Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Politics Government

Libertarian Badnarik an Election Spoiler? 351

Posted by michael from the election-already-spoiled dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Libertarian Badnarik an Election Spoiler? More

Libertarian Badnarik an Election Spoiler?

Comments Filter:

  • So what? Just one Republican’s view. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mpost4 ( 115369 ) * on Friday October 08, 2004 @03:25PM (#10473925) Homepage Journal
    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/ [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.
    • 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 wo
    • I think it ironic that you want the govt to be pro-life to suit your religious sensibilities yet want seperation of state and religion.
      • First, check this this [reference.com] link, it may help.

        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.

  • 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.

    • Depends which conservatives, ala Bob Barr (Score:4, Interesting)

      by isotope23 ( 210590 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @03:41PM (#10474111) Homepage Journal
      I posted this earlier, but I think it is important enought to do it again. The Republican party is showing signs of splitting. IMO it has gone too far to the Social Conservative side...

      Republican Bob Barr (of all people) just wrote this article [creativeloafing.com] 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.

      • Re:Depends which conservatives, ala Bob Barr (Score:4, Informative)

        by drix ( 4602 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @04:03PM (#10474347) Homepage
        You have good intuition to have picked up on. All the signs are there, yet very few have noticed the trend--except one [washingtonmonthly.com] If the thought of the Republican party imploding makes you wet your pants with glee, and you really want to brighten your day, I commend this article to you.
      • I'm socially conservative and morally liberal- the classic case of a cradle Catholic pro-life democrat, according to Deal Hudson, one time editor of Crisis Magazine (an extremely right-wing, but still orthodox, Catholic mag). I voted for Bush 4 years ago- and he's abandoned every issue I voted for. I'm not going to make that mistake again. Even if I end up voting for Peroutka instead.
      • I posted this earlier, but I think it is important enought to do it again. The Republican party is showing signs of splitting. IMO it has gone too far to the Social Conservative side...

        Actually the ones leaving the party are the conservative ones.

        The repubs are in no more danger that the DNC..


      • Even though I am registered Libertarian, I think the only successful third-party will be a moderate, libertarian-minded splinter group from the GOP. You can already see it in motion: McCain, Schwarzenegger , Ron Paul. And was Ross Perot a Republican before he formed the Reform Party? These are GOP politicians are popular, but they don't toe the Bush/Cheney line. As a green-leaning libertarian, I would vote for such a party (though I am torn as to whether I would vote for the same candidates if they still ra
    • That's what I don't get about the Democrats. They've spent all of their time knocking Nader off the ballot when they could be backing Peroutka in tight states to destroy Bush's conservative base. In the meantime, they're busy earning plenty of disrespect from those in the know for their technicallity-chasing. :-/

  • Libertarians Draw from Democrats, too. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mlmitton ( 610008 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @03:30PM (#10473980)
    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.

    • Re:Libertarians Draw from Democrats, too. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by overunderunderdone ( 521462 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @04:19PM (#10474527)
      It's generally assumed that Libertarians draw from Republicans, but this isn't really true--I think they draw about 50-50.

      I tend to doubt this. Some erstwhile Republicans will stray to the Libertarian party on account of the unlibertarian social policies of the Republicans... but that is because there were libertarians in the Republican party to start with. There has never been a big libertarian presence in the Democratic party. Their entire philosophy of government is diametrically opposed to the libertarian vision. There are libertarians that might vote on occasion for Democrats on account of social issues but they are not part of the Democratic base being lost to the Libertarian candidate... they are swing voters that just don't swing this time.

      I figure the "lost" Democratic votes are probably no more than 25% of the Libertarian vote, another full 50% is lost Republican votes, the remaining quarter would just stay home if there wasn't a Libertarian candidate.

      • Re:Libertarians Draw from Democrats, too. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by EnronHaliburton2004 ( 815366 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @04:48PM (#10474803) Homepage Journal
        There has never been a big libertarian presence in the Democratic party. Their entire philosophy of government is diametrically opposed to the libertarian vision.

        I think you've been reading too much propoganda :) The philosophies are not diametrically opposed, even if Democrats and Libertarians disagree on some big issues.

        Most Democrats are strong believers in civil liberty-- you are free to do whatever you want, as long as you don't infringe upon the rights of others. Practically every democrat will agree with the philosophy presented at the top of lp.org [lp.org].

        I think Democrats and Libertarians differ in the treatment of rights-- I belive that all people have an equal right to the basics -- food, shelter, health, happyness, love, others. A well-designed government can be used to promote equality for all people, but right now there are many problems getting in the way to achieve those goals.

        Sadly, my experience with most people who call themselves "Libertarians" is that they care mostly about low taxes and want less government interference in their buisness affairs, and could care less if the government prevent homosexuals from marrying each other, or if a business business pays white workers more then black workers. I call these people "Business libertarians".

        • Re:Libertarians Draw from Democrats, too. (Score:5, Informative)

          by overunderunderdone ( 521462 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @08:02PM (#10476284)
          Most Democrats are strong believers in civil liberty-- you are free to do whatever you want, as long as you don't infringe upon the rights of others

          No... they are strong believers in SOME civil liberties almost exclusively limited to the area of sex at this point. You can do whatever you want as long as it's not smoking, owning a gun, saying something "insensitive", doing whatever you want with and on your own property, keeping your own income, associating, or NOT, with whomever you want for whatever reasons you want, taking risks with your health, educating your own children, etc. etc. etc.

          A well-designed government can be used to promote equality for all people....

          ("business" libertarians) could care less if... a business pays white workers more then black workers

          This is exactly the difference between libertarians and Democrats. That you use it as an example of something you think contradicts libertarianism shows your fundamental misunderstanding of what they believe. Libertarians place the highest value on liberty, Democrats place it on equality or perhaps "fairness". The two are NOT the same at all and are in fact VERY OFTEN in conflict. Your (sadly, not so) hypothetical is a perfect example of the difference. The arrangement between this employer and his black employees is one arrived at by the consent of both in liberty... A libertarian can think that employer a bad man, may personally shun him, may even organize a boycott of his business. A libertarian would likely think this man would eventually harm his own busines and be supplanted by another company that will properly values labor. A libertarian would point out that institutional racism ultimately REQUIRES government enforcement because of this truth. The one thing a libertarian would NOT do is advocate government action to FORCE that man to do something with his own money that he didn't want to do of his own free will.

          Your example is at one extreme where even some libertarians today may see the case for government action. The problem with your argument is that Democrats see such justifiable violations of peoples liberty *everywhere*. Laws, upon laws, upon laws in almost every sphere of human activity, exercised by the most centralized government body available. Laws dictating when and where I can build a house, earn a living, employ other people, what I MUST pay for insurance against future calamity etc. etc. etc. All of them with excellent justification for why following them will make me and others happier, healthier, wiser... it's just that it's not my choice.

          I belive that all people have an equal right to the basics -- food, shelter, health, happyness, love, others

          The problem with these "rights" is that they are not rights I carry in myself but OBLIGATIONS that must be imposed upon someone else. I could argue that I have a RIGHT to grow, or earn my own food... but to have a RIGHT to food itself government must FORCE someone else to give it to me, same with shelter, health, love etc.

          Let me point out that I am NOT a libertarian. I'm perfectly OK with and approve many of these laws and think that government has some broader responsibilities beyond what a true libertarian would agree with. I do however understand the philosophy and can see that you don't... that is why you think (wrongly) that there is a large body of libertarians within the Democratic party that may bolt to the Libertarian candidate. Unless of course you think there is a large body of Democrats that would find the logic above regarding racial hiring practices perfectly sound, I rather doubt it.
        • I belive that all people have an equal right to the basics -- food, shelter, health, happyness, love, others.

          How are the Democrats going to implement this? Nookie Stamps? WhoreCorps? Hooker subsidies? Girlfriend quotas? More seriously, what do you think the government's should do to provide equality of love? Have social workers going around giving people hugs?
    • It's not so much that they draw from either. You can be the bigest redneck biggot christian ahole, or the biggest pot smokeing tree hugging lazy hippie. As long as you think the government shouldn't dictate what you can or can't do you need to look at Libertarian view points.

    • 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

  • The real problem with the 3rd parties... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Skyshadow ( 508 ) * on Friday October 08, 2004 @03:37PM (#10474075) Homepage
    The real problem with the 3rd parties is that the people who are active in them tend to be nutcases. I mean, I can sympathize with positions from a certain party, but when I get worked up enough to go to one of their meetings I always end up getting cornered by some guy with a handlebar moustache who'll chew my ear off for hours about the importance of disbanding the federal reserve or whatever.

    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.

    • You know, I've run into that handlebar moustache guy myself.

      I think he hangs out not only at Americans For The Environment meetings, but also the ANSWER meetings, Socialist Republicans of America meetings, DEFCON, Grassroot Activists for Pat Robertson meetings, AFGNWOW (Americans for Getting Nuclear War Over With) gatherings, and Moontribe Pow-wows.

      I also sat next to him at a wedding recently.

      Scary.

  • A bit much to hope for? (Score:3, Funny)

    by numbski ( 515011 ) * <numbskiNO@SPAMhksilver.net> on Friday October 08, 2004 @03:38PM (#10474076) Homepage Journal
    I mean, is it too much to hope that Badnarik could win a state? Or two? or 50? :P
    • It'll never happen. Then again I think the Free State Project should have chosen Maine instead of New Hampshire. Specifically just the first congressional district... they'd have a decent chance to get that ONE electoral vote. It could be worth having with the nation divided so closely. A 269/269 spit is not that unlikely with the polls where they are (Bush loses Ohio and NH but picks up Wisconsin - all in accordance with some recent polls, and then pulls something of a surprise victory in NM... he's only a
    • 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 sociall
    • From the article:

      "If you were in prison and you had a 50% choice of lethal injection, a 45% chance of going to the electric chair and only a 5% chance of escape, are you likely to vote for lethal injection because that is your most likely outcome? If you continue to vote for the Democrats or the Republicans, you are committing political suicide!"
  • Yeah, and every illegal download would be a valid purchase.

    Maybe those people voting for a third party would like to make a point. Instead of voting for Bush or Kerry they still have the possiblity of not voting, which they'd even prefer to both.
  • 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?
    • If, by the grace of god one of them captures a state, I'm sure that state would have quite a surplus of retired people to choose from to send as electors more than a month later (seeing as how even Wyoming has 234,000 voters for each elector).

  • Can you hear me now? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Shihar ( 153932 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @03:54PM (#10474253)
    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.

    • Re:Can you hear me now? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by wibs ( 696528 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @04:18PM (#10474516)
      As far as I can tell, Bush is a democrat who is pro life.

      I tried to come up with something witty to respond to this, like saying Nader is a republican who is pro environment, but nothing is really that funny because the idea of Bush being is a democrat is just so absurd. If that were even slightly true this country wouldn't be anywhere near as polarized as it is now.
    • I am not going to go to quite the extreme you do (Bush is a Dem who is pro-life), I vote Libertarian in hopes that a party will start to court my vote because they keep losing otherwise.

      In 2000, both Gore and Bush ran a fairly Centrist campaign. Bush did it slightly better. Gore's centrist movements lost him the Nader votes. Maybe if he had stayed closer to his true left, he would have lost the centrist vote, but picked up enough of the farther left vote to make up for that.

      In a way, I was glad Democrats

  • This reflects the east-west "Republican" dichotomy (Score:5, Interesting)

    by j. andrew rogers ( 774820 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @04:11PM (#10474444)
    It has long been a truism that there is a geographical philosophical split between those areas east of the Rockies exclusive and that west of the Rockies inclusive. Right now, this is mostly evident within the Republican party.

    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.

    • Major time! After suffering 4 years of Bush, one of the things I have been calling for (though not here on slashdot until this post) is splitting the nation in two along the rockies!
    • IMHO, some of what you're really looking at is population density. The rights of my fist end just before they touch your nose. The further away you are, the more rights my fist have - and yours, for that matter. Pack us in tighter, and there just isn't that much space to swing my arms.

      Conversely, pack people looser and you're put more on your own - if you don't do it, there's nobody for more miles to help you. Self-sufficiency takes on a greater value.

  • The Irony (Score:4, Insightful)

    by HunahpuMonkey ( 613489 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @05:03PM (#10474946)
    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'll just do a quick "me too". I voted for Bush the first time, and have been regretting it for the past 3 years (I actually liked his first few months in office). Since the whole 9/11 thing Bush has changed from a mostly harmless conservative to a dangerous facist. The problem is, Kerry is a socialist and I don't much like that either, I just don't see socialism as a workable system. so I'm voting Libertarian this time, and might just convince my Republican father to do the same.

  • Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by eraserewind ( 446891 )
    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.

  • Spoilers... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Keebler71 ( 520908 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @09:02PM (#10476526) Journal
    When the subject of spoilers comes up... why do we alway refer to Nadar? Perot [wikipedia.org] took 19% of the vote in 1992. He was the ultimate spoiler.

Slashdot Top Deals

Time is the most valuable thing a man can spend. -- Theophrastus

Close