I just thought I would add that while the judge in this case did rule that the debate could go on, they did leave room for the libertarian party to seek punitive damages in the future.
No, I am not shocked; however, I do believe that a disservice has been done to the American people by NOT blocking the debate. The judge provided flimsy rationale for overlooking the unconstitutional use of taxpayer money to support two of the three candidates on the Arizona balance. (That is against the Arizona constitution.)
The debate never would have been cancelled. It might have been postponed and moved to a private place, but a precident has been set. It is now ok to use taxpayer dollasr to get the current politicians reelected.
The trouble with your statements is that you're lumping "empirical evidence" and "deductive reasoning" into two broad categories and generalizing about both of them.
The empirical evidence we have to prove the theory of gravity is different from the empirical evidence we have to describe global social and economic patterns. Why? Control variables. When scientists test certain principles in the laboratory they can make sure that in case A and case B everything is precisely the same except for Factor X which they are studying. You show me empirical evidence on a social issue that is so precise and I will probably think you are a crazed lunatic because any such study would be unethical.
I don't really care to argue whether empirical data or logic is better. The answer is, it depends upon the application. In this application, in the area of politics and economics, neither is adequate. We end up philosophizing because the problem is too big and it is impossible to break down into variables, let alone control for all these variables.
You see, you make it sound as it there is an ANSWER, if we were all just smart enough to look at the data right. And yet we live in an imperfect world and even the most intelligent among us disagree about how to fix it.
So I do agree with you in part. It is easy to twist deductive reasoning and if we knew what to look for, we could untwist it. The trouble is that both empirical evidence and deductive reasoning on such a grand scale have the same problem: too many variables to wrap your head around at once.
And yes, you can get passed statistical lies if you know what to look for. As it happens, I have taken graduate level statistics and can do this but only when I am given all the facts. The trouble is that even facts can be twisted. If I had a nickel for every time someone said X and someone else said !X just as plain as day about the same darn things I would be a millionaire.
So what we have is a bed of dubious facts with a sheet of twisted statistics. The bed has several thousand mattresses piled up high, one for every variable that fits into this equation and was never studied, either empirically or logically. At the bottom is are some rather flat peas, they are the beliefs we cling to because we have to believe in something but none of them can hold the weight.
You make some valid points. Let me elaborate on some things and clarify some others.
FIrst of all, we're talking about a huge and very complex issue here. I tried to sum it all up in a surface level answer and obviously, that's not going to work.
I graduated from college 4 years ago with a degree in comuter science that is wholly unmarketable today. I struggled for years to find a job, and in the end i was forced to take low paying and dreadfully mind-numbing paper shuffling jobs to make ends meet. You don't have to tell me about the unemployment rate because I can feel it -- and I'm not what you would consider in the laboring class, either. I'm an educated woman born to middle class parents.
I don't think a free market economy is what is keeping me from having a marketable degree, though. It used to be that menial, low-paying jobs were leaving this country like wildfire and it scared people. These jobs did get replaced, mostly by customer service positions, and so people loook to those times to support their claims that when one type of job leaves, another replaces it. I don't think this is the same type of situation. We're losing jobs held by people with degrees, and not just bachelor's degrees, as I have. The most recent jobs to ship to India and China includ those that require PhD's!
But when I spoke of a land of opportunity, I was mostly thinking of the more traditionally downcast, the ones who never had the oportunity to go to college or try to better themselves. These people, the cashiers and food preparers, who earn so little money that they cannot afford to feed their families in this expensive country of ours.
I know Bill Gates was born into money. I didn't realize anyone thought of him as a rags-to-riches sttory. I mostly just think of him as having been in the right place at the right time with the right set of skills. Honestly, I don't care how many billions of dollars he has. I don't think that's what's keeping other people down and I don't see money as something we have a finite supply of. (It's not infinite, either, rather, it's based on complicated economic models that I'm not qualified to get into.)
I spoke earlier as if there was one problem in this country: People without the oportunity to better themselves. Actually, there is another, and you called me on it: People who are educated enough but due to recent bad political and business decisions have rendered them unemployable. I blame Bush for supporting laws that have given companies incentives to move jobs overseas. I also blame businesses for failing in both compassion and foresight.
I do not wholly agree with the libertarian model that pure free market is best. I think we have seen, through historical examples, that black and white free market/communism don't work. But I also think that the government has slipped too far towards the communism/controlling our lives path and needs some force to pull it back. Currently, businesses are being regulated too much and for the wrong things. Clearly, Microsoft needed some actual consequences to come their way due to their anti-trust violations, but it didn't happen. And clearly, we need to encourage businesses to keep jobs inside this country. Meanwhile, But I don't want to see the day that our government runs most of our businesses because private citizens aren't able to provide the service to poor people and because everyone "deserves" access to things.
Life. Liberty. Property. That's what we have a right to. Everything else is just bonus.
Ahhh...the age-old struggle of the haves vs. the have not's.
But I don't want to live in a country in which wealth is evenly distributed. I don't want to live in a country where someone on the ground is given a free leg up by taking away from those that have things.
I want to live in a country in which everyone has the OPPORTUNITY to become the best that they can be. The only social programs I have ever supported are things that help people while they try to help themselves -- through job training and education. Anything else is rubbish.
I want to live in a land of opportunity, not a land of free TV's and internet access. These are not inalienable rights just becuase someone else has them.
That is a good point to consider. I do feel, however, that as with most things in life a gray area is the correct approach here. The strong arm of government has invaded our lives too much and I believe that a Libertarian persence could help swing it away, but I don't want it to go all the way back to the days of completely unmonitored working conditions and child labor.
Because it is your vote and the only person who can tell you how to cast it is you.
Not the democrats or rebpuclians, who would love to keep us in this two-party rut.
Not the news media, who only know how to report the things that will make them the most money.
Just you.
And you are absolutely right that no one save Bush or Kerry is going to be our next president. Voting for a third party requirse a long-term vision for our country. I am not looking for the libertarian or any other third party candidate to become viable this year, but maybe in four years or the four years after that.
As for youyr individual vote: This is not a contest through which you "win" if you vote for the candidate who becomes president. As long as Americans are suckered into the idea that they only have two choices and they waste their vote on the lesser of two evils rather than the candidate they feel will servve them best, then all of America is losing, one miscast vote at a time.
I haven't made up my mind yet on this one, but I'm going to vote for who I believe in, not who I think will win. It's the responsible thing for a voter in this country to do.
Wouldn't it be nice is everyone could just go to the doctor and be taken care of? If the money we paid through our nose in taxes went to getting everyone the best quality health insurance available?
The trouble is that in a nationally run health care system the poorest people would not have access to the best health care, but those who currently do have access to the best health care will have to deal with mediocre care.
Government-run health care systems don't work.
Let me explain: Out health care system (not our insurance) is the best in the world. We have the best qualified doctors and researchers anywhere. Why? Because they make a ton of money. Not only do we have the best home spun doctors, but we get the best doctors from countries such as Canada, where government health care has relegated doctors to a role (and corresponding salary) lower than teachers in this country.
I don't think our system is perfect. Health care is expensive and in the end I still end up having to pay high out-of-pocket deductibles on top of outrageous monthly premiums. I often wonder what I'm paying the insurance company for when they don't cover anything, and then I remember: If something bad were to happen to me I'd really be SOL without the insurance.
It seems I'm arguing for both sides of this issue, but I side with those who want to keep health care out of the hands of government, even if I can peak right over the fence to the other side of this one. In the end, this is not about who gets to live and who gets to die, it's about ensuring the best quality care for as many people as possible, and I think that happens privately.
I imagine some people will die from lack of health care but consider this: In an emergency, a hospital cannot legally turn you away. Furthermore, unlike with many other kinds of debt, a hospital will allow you to pay what you can each month as long as you keep sending them money. In fact, at a time in my life when I was too poor for insurance but needed to go to the hospital, they ended up cutting $600 off the bill.
There are free clinics and hospitals will make deals with those unable to pay.
IF these recourses were not in place, I would have a hard time siding with the privatization of health insurance. But since I know that even the poorest people can be taken care of, I rest comfortably with my decision.
There's a strange phenomenon in this country: People living to or above their means. My husband recently got a new job and his income almost doubled and yet somehow we still don't seem to have any money...
It's not just us. The average American is up to his;her ears in credit card debt. Whatever we have, it's never enough. I always say to myself, "If I had a million dollars I would...." and a lot of it involves charity. But I don't have a million dollars and from what I see, most millionaires don't contribute to charity to the extent I dream about.
I hate to say it, but as a whole, AMericans are selfish.
There do remain several good arguments for taking charities out of the heands of government, though, not the least of which is that they suck at it. They give it to the wrong people for the wrong amount of time and they punish people who try ot better themselves and get off the government assistance. Even though I strongly believe that far less money will go to charity if we stopped letting the government take it directly, I also believe that we would need less if charities were put into the hands of people with the desire to help people help themselves rather than just throw money at people.
I think a straight libertarian platform is a little out there too, but I'd bet very few agree with every bit of it. The reason I am seriously considering the party is not because I agree with things such as privatizing sidewalks (or on a more serious note, the police force), but because I think the pendulum has swung too far one way and a libertarian perspective should help it swing back the other way. The government tries to control too much of our lives. It's usually not in my face, but things like yesterday when I went grocery shopping and picked up a case of wine coolers for my camping trip next weekend but when I got to the register it's "can't sell alcohol on Sunday." Now I have to make another trip for no good reason. It's not life-threatening but it's annoying.
Little things. Big things. Things I don't notice every day. Things I do. But one thing I will point out that we have in this country that the founding fathers had the intelligence to foresee and build into the consstitution is a system of checks and balances. They are wonderful things that ensure, on every level of government, that no one man can dictate policy. So, with confidence that our government still works as it should, I will vote for a candidate whose policies I do not 100% agree with and take comfort in the fact that they will find it difficult to ruin this country on their own. (Especially with a republica/democrat congres to work against!)
It is just this menatlity that keeps a third party candidate from ever having a chance at being elected president.
I felt this way in the last election. I cast my vote for the lesser of two evils, but to this day I am not certain whether he really was less evil or if that was simply my perception at the time. I have the same choice in this election, if I were to take the same stance that a vote for a third party candidate was a wasted vote.
In this country, each person gets to cast one vote. It is a right and a freedom that I hold dear. We have, by popular majority, created a country in which the government tries to control many aspects of our lives and take away many of our freedoms under guises such as safety (individual and national).
The powers that be do not want to relinquish the control they have over us, but so far they have left us with one weapon -- our vote. The republicans and democrats would love for us to believe that they are the only two parties worth voting for; that any other vote would be a waste. You have been relegated to choosing between the one you hate and the one you hate more, but those are not your only options.
One vote, in the mountain of votes that are cast in this country, simultaneously amtters not at all and more than anything else. My vote for president will drown in a sea of votes. And yet, that is my tiny little voice saying, "This is what I want!" with all the force it can muster.
I am seriously considering casting my vote for a third party candidate this year and the libertarian party has caught my eye. I know Badnarick will not win and I don't care. If I vote for him and the lesser of the two evils (I'm not sure which it is this year) loses by one vote, I will still stand by that decision. Because instead of letting the powers that be rule my life and steal my vote, I have cast it for the person I want to win. I have truly spoken my mind rather than muttering under my breath. In my small way, I will have contributed to a potential for the return of real choices in this country.
My hope for 2004 is that enough people will vote third party to send a message, both to the powers that be and to the people. TO the powers that be the message is "We're sick of you." To the people who were afraid to stand up and vote their minds the message is, "You do have a choice." If not in 2004, then in 2008, or 2012. Real change does not happen overnight anyway.
Finally, I don't win or lose with my vote. I speak my mind. As long as I have voted for the person I believe in rather than the person "they" say I have to vote for, then I have not lost. I can only lose if I vote for a candidate I do not believe in, whether he wins or not.
Technically, such a system already exists. Keep in mind that in the past, there have been times when three parties were alive and kicking. Not since the Whig party lost support has that been true, but it could be true again.
What keeps third party candidates from succeeding in this country is the mentality that we have no other choice besides the two extremely powerful parties that have been the entirety of our government for well over a century. In a democratic republic, it is the voice of the people that carries the weight. Unfortunately, the voice of the people is a product of some very rich and powerful people who manage to convince us all that there is no other way.
What I would like to know along these lines is: What long-term steps is the libertarian party taking to become a viable force in the future?
As much as I would also like to have answers for serious issues like the one you mentioned here, I think it is entirely relevant to ask a third party candidate how he hopes to be taken seriously. I discuss the "wasted vote" issue with people on a regular basis. The country's mentality is keeping us locked into a two-party system and until steps are taken to counteract this overwhelming obstacle, the issues I would so love to discuss may have to take a back seat to questions of political practicality.
Slashdot Mirror
I just thought I would add that while the judge in this case did rule that the debate could go on, they did leave room for the libertarian party to seek punitive damages in the future.
No, I am not shocked; however, I do believe that a disservice has been done to the American people by NOT blocking the debate. The judge provided flimsy rationale for overlooking the unconstitutional use of taxpayer money to support two of the three candidates on the Arizona balance. (That is against the Arizona constitution.) The debate never would have been cancelled. It might have been postponed and moved to a private place, but a precident has been set. It is now ok to use taxpayer dollasr to get the current politicians reelected.
I know you don't agree with me.
The trouble with your statements is that you're lumping "empirical evidence" and "deductive reasoning" into two broad categories and generalizing about both of them.
The empirical evidence we have to prove the theory of gravity is different from the empirical evidence we have to describe global social and economic patterns. Why? Control variables. When scientists test certain principles in the laboratory they can make sure that in case A and case B everything is precisely the same except for Factor X which they are studying. You show me empirical evidence on a social issue that is so precise and I will probably think you are a crazed lunatic because any such study would be unethical.
I don't really care to argue whether empirical data or logic is better. The answer is, it depends upon the application. In this application, in the area of politics and economics, neither is adequate. We end up philosophizing because the problem is too big and it is impossible to break down into variables, let alone control for all these variables.
You see, you make it sound as it there is an ANSWER, if we were all just smart enough to look at the data right. And yet we live in an imperfect world and even the most intelligent among us disagree about how to fix it.
So I do agree with you in part. It is easy to twist deductive reasoning and if we knew what to look for, we could untwist it. The trouble is that both empirical evidence and deductive reasoning on such a grand scale have the same problem: too many variables to wrap your head around at once.
And yes, you can get passed statistical lies if you know what to look for. As it happens, I have taken graduate level statistics and can do this but only when I am given all the facts. The trouble is that even facts can be twisted. If I had a nickel for every time someone said X and someone else said !X just as plain as day about the same darn things I would be a millionaire.
So what we have is a bed of dubious facts with a sheet of twisted statistics. The bed has several thousand mattresses piled up high, one for every variable that fits into this equation and was never studied, either empirically or logically. At the bottom is are some rather flat peas, they are the beliefs we cling to because we have to believe in something but none of them can hold the weight.
So to sum up, both empirical datea and deductive reasoning can lie to say whatever we want them to say.
Lies.
Damned Lies.
Statstics.
Politicians.
You make some valid points. Let me elaborate on some things and clarify some others.
FIrst of all, we're talking about a huge and very complex issue here. I tried to sum it all up in a surface level answer and obviously, that's not going to work.
I graduated from college 4 years ago with a degree in comuter science that is wholly unmarketable today. I struggled for years to find a job, and in the end i was forced to take low paying and dreadfully mind-numbing paper shuffling jobs to make ends meet. You don't have to tell me about the unemployment rate because I can feel it -- and I'm not what you would consider in the laboring class, either. I'm an educated woman born to middle class parents.
I don't think a free market economy is what is keeping me from having a marketable degree, though. It used to be that menial, low-paying jobs were leaving this country like wildfire and it scared people. These jobs did get replaced, mostly by customer service positions, and so people loook to those times to support their claims that when one type of job leaves, another replaces it. I don't think this is the same type of situation. We're losing jobs held by people with degrees, and not just bachelor's degrees, as I have. The most recent jobs to ship to India and China includ those that require PhD's!
But when I spoke of a land of opportunity, I was mostly thinking of the more traditionally downcast, the ones who never had the oportunity to go to college or try to better themselves. These people, the cashiers and food preparers, who earn so little money that they cannot afford to feed their families in this expensive country of ours.
I know Bill Gates was born into money. I didn't realize anyone thought of him as a rags-to-riches sttory. I mostly just think of him as having been in the right place at the right time with the right set of skills. Honestly, I don't care how many billions of dollars he has. I don't think that's what's keeping other people down and I don't see money as something we have a finite supply of. (It's not infinite, either, rather, it's based on complicated economic models that I'm not qualified to get into.)
I spoke earlier as if there was one problem in this country: People without the oportunity to better themselves. Actually, there is another, and you called me on it: People who are educated enough but due to recent bad political and business decisions have rendered them unemployable. I blame Bush for supporting laws that have given companies incentives to move jobs overseas. I also blame businesses for failing in both compassion and foresight.
I do not wholly agree with the libertarian model that pure free market is best. I think we have seen, through historical examples, that black and white free market/communism don't work. But I also think that the government has slipped too far towards the communism/controlling our lives path and needs some force to pull it back. Currently, businesses are being regulated too much and for the wrong things. Clearly, Microsoft needed some actual consequences to come their way due to their anti-trust violations, but it didn't happen. And clearly, we need to encourage businesses to keep jobs inside this country. Meanwhile, But I don't want to see the day that our government runs most of our businesses because private citizens aren't able to provide the service to poor people and because everyone "deserves" access to things.
Life. Liberty. Property. That's what we have a right to. Everything else is just bonus.
My question for Badnarick is this:
I know you're a libertarian. I read your biography and most of your position papers. But what sets you apart form other libertarians?
A.) Are there any issues you disagree with the party about?
B.) How can you help a party of cool logic be heard in a country of warm emotion?
Ahhh...the age-old struggle of the haves vs. the have not's.
But I don't want to live in a country in which wealth is evenly distributed. I don't want to live in a country where someone on the ground is given a free leg up by taking away from those that have things.
I want to live in a country in which everyone has the OPPORTUNITY to become the best that they can be. The only social programs I have ever supported are things that help people while they try to help themselves -- through job training and education. Anything else is rubbish.
I want to live in a land of opportunity, not a land of free TV's and internet access. These are not inalienable rights just becuase someone else has them.
That is a good point to consider. I do feel, however, that as with most things in life a gray area is the correct approach here. The strong arm of government has invaded our lives too much and I believe that a Libertarian persence could help swing it away, but I don't want it to go all the way back to the days of completely unmonitored working conditions and child labor.
The thing about empirical data vs. logical reasoning is that empirical data can say whatever you want it to say.
Lies.
Damned lies.
Statisticians.
Because it is your vote and the only person who can tell you how to cast it is you.
Not the democrats or rebpuclians, who would love to keep us in this two-party rut.
Not the news media, who only know how to report the things that will make them the most money.
Just you.
And you are absolutely right that no one save Bush or Kerry is going to be our next president. Voting for a third party requirse a long-term vision for our country. I am not looking for the libertarian or any other third party candidate to become viable this year, but maybe in four years or the four years after that.
As for youyr individual vote: This is not a contest through which you "win" if you vote for the candidate who becomes president. As long as Americans are suckered into the idea that they only have two choices and they waste their vote on the lesser of two evils rather than the candidate they feel will servve them best, then all of America is losing, one miscast vote at a time.
I haven't made up my mind yet on this one, but I'm going to vote for who I believe in, not who I think will win. It's the responsible thing for a voter in this country to do.
Wouldn't it be nice is everyone could just go to the doctor and be taken care of? If the money we paid through our nose in taxes went to getting everyone the best quality health insurance available?
The trouble is that in a nationally run health care system the poorest people would not have access to the best health care, but those who currently do have access to the best health care will have to deal with mediocre care.
Government-run health care systems don't work.
Let me explain: Out health care system (not our insurance) is the best in the world. We have the best qualified doctors and researchers anywhere. Why? Because they make a ton of money. Not only do we have the best home spun doctors, but we get the best doctors from countries such as Canada, where government health care has relegated doctors to a role (and corresponding salary) lower than teachers in this country.
I don't think our system is perfect. Health care is expensive and in the end I still end up having to pay high out-of-pocket deductibles on top of outrageous monthly premiums. I often wonder what I'm paying the insurance company for when they don't cover anything, and then I remember: If something bad were to happen to me I'd really be SOL without the insurance.
It seems I'm arguing for both sides of this issue, but I side with those who want to keep health care out of the hands of government, even if I can peak right over the fence to the other side of this one. In the end, this is not about who gets to live and who gets to die, it's about ensuring the best quality care for as many people as possible, and I think that happens privately.
I imagine some people will die from lack of health care but consider this: In an emergency, a hospital cannot legally turn you away. Furthermore, unlike with many other kinds of debt, a hospital will allow you to pay what you can each month as long as you keep sending them money. In fact, at a time in my life when I was too poor for insurance but needed to go to the hospital, they ended up cutting $600 off the bill.
There are free clinics and hospitals will make deals with those unable to pay.
IF these recourses were not in place, I would have a hard time siding with the privatization of health insurance. But since I know that even the poorest people can be taken care of, I rest comfortably with my decision.
I wouldn't.
There's a strange phenomenon in this country: People living to or above their means. My husband recently got a new job and his income almost doubled and yet somehow we still don't seem to have any money...
It's not just us. The average American is up to his;her ears in credit card debt. Whatever we have, it's never enough. I always say to myself, "If I had a million dollars I would...." and a lot of it involves charity. But I don't have a million dollars and from what I see, most millionaires don't contribute to charity to the extent I dream about.
I hate to say it, but as a whole, AMericans are selfish.
There do remain several good arguments for taking charities out of the heands of government, though, not the least of which is that they suck at it. They give it to the wrong people for the wrong amount of time and they punish people who try ot better themselves and get off the government assistance. Even though I strongly believe that far less money will go to charity if we stopped letting the government take it directly, I also believe that we would need less if charities were put into the hands of people with the desire to help people help themselves rather than just throw money at people.
I think a straight libertarian platform is a little out there too, but I'd bet very few agree with every bit of it. The reason I am seriously considering the party is not because I agree with things such as privatizing sidewalks (or on a more serious note, the police force), but because I think the pendulum has swung too far one way and a libertarian perspective should help it swing back the other way. The government tries to control too much of our lives. It's usually not in my face, but things like yesterday when I went grocery shopping and picked up a case of wine coolers for my camping trip next weekend but when I got to the register it's "can't sell alcohol on Sunday." Now I have to make another trip for no good reason. It's not life-threatening but it's annoying. Little things. Big things. Things I don't notice every day. Things I do. But one thing I will point out that we have in this country that the founding fathers had the intelligence to foresee and build into the consstitution is a system of checks and balances. They are wonderful things that ensure, on every level of government, that no one man can dictate policy. So, with confidence that our government still works as it should, I will vote for a candidate whose policies I do not 100% agree with and take comfort in the fact that they will find it difficult to ruin this country on their own. (Especially with a republica/democrat congres to work against!)
It is just this menatlity that keeps a third party candidate from ever having a chance at being elected president. I felt this way in the last election. I cast my vote for the lesser of two evils, but to this day I am not certain whether he really was less evil or if that was simply my perception at the time. I have the same choice in this election, if I were to take the same stance that a vote for a third party candidate was a wasted vote. In this country, each person gets to cast one vote. It is a right and a freedom that I hold dear. We have, by popular majority, created a country in which the government tries to control many aspects of our lives and take away many of our freedoms under guises such as safety (individual and national). The powers that be do not want to relinquish the control they have over us, but so far they have left us with one weapon -- our vote. The republicans and democrats would love for us to believe that they are the only two parties worth voting for; that any other vote would be a waste. You have been relegated to choosing between the one you hate and the one you hate more, but those are not your only options. One vote, in the mountain of votes that are cast in this country, simultaneously amtters not at all and more than anything else. My vote for president will drown in a sea of votes. And yet, that is my tiny little voice saying, "This is what I want!" with all the force it can muster. I am seriously considering casting my vote for a third party candidate this year and the libertarian party has caught my eye. I know Badnarick will not win and I don't care. If I vote for him and the lesser of the two evils (I'm not sure which it is this year) loses by one vote, I will still stand by that decision. Because instead of letting the powers that be rule my life and steal my vote, I have cast it for the person I want to win. I have truly spoken my mind rather than muttering under my breath. In my small way, I will have contributed to a potential for the return of real choices in this country. My hope for 2004 is that enough people will vote third party to send a message, both to the powers that be and to the people. TO the powers that be the message is "We're sick of you." To the people who were afraid to stand up and vote their minds the message is, "You do have a choice." If not in 2004, then in 2008, or 2012. Real change does not happen overnight anyway. Finally, I don't win or lose with my vote. I speak my mind. As long as I have voted for the person I believe in rather than the person "they" say I have to vote for, then I have not lost. I can only lose if I vote for a candidate I do not believe in, whether he wins or not.
Technically, such a system already exists. Keep in mind that in the past, there have been times when three parties were alive and kicking. Not since the Whig party lost support has that been true, but it could be true again. What keeps third party candidates from succeeding in this country is the mentality that we have no other choice besides the two extremely powerful parties that have been the entirety of our government for well over a century. In a democratic republic, it is the voice of the people that carries the weight. Unfortunately, the voice of the people is a product of some very rich and powerful people who manage to convince us all that there is no other way. What I would like to know along these lines is: What long-term steps is the libertarian party taking to become a viable force in the future?
As much as I would also like to have answers for serious issues like the one you mentioned here, I think it is entirely relevant to ask a third party candidate how he hopes to be taken seriously. I discuss the "wasted vote" issue with people on a regular basis. The country's mentality is keeping us locked into a two-party system and until steps are taken to counteract this overwhelming obstacle, the issues I would so love to discuss may have to take a back seat to questions of political practicality.