Slashdot Mirror
Libertarian Badnarik an Election Spoiler?
Mr. Slippery writes "The New York Sun points out that Libertarian Party candidate Michael Badnarik could tip the balance in this year's presidental election, like Ralph Nader is accused of having done in 2000. Bush's policies may be driving some traditional conservative Republican voters into the Libertarian camp. Rasmussen polls have put him as high as 5% in New Mexico and 3% in Nevada, which could make a difference in which major party candidate takes those states."
I would say who cares, I am a Republican and support Bush, but if some one wants to vote for Michael Dadnarik then let them vote for him they have all the right to, he has just as much right to run, just as Nadar does. Even if he "costs"* Bush the election, there are things higher in principle then victory at all cost.
I for one don't care who runs, and how many people, I have looked at some of the other candidate, I even looked at http://www.peroutka2004.com/ I like his pro-life stance, but he fails to do separation of church and state, and as a devout Lutheran that scares me, so I can not vote for him, and leaves be back at the only other pro-life candidate Bush, unless any one can give me another one to look at.
* I put costs in quoats, because in a republic like we have a politician does not own another persons vote, the person gives a vote as a gift to a candidate. I will be giving mine to Bush, but Bush does not own it.
Even though the constitutional party candidate will definately get fewer votes- I see him as being a bigger danger to Bush than Badnarik. You see, unlike Bush, who is lying about being a social, political, and financial conservative, Peroutka's the real deal. And of all of the third party candidates- he's the only one who is the real deal (save maybe the Prohibitionists- but they haven't been on the ballot in even a reasonable number of states since the 21st Ammendement, IIRC, which one repealed the 18th anyway?). That makes Peroutka the obvious choice for the social conservative who doesn't want to vote for Bush the Betrayer of the Unborn- or the political/fiscal conservative who hates what is going on with the growth of government and therefore cannot vote for either Kerry or Bush.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
It's generally assumed that Libertarians draw from Republicans, but this isn't really true--I think they draw about 50-50. Libertarians have the small government philosophy associated with Republicans (although Bush has been anything but 'small governmetn'), but they also have the social liberties that are associated with Democrats (Who thinks the Libertarians want a Constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage?) So unlike Nader and the Greens, the Libertarians draw from both parties. They might have 5% of the vote in NM, but that doesn't mean they'll have any effect on the outcome of the election.
"My girlfriend's got sodium laureth sulfate hair."
Depends- what kind of Lutheran are you? Do you accept the recent (well, 5 year old now) Joint Declaration with the Roman Catholic Church on Justification? If so- I would urge you to strongly consider changing from being legally pro-life to functionally pro-life legally pro-choice; in which case Kerry would fit your view (seeing as how Kerry believes that life begins at conception, and simply disagrees with the idea that legality will control, or even can control, how many abortions actually happen- and would instead seek other good works that would reduce abortion). The problem with Kerry's point of view though is that it's based on reducing abortion due to works (such as universal health care and other direct support of the mother) as opposed to reducing abortion based on faith in the goodness of the American People (to follow law regardless of where it leads).
Oddly enough, Kerry brought up the same faith vs. faith and works argument in the first debate on foreign policy- as a major difference between his strategy and the President's strategy on the War on Terror (it helped that the President kept repeating, over and over and over, that he had "Faith" that we will prevail in Iraq and elsewhere).
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I don't want to be associated with that, myself.
IMO, the only way a third party is really going to get launched is if a couple of high profile guys from the two major parties decide they've had enough and walk. I wouldn't waste a vote on Badnarik just to "send a message" (especially after being so forcefully reminded that there is a pretty big difference between the republicans and the dems), but I'd give serious consideration to a party running one of the men in Washington who I have real respect for.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
I mean, is it too much to hope that Badnarik could win a state? Or two? or 50? :P
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
Republican Bob Barr (of all people) just wrote this article here is the last couple of paragraphs :
"Bush's problem is that true conservatives remember their history. They recall that in recent years when the nation enjoyed the fruits of actual conservative fiscal and security policies, a Democrat occupied the White House and Congress was controlled by a Republican majority that actually fought for a substantive conservative agenda.
History's a troublesome thing for presidents. Even though most voters don't take much of a historical perspective into the voting booth with them, true conservatives do. Hmmm. Who's the Libertarian candidate again?"
If someone like bob barr endorses Badnarik, this could get REALLY interesting.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
From my understanding, the electoral college is made up of electors from the Democratic and Republican parties, and the winner of a state gets to send its electors to vote.
How does this work with non-duopoly candidates? Do the Libertarian/Green/etc parties have their own set of electors too? What about "non-aligned" candidates like Nader, who claim no party affiliation at all? How would it work if by the grace of god one of them captures a state?
Seperation of church and state is meant to go both ways. The state controlled the church in Europe, but the church also controlled the state for long periods of time. If a monarch didn't do what the Pope wanted the Pope would have him excommunicated. Go re-read your history because you clearly seem to have forgotten that. One of the things to remember is that at the time the Constitution was written you had many members of many differant religions and many people remembered the lack of religious tolerance in England (and other European nations, often state sponsored) just a 100 years previously. Religious influence on the state can be harmful to those of other religions hence it's a good idea to seperate religious doctrine from state decisions, any state decisions.
Just because your religion says abortion is wrong doesn't mean that mine agrees with you. Hence the government should stay out of the way as it can often come down to a religious belief. I'm not saying that a politician can't or shouldn't allow thier religion to influence thier decisions or morality, but they have to keep in mind that not everyone shares thier religious beliefs. With that in mind they should do what is best for the majority, not just what is best in the eyes of thier church.
I will vote libertarian this year. I will vote libertarian and hope that the libertarian vote costs Bush the election. Why? For the same reason why not all Democrats were unhappy when Gore lost to Bush. The idea is that if you make the next closest guy to your ideals lose, then next time around they will lean more your way. If the libertarian vote was to cost the Republicans the election, it might very well get them to put forward a candidate who isn't as eager to spend my money as any other democrat. As far as I can tell, Bush is a democrat who is pro life. That sure as shit isn't going to get my vote.
West of the Rockies, and in the mountain West in particular, the core political ideology of the region tends to revolve around a small-government, non-interference, live-and-let-live perspective -- real believers in rugged individualism. There are many historical reasons as to why this is that go back a century or two. While the people that live there are often conservative as individuals, they generally are not socially conservative in that they try and legislate the behaviors of society. A built-in distrust of government is stronger than their desire to control what other people do. East of the Rockies, big government social conservatism is deeply embedded in the culture.
Libertarians and similar have long held relatively strong positions in the mountain West due to the fact that Eastern conservatives often control conservative politics, primarily because of population differences. People like Bush reflect only the conservative issues that are unique to Eastern conservatives while not reflecting the issues shared by Eastern and Western conservatives. When more extreme examples of this come down the road in the Republican party, it tends to lead to defections to the Libertarian party out West. It is an old political and ideological tug-of-war.
In fact, if you look at the core philosophical components of Western conservatism, it is essentially libertarian. Which is why there are far fewer restrictions on what you can do and what you can own in the "conservative" mountain West than in "liberal" states, ironically. Nevada makes California look like a socially conservative police state by comparison if you actually compare laws, and they are next door.
I believe that was already answered in my post. To many people life doesn't begin until the fetus/baby could survive outside the mothers womb. Can a two month old fetus live outside the womb?
Were Badnarik to take a state or two, the Democrat and Republican parties would start taking actual action on those parts of their own platforms (repeal of drug prohibitions, actual fiscal responsibility) that are the linchpins of the Libertarian position.
Who cares what the party label is on the candidate, if he actually represents your views? Ron Paul ran as the Libertarian candidate for President, but is in the US House as a Republican. His views haven't changed. He still is the most consistently socially liberal, fiscally conservative, voter in the House.
Look at the Socialist party platform from prior to FDR's reign. Practically the entire party platform has been enacted, by both Democrats and Republicans. Party label is irrelevant once the candidate is elected.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Secondly, (and I am saying this as an atheist), there is absoultely no conflict with believing in separation of church and state and voting according to your religious principles.
I am pro-life (somewhat), and an atheist (and a Libertarian). I see the fetus (though not until later stages of development) as a viable entity and as deserving of the same protections of Life, Liberty, and Property as anyone else.
I am one of those the article it talking about. I tend to lean conservative, but I've been totally turned off by Bush. In fact, I made the decision early on not to give my vote to Bush.
So now what? Do I vote for Kerry? Well, that is no better. That leaves me with Badnarik.
What people don't realize, though, is that Badnarik will not cost Bush the election. Bush already lost my vote. My choice is only between Kerry and Badnarik. That is the irony of the whole thing. Do I vote for a liberal or a libertarian, even though I might lean conservative?
It is an odd election. That is for sure.
I've voted for both Republicans and Democrats in the past. I usually vote for the candidate who is most moderate, which I define as being least likely to try to forcibly remove my personal decisions and property from my hands and place them in the hands of his Chosen Ones.
Usually the Republicans win this judgment. They violate it in many ways (telling gays they can't marry, people they can't smoke pot even at home, protesters that they can't burn the flag, etc.), but their overall tendency has been to try to restrict growth in government, while Democrats tend to think that all human problems require a corresponding federal agency whose task is to force reality to fit liberal theory.
Sometimes the Republicans lose this contest though. Such is the case this time, with Bush losing out massively due to his dragging us into a stupid war.
But this time, I'm not going for the Democrat, as I have in the past. This time, the Libertarians are going to take my vote away from the Democrats. Without the Libertarian option, Kerry would have gotten my vote. He still would have if it weren't for the Democrats' relentless "if you vote for me, I'll confiscate *their* stuff and give some of it to *you*" approach to governance.
There are a lot of things I like about the Democrats, the Bush administration is not even a consideration for me, and I think the Libertarians are often too extreme in their rejection of government. Even so, the Democrats' class warfare, "confiscate your way to prosperity", and "a federal agency should make your decisions, not you" attitude has driven my vote to the Libertarians.
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
And this makes that point in time completely dependent on constantly changing technology. Fifty years ago no one would have dreamed that we'd be saving babies born 20 weeks premature. What happens when we get to the point when babies can be grown in test tubes, no uterus needed? Does that change the definition of when life begins?
Conception is the only definitive time we can point to. Anything else is arbitrary. Morality and ethics should not shift with time, technology, or opinion polls.
Constitutionally Correct
I'm pro-choice, and I have no problem with people saying that life begins at conception. Of course the fetus is "alive". So were the sperm & egg before conception. It's still wrong for the government to take away people's control over their own bodies.
So no, that is not necessarily the crux of the issue.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
If people don't support Kerry or Bush, how is voting for a different candidate spoiling the election? The 2 large parties don't own the vote.
I think people would be less likely to shoot at you if they thought you'd shoot back. If we got government regulation out of health care, it would cost a lot less, and with your saved tax dollars you could purchase more of it. If drug prohibition were ended, the druggies could afford their habbits and their rent just like the majority of nicotine and alchohol addicts... Why again didn't you want a pre-singularity libertarian society?
When the subject of spoilers comes up... why do we alway refer to Nadar? Perot took 19% of the vote in 1992. He was the ultimate spoiler.
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
I submit that George W. Bush is the "spoiler" in this election year, as without his candidacy, Michael Badnarik would be sure to get most of the conservative vote. His limited-government politics are what a true Republican platform is supposed to stand for. It is a pity that the Republican platform has allowed itself to wander so far from its calling in the first place, or we wouldn't need a third party to represent this country's political conservatives in teh first place.
http://badnarik.org/newsfromthetrail.php?p=1346 and http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/n ews/nation/9872659.htm
If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest