Posted on 11/08/2006 2:27:12 PM PST by quidnunc
New York – Glum Republicans might turn their attention to the Libertarian Party to vent their anger. Libertarians are a generally Republican-leaning constituency, but over the last few years, their discontent has grown plain. It isn't just the war, which some libertarians supported, but the corruption and insider dealing, and particularly the massive expansion of spending. Mr Bush's much-vaunted prescription drug benefit for seniors, they fume, has opened up another gaping hole in America's fiscal situation, while the only issue that really seemed to energise congress was passing special laws to keep a brain-damaged woman on life support.
In two of the seats where control looks likely to switch, Missouri and Montana, the Libertarian party pulled more votes than the Democratic margin of victory. Considerably more, in Montana. If the Libertarian party hadn't been on the ballot, and the three percent of voters who pulled the "Libertarian" lever had broken only moderately Republican, Mr Burns would now be in office.
Does this mean that the libertarians are becoming a force in national elections, much as Ralph Nader managed to cost Al Gore a victory in 2000? Hope springs eternal among third-party afficionadoes, but the nature of the American electoral system, which directly elects representatives in a first-past-the-post system, makes it nearly impossible for third parties to gain traction. The last time it happened was in the 1850's, when the Whig party dissolved over internal disputes about slavery, opening the way for the emerging Republican party to put Abraham Lincoln in office. And acting as a spoiler is dubiously effective at achieving one's goals. In theory, it could pull the Repubicans towards the Libertarians, but in practice, it may just elect Democrats, pushing the nation's economic policy leftwards.
(Excerpt) Read more at economist.com ...
republicans are only conservative during elections tho and after enough time people notice such things
All the Democrats who won house seats ran to the right of conservatives!
ironic is'nt it?
they took the positions the republicans had abandonded and won..who'd've' thunk it
It is ironic. Republicans would have not had any problems during this cycle, had they been conservative. Instead, they are out there trying to suck up the Hispanic vote and the moderates. Even legal Hispanics want the damn border shut down! It is very easy to see why we lost.
easy for you and i perhaps but politicians live in a different world..rose colored glasses doesen't even begin to describe it
I could not agree more. Libertarians have no shot at winning anything, including dog catcher. After all, they'd probably smoke the leashes and declare it a right.
I take solace in the fact that though they voted AGAINST Republicans, they are going to get far worse at the hands of the democrats. They thought the Republicans were bad, wait till Pelosi gets her agenda rolling.
Nice liberal answer there... I suppose that you feel that if a product doesn't meet a customer's needs and he goes elsewhere, then he's horrible and it's his fault if the business goes under.
BTW, I know Libertarians who would vote Dem if there were no L party.
Nice try, but libertarians are more conservative than liberal.
And the GOP nervous breakdown continues apace.
They'll lay blame anywhere, but where it should be laid. Losers always do. Blackbird.
Is this thread for real? Is it a twisted joke?
Good God, it's like reading the DUmmie Funnies.
aLL Our ElecTION ProbleMs Belong to us!
It's this, entitlement vote, that is why the GOP got it's hat handed to them. Pure hubris. Will they learn? Blackbird.
Don't smoke a joint, but feel free to abort at will. Pathetic priorities. Blackbird.
Let me poke a hole in that theory. I am (l)ibertarian to my core, but HAVE voted GOP for 30 years now. So much for that one. Blackbird.
Well, Blackbird, there are exceptions to every rule. I know a lot of Libertarians. The number of possible Republican voters among them is small.
This whole libertarian thing today is a reason why changes need to be made to voting laws. My vote terminates on the winner or the loser. There is a perverse incentive built into the system not to vote for the candidate I prefer and an incentive to vote for the lesser of two evils both of whom I'd rather not vote for at all.
Votes should cascade down a ranking of candidates. For example, say there are constitution party, libertarian party, democrat, republican, socialist---candidates, whose names coincidentally are initialed, C, L, D, R, S, respectively. I want to determine the ranking of the successful candidate who gets my vote. So I rank accordingly. C, L, R. Democrat, socialist, candidates will not get my vote under any condition. If Democrat wins he wins with someone else's vote. If the C, L, R, candidate wins, it is because one of them got my vote. I rank C #1, L #2, R #3.
The votes for C get counted and he loses, my vote doesn't die, it gets inherited by #2: L. He wins and it stops there or he loses and #3: R inherits my vote.
This system would provide incentive to vote for the person you want as #1 without worry that you are throwing your vote away or are taking votes away from the lesser of two evils the only two viable candidates. This system would grant viability to 3rd party candidates who deserve to have some without robbing viability from the two who seem to monopolize it. It would equalize their chances in the fairest possible way. We should be able to implement this system without undermining the electoral college system. Of course when I refer to voting for C, L, or R, I am talking about the delegates.
Apparently Perot taught us NOTHING!
It's just a little temper tantrum.
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.