[LS]

I disagree as to what causes low voter turnout. The highest turnout, EVER, was in the period 1800-1820, where there were tight restrictions (property) on who voted. Turnouts were 65-90% (although the accuracy of the 90% numbers are questioned by some). After that, voter turnout was ONLY high when there were very "hot button" issues in the election. Even third party candidates don't necessarily cause increased turnout, although turnout was SLIGHTLY higher with Perot in 1992.

As to the parties, I think people would be stunned if the Libertarian Party suddenly abandoned its pro-abort and pro-drug positions, and kept EVERYTHING ELSE the same, how overnight it would attract perhaps a majority of current Republicans. But I know that I can never in good conscience vote Libertarian on those two positions alone---they are that significant. And I think it is that barrier that keeps the LP a 1% of the vote party.

[RLK]

As to the parties, I think people would be stunned if the Libertarian Party suddenly abandoned its pro-abort and pro-drug positions, and kept EVERYTHING ELSE the same, how overnight it would attract perhaps a majority of current Republicans.

--------------------------------

The libertarian party has some good ideas. The problem is, it also collects irratic people from the pathological periphery of society who are primarily in it for licensing their pathology. I want a sane nation to live in, not a licensed nuthouse.

[RLK]

Even third party candidates don't necessarily cause increased turnout, although turnout was SLIGHTLY higher with Perot in 1992.

------------------------

The turnout increased from 91,000,000 in 1988 to 104,000,000 in 1992, then went back down in '96. The increase wasn't slight, it was substantial.