I don't see much talk of the Libertartian party here, and I don't follow the party much myself, but I'm thinking the relative success of the Ron Paul campaign could be a good opportunity for them. I think most people without necessarily even knowing it themselves are libertarians. I think the party itself makes little headway for 2 main reasons: lack of knowledge and the belief that a libertarian vote is a wasted vote, which in the short term, it largely is. I see an easy answer to the 2nd problem, and if the party can gain a much greater following that would definitely help the knowledge problem. What do you guys think of this strategy for the Libertarian Party?
I think they need to make a deal with the devil, own up to the fact that siphoning off a couple percentage points from the more liberty minded mainstream candidate helps to get the worst of the rep/dem choice elected. The deal is a debate and mini run-off election between the libertarian candidate and either the rep, or dem candidate, the loser drops out of the race. Sure the mainstream candidate has a lot to lose, but would likely view it as impossible for the LP candidate to win so it's an easy gain of a couple percentage points. While the LP would likely still lose at this point, it gives them a contest solely against the lesser of 2 evils, taking away or at least minimizing the people voting against the worst candidate and for the more electable candidate, making it a much closer contest than the Presidential elections would lead anyone to suspect. So what do you think?
I think the notion that any mainstream candidate would accept a debate with someone they didn't need to is pretty ridiculous. (...Let alone for a measly few points...which aren't even guaranteed...as the supporters of the person who dropped out could still vote for anyone or not at all.)
And how the hell do you determine the winner of a political debate?? You gonna...take a vote?
And besides, if the other candidate really was such a threat, the major opponents could easily just work the rules and the media environment to their favor and railroad him out of commission anyway. I'm pretty sure I've seen this somewhere before.
And perfect example is when Peter Schiff was running in for US Senate, he and his Primary opponents had one single debate, early in the campaign. He was constantly asking for more, ready to do so any time, any where. Neither of his opponents would agree to another one. After all, why should they? They had better name recognition, and he was a better speaker. They had everything to lose and pretty much nothing to gain. Plus, after the first debate one local paper said Schiff came in first, and nobody came in second...the other two opponents tied for third. Feel free to watch for yourself.
It sounds like you're offering a very real chance to lose an election in exchange for a very slim chance to gain a few points (which have an even slimmer chance of affecting the outcome a lot of the time.) I just don't see why any mainstream candidate would accept your deal.
I think they need to make a deal with the devil,
This has already been tried a million times over. Hasn't once worked. I'm not big on empiricism but I think the empirical evidence in this case pretty much settles the matter.
Clayton -
If i decide to not participate in the stupid democratic system, what do i say when someone says that if i dont vote, i have no say?
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
You're probably right JJ, the LP would have to be polling much stronger for the benefit to be enough for a mainstream candidate to accept. I do think though under certain circumstances it could be a good long term strategy for the LP, while giving an immediate benefit to the mainstream candidate.
It could be tweaked, maybe there isn't even a debate, just some sort of agreed upon polling. Or it may be a good strategy for lesser offices. The important thing is it could stir more press showing that libertarians aren't an insignificant sliver of the population, that we're just significantly held back by people voting pragmatically rather than for their ideals. Once the LP candidate is denied the deal because he's too strong, rather than too weak, the pragmatic/ideal divide is not so wide anymore.
Also at least when they turn down the deal we can call them out for being too scared.
I've only watched a little of that Schiff debate so far, but wow he really is wiping the floor with them.
someone says that if i dont vote, i have no say?
There is no lesser of two evils out of the Democrats and Republicans. They are both controlled by the same people; it's really irrelevant which one of them wins. A losing vote for the LP, therefore, is no more a wasted vote than is a winning vote for either of the two wings of the one ruling party.
Sorry, I was momentarily reaching for some hope, my sense of the futility is restored. :P
RagnarD: You're probably right JJ, the LP would have to be polling much stronger for the benefit to be enough for a mainstream candidate to accept. I do think though under certain circumstances it could be a good long term strategy for the LP, while giving an immediate benefit to the mainstream candidate. It could be tweaked, maybe there isn't even a debate, just some sort of agreed upon polling. Or it may be a good strategy for lesser offices. The important thing is it could stir more press showing that libertarians aren't an insignificant sliver of the population, that we're just significantly held back by people voting pragmatically rather than for their ideals. Once the LP candidate is denied the deal because he's too strong, rather than too weak, the pragmatic/ideal divide is not so wide anymore.
You keep going on about all the upsides for this third party. Again, what's in it for the major party candidates? Why would they agree to this?
...Lot of good that's done for people like Schiff so far.
Hey JJ, I'm pretty much convinced that it's an unworkable idea, but hypothetically heres a scenario where I see it working to the benefit of both sides. Imagine Ron Paul decided to run on the libertarian ticket and the polls are running:
Obama 42%
Romney 40 %
Paul 18%
Paul and Romney agree to the deal outlined above and come to some mutually agreeable method of voting on the winner between Paul and Romney. Romney feels he can't possibly lose to Paul, will likely lose the actual presidential election with Paul in the race, and has an opportunity to almost surely win if Paul gets out of the race.
The mainstream candidate gains a higher chance of winning the election by removing the LP candidate, assuming he's likely to take more of the LP candidates voters than the other mainstream candidate.
While the LP gains the notoriety of a much closer loss than the actual presidential election would show. Lessening the pragmatic/ideal divide, as I said above.
Both parties are socialist. And democracy is designed to limit individual influence.
Foot-voting is far more powerful, imo.