Posted on 08/19/2008 7:47:41 AM PDT by Free Descendant
LIBERTARIANS BACK ON BALLOT RALEIGH (May 22) -- The Libertarian Party is back on the ballot in North Carolina. The State Board of Elections formally certified the party today. North Carolina voters who so choose can now register Libertarian.
"This was our eighth ballot access drive. Without a doubt, it was the most nerve-racking and exhausting one we've conducted," said Barbara Howe, state chair. "We are now back on the ballot, but we are out of funds, so we have no money to support candidates."
Nevertheless, the Libertarians will field a slate of candidates in November, she said. At their 2008 convention in Burlington held in April, the party nominated Dr. Michael Munger, chair of the Duke University political science department, for governor. They also nominated candidates for the General Assembly, U.S. Congress, and the Guilford County Commission.
Libertarians have until July 1 to submit a complete list of candidates to the SBOE, Howe noted. "We expect now that we are officially on the ballot, we will have more people come forward who want to spread the message of liberty."
North Carolina ballot laws are the most restrictive in the nation. "They're designed by the Democrats and Republicans to keep independent candidates and third parties off the ballot," said Dr. Munger. The LPNC spent an estimated $134,000 and logged 2,200 volunteer hours to collect the nearly 70,000 valid signatures needed.
"This also costs the taxpayer, stifles democracy, and, worst of all, kills trees," Dr. Munger quipped. "County BOE clerks spend 4,000 hours verifying the more than 108,000 signatures we submitted." That's based on an estimate of two minutes to verify each signature. In some cases, it takes 5 to 10 minutes, Dr. Munger said.
"And we used more than 20 reams of paper, 400 pounds," Dr. Munger said. "And after all this time, effort and expense, we essentially arrive at the starting line breathless."
"Since the process keeps most parties out completely, the real cost to taxpayers is democracy." Dr. Munger said. "No choices, no new ideas, and no competition in a system that could surely use it.
"Nearly half of the seats in the General Assembly will be unopposed again this year because we have had to spend all our resources on this bizarre exercise instead of recruiting candidates and campaigning."
Meanwhile, Libertarian delegates have departed/will depart for the 2008 Libertarian National Convention in Denver May 22 to 26. The Convention will nominate a candidate for president, who will be on the ballot in 48 states. A debate featuring the Libertarian candidates seeking the presidential nomination will be aired live on CSPAN Saturday, May 24 from 7 to 9 p.m. (MST).
"Unlike the Democratic and Republican national conventions, ours is not subsidized by taxpayer money," Howe noted.
I'm not a fan of the LP any longer but I'm not really a fan of any of the parties. I will probably register LP just to "make a statement" but I will only vote for them in uncompetitive races.
My problems with the LP include:
1) Focusing resources on clearly unwinnable elections like the presedential election. Put ALL resources into the most viable races only and on other elections get the word out on the establishment candidates positions on libertarian issues.
2) Libertarian Purity Snobishness. I've noticed intollerance towards not toeing the "party line" on every issue. For example Justin Raimondo accused me on some forum of not being a libertarian for supporting the invasion of Afghanistan back in 2001. Also we see animosity towards Neal Boortz for his impurity. I think it's silly for a fringe political party to push people to it's fringes.
3) "The Party of Principal" which is great untill you realize politics is unprincipled. We need "The Party of Practical Libertarianism". Ultimately my goal is for the GOP to embrace in policy what they speak of philisophical: limited government, low taxes, states rights
I definately felt that was wrong when the LP was disbanded. On the website apparently the LP is being locked out of local debates.
You know if nothing else let 3rd parties into the debates. Let us just get some of our ideas out at least.
If the “Laughaterians” stood for something and could express it with something other than SNL skits and washed up iconoclasts maybe they could make some headway.
I think Libertarians should be on the ballot. I occasionally voted for them in Texas and Oklahoma, just to do something different.
I registered LP when they were re-instated. I did so as a protest against the GOP. They seem to have abandoned any pretense of conservatism and so do not truly represent me. I want libertarian(small l) government more than I want to hang out with Libertarian(Big L) party members. Many are waaaaay too doctrinaire for my taste and in fact are kind of loony. The Founders were libertarian and that’s good enough for me.
Yeah I have to. I remember when I first realized I was a libertarian and became an LP member after seeing Harry Browne on CSpan back around the turn of the century. I was so excited and I believed him when he said we could have a libertarian government in 10 years. I voted Libertarian in every race there was one in 2000.
I think the notion is silly now though, at least on a national level. Let’s put resources into local elections that at least have a slim chance of winning rather then national elections with all but no chance.
I’ll vote LP everytime where it will not benefit a Democrat...and the more local the election the lower my threshold would be to vote LP.
That makes a certain amount of sense. However, I'd decide it by what I thought of the particular Libertarian candidate: whether I thought he was sane, honest, competent for the office, et.
I'm not a LP member but, 4 years ago I wrote a letter to the editor of The Washington Times who informed me it had been chosen for publication, but then some big event occurred (I can't remember what) and my letter was bumped. I intend to resubmit my letter soon.
My argument was/is that the rules of presidential debates should read something like this, Every candidate should be included in the debates who is on the ballot in enough states such that the Electoral College vote totals for those states equals or exceeds 270, i.e. all candidates who have a theoretical chance of winning.
In local and state elections, all candidates on the ballot should be invited to debates.
Yeah I completely agree with everything you said braveheart. I’m allways impressed when Republicans talk in broad terms...it sounds like what I believe in. But the policies don’t seem to jive with their words.
The biggest thing that has led to my support for Republicans (and I heavily supported them 2004 and 2006 and likely will this year, certainly for Mcain) is Democrats! In 2004 the anti-American leftists, at home and abroad, did more to get me to vote GOP then anything else.
Also a lot of my personal positions have fallen more in line with “social conservatives” and other areas of conservative thought than “pure libertarianism” although I don’t believe that government is the instrument for advancing most of those ideas.
That’s reasonable but I would say even if it’s not theoretically possible they should still be in the debates so we can get all ideas on the table.
If I could set the policy it would be any candidate on a ballot in any state. That might not be practical though, I’m not sure how crowded that would make it. Your approach might be better and would at least see the Libertarians and I guess the Greens and maybe the Constitution parties in the debates.
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.