn’t all that fired up with the field myself. The problem is, we are selecting a candidate for President. I’m not sure how ‘None of the Above’ fits into that.
The real republican form of government is in the selection of the delegates. That is the process that needs to get in the hands of people. It is not the candidate who really matters. It’s the delegate.
They can be totally uncommitted and go to some convention, but if I trust them and their ability, then I’m confident that the final selection will be a good one.
I see absolutely no reason to award delegates to someone who cannot gain the confidence of a majority of the people. If I’ve been thoughful in selecting the delegate assigned to my precinct/county/whatever, I know that guy. I’d rather trust his judgment.
So, in effect, you would prefer a system where there are no candidates on the ballot. Only uncommitted delegates who would make the selection at the convention? How does a ‘return to smokey rooms’ improve this situation? That type of system seems very prone to the kind of manipulation you suspect happened this cycle.
No candidate will fill everyone's needs. All candidates are human and therefore imperfect.
The Democrats will be encouraging Barr every step of the way so as to help Obama. Just like the past two elections when I drove around Chapel Hill with a Nader bumper sticker that I got after donating to Nader.
First, I don’t mind a primary with candidates. I simply don’t award delegates to those who cannot go above 50% threshold.
Second, the delegate from your level is someone you know and help select. So, yes, I’d prefer a nation of locally elected delegates vote for candidates at a convention over the system in which someone getting 37% of a vote in New Hampshire gets vaulted by the media into the lead in a few more 37% and less wins in a few early states, and thus to the
Let me think about that for awhile. The wife is getting rather impatient. She has stated as a guiding but non-negotiable ‘principle’ that we will work on her new flower bed today. I’ve got five cubic yards of river rock I’ve got to move for her. Luckily, I do own a tractor.
After I get that done, we’ve got to drive into town and buy some bushes and order some more rock. She’s just not at all concerned about our carbon footprint.
No, because I'm voting my conscience and voting for a conservative. Voting for a conservative for the sake of advancing conservatism is NOT the same as voting for a liberal for the sake of advancing conservatism.
Barr is an excellent alternative to the current "Big Two" Republicrats.
Gang of 14. McCain-Feingold. "Reach across the aisle".
Don't bet on McCain suddenly becoming a glowing beacon of conservatism.
Idiotic statement that has been disproven a number of times.
If you are going to make such statements, make sure they are accurate.
I've been a "l"ibertarian for a long time and I am anti-abortion.
“No, because I’m voting my conscience and voting for a conservative.”
You can attempt to justify it any way you like but the fact remains:
Vote Third Party - Elect Obama.
Vote Democrat - Elect Obama.
Different paths - Same President.
Different paths - Same President.
You act as though if the end is the same the means don't matter...as if intent is irrelevant. To a pragmatist like you that may very well be, but to principled men the difference is crucial.
Again, I don't buy the "if you don't vote for McCain you're voting for Obama." It's a lie used to scare people into voting for somebody they don't believe in.
The LP is pro-choice.
Please note I did not say they were pro-abortion.
They are anti-Roe V Wade and anti-tax payer funding for things like embrionic stems cells and abortion clinics. Other than that, the LP's stance is that it is rightly a State's issue. There is an Amendment process. If you want it to be a Federal issue, follow the process.
All of the above is consistent with libertarian ideology.
Barr has also stated that he personally regards abortion as a violation of the unborn child’s right to life, liberty and property. Lots of Libertarians believe that, as a matter of fact, but I don’t have any poll numbers to cite.
Correct.
But does the LP support restrictions on abortion on the STATE level? No.
Has the LP EVER supported any restriction on the STATE level? No.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.