should we elimiate ballots?

[CheeseWhiz]

Why?

If your as libertarian as I hope you are, you should know that we have many stuggles in getting on the ballots in every state. Once the resources are used for getting on every ballot are used, we hardly have any money to spend on ads. However the Democratic and Republican candidates for President get free access plus something like $75 mil from the government to help with campaigns. Heck even if we have problems, like Alcon points out, it's better than my taxpayer money going to finance John Kerry and George Bush.

Yes, I’m a libertarian, but I also think that us radically changing the ballot system just so that we might have a better shot in some states is going to isolate voters.  The way to get voters is to nominate someone a little more moderate or try to win a congressional seat instead of the Presidency, not to change the rules so your party might win some elections, that’s part of what I can’t stand the Republicans or Democratic Parties, doing things just for the sake of getting elected.

Maybe, we could change the rules so that the Democrats and Republicans have to pay just as much as the third parties to put there name on the ballot.  Also, I agree very much with Nick, focus on one or two seats then grow from there; we're a small party, think small.

[MaC]

Why?

If your as libertarian as I hope you are, you should know that we have many stuggles in getting on the ballots in every state. Once the resources are used for getting on every ballot are used, we hardly have any money to spend on ads. However the Democratic and Republican candidates for President get free access plus something like $75 mil from the government to help with campaigns. Heck even if we have problems, like Alcon points out, it's better than my taxpayer money going to finance John Kerry and George Bush.

Yes, I’m a libertarian, but I also think that us radically changing the ballot system just so that we might have a better shot in some states is going to isolate voters.  The way to get voters is to nominate someone a little more moderate or try to win a congressional seat instead of the Presidency, not to change the rules so your party might win some elections, that’s part of what I can’t stand the Republicans or Democratic Parties, doing things just for the sake of getting elected.

Maybe, we could change the rules so that the Democrats and Republicans have to pay just as much as the third parties to put there name on the ballot.  Also, I agree very much with Nick, focus on one or two seats then grow from there; we're a small party, think small.

this is an interesting double-edged sword issue for libertarians trying to get elected.  On one hand there are times when money from the government is offered to us to run elections (although a lot smaller amount than the major party candidates).  Nethertheless, if we take the money we can do a lot to campaign and can stand some ground on a three way race, however we are 'the party of principle' and we refuse recieving government handouts or welfare, so we'd be violating our principles.

[Gabu]

this is an interesting double-edged sword issue for libertarians trying to get elected.  On one hand there are times when money from the government is offered to us to run elections (although a lot smaller amount than the major party candidates).  Nethertheless, if we take the money we can do a lot to campaign and can stand some ground on a three way race, however we are 'the party of principle' and we refuse recieving government handouts or welfare, so we'd be violating our principles.

Principles?  Sheesh, and you wonder why you guys never get elected.

[minionofmidas]

Zbigniew Brzhinski for President!

...or however you spell his name...

I think it's Brzezinski.

[Jake]

be much easier if you guys didn't hold us back.  What are you afriad of extra competition? Afraid we might appeal to more people, if they knew more about us?

The thread in Political Debate shows why I'm not in the least afraid of your party being on the ballot. Badnarik was on the ballot in how many states and preformed pitfully in each one.

[MaC]

be much easier if you guys didn't hold us back.  What are you afriad of extra competition? Afraid we might appeal to more people, if they knew more about us?

The thread in Political Debate shows why I'm not in the least afraid of your party being on the ballot. Badnarik was on the ballot in how many states and preformed pitfully in each one.

after he spent the time and money trying to get on the ballot, Badnarik only has so much money to campaign with.  You gotta understand that $1 million he had to work with was nothing compared to the $75 million in BCRA giveaways to Kerry and Bush, plus both had their personal fortunes to run on.  Heck, even I'll say Badnarik was a lousy candidate.  I voted for him, but he came off stilted and boring during debates and his lack of charisma and ease in front of people isn't good for winning votes.

[CheeseWhiz]

Maybe our Presidential candidate shouldn’t worry about winning the election, there not going too, just pick a state that will be close, (like Ohio,) pay for your name to be on that ballot only, only campaign there and try to make the biggest dent possible.  The candidate wouldn’t be able to win, but he might be able to make Ohio close enough that it will scare the Republicans, or we could just barely tip it in favor of Kerry and give the Reps a real wake up call!  Maybe if we to that for one or two election, and oust an incumbent Republican Congressman in-between, the Republicans will consider incorporating our ideas into the party.

[Jake]

No, we will destroy you like the Democrats did to the Greens and Nader.

[MaC]

Maybe our Presidential candidate shouldn’t worry about winning the election, there not going too, just pick a state that will be close, (like Ohio,) pay for your name to be on that ballot only, only campaign there and try to make the biggest dent possible.  The candidate wouldn’t be able to win, but he might be able to make Ohio close enough that it will scare the Republicans, or we could just barely tip it in favor of Kerry and give the Reps a real wake up call!  Maybe if we to that for one or two election, and oust an incumbent Republican Congressman in-between, the Republicans will consider incorporating our ideas into the party.

I can see what you mean.  We could pour lots of money into a libertarian leaning state to get a notice in % voted for, or we could pour lots of money into Ohio-meaning tilting the election.  The problem with that is we would alienate other states that might have a high turnout.  I think it's essential to get on the ballot in 50 states only because people won't take us seriously unless we are.

[Gabu]

I can see what you mean.  We could pour lots of money into a libertarian leaning state to get a notice in % voted for, or we could pour lots of money into Ohio-meaning tilting the election.  The problem with that is we would alienate other states that might have a high turnout.  I think it's essential to get on the ballot in 50 states only because people won't take us seriously unless we are.

Instead of running presidential candidates over and over, why don't you do something else that's a little smaller?  You already have run presidential candidates in pretty well all 50 states, and it has not exactly done a whole lot towards having people take you seriously.  You haven't even gotten a single person elected to the House of Representatives, and yet you keep running Presidential candidates.

[MaC]

I can see what you mean.  We could pour lots of money into a libertarian leaning state to get a notice in % voted for, or we could pour lots of money into Ohio-meaning tilting the election.  The problem with that is we would alienate other states that might have a high turnout.  I think it's essential to get on the ballot in 50 states only because people won't take us seriously unless we are.

Instead of running presidential candidates over and over, why don't you do something else that's a little smaller?  You already have run presidential candidates in pretty well all 50 states, and it has not exactly done a whole lot towards having people take you seriously.  You haven't even gotten a single person elected to the House of Representatives, and yet you keep running Presidential candidates.

The reason we run a presidentis that during the campaign season we can buy air time for support of our party/ideology.  Contrary to the belief of most on this forum, we're not all about winning.  That's not the point.  The point is to run enough candidates to get noticed, get hits on our website, become a household name, try getting on debates, get people to realize they have other choices than D and R, and to get some to change over.  I'm sure most of us don't actually believe we're gonna get elected in 2008, but if we don't nominate someone to run, it's almost like saying we're not trying.

[Jake]

You're frankly wasting resources on stuff like Badnarik's TV ad last October. I can only imagine how many local candidates that one TV ad could've supported and considering the fact that Badnarik failed to top half a percent, I think it's safe to say it failed as well. Concentrate on local races and you might get lucky and get noticed. Because for all his attempts, Badnarik got zero mainstream media coverage for any of his stunts last year and failed at getting the LPs message out there.

[MaC]

eh, local libertarians usually don't have a problem with getting elected so that's not the point.  TV is the main way to go.  I can't imagine a better way to connect with the masses.  The problem is putting your ad on at 1:30am on Foxnews (which is what Badnarik did).  If it's not gonna be on prime time, large ratings channels, you might as well not advertise on tv.  Thing is, media pretty much does the work for a candidate (like a lesser known libertarian).  Democrats and Republicans aren't gonna campaign against us because they don't want to waste their time.  However, they do ignore us completely and pass draconian ballot access laws.  This does kill us.  I remember hearing about Karl Rove saying Bush has to campaign in New Mexico "because we're not gonna lose this state because of some piss-ant libertarian".  Lol.  The thing is, in this case, any attention at all is good attention.  They won't even bother with neg ads or anything until we reach 10%

[Jake]

No, but if the Libertarians are the cause of a Republican losing a big race (Congress or President), the LP will find that it will have a very difficult time of getting on the ballot the next election in those states. It will be like the Greens in '04 and their pledge only to campaign in states that don't matter.

[MaC]

that's the problem, you can do almost anything you want.  Your party is in power.  I keep hearing about how Democrats and Republicans are so different, but they are incredibly united in keeping a duopoly of power.  If we were in control, we'd let you on the ballot and all you'd need to do is ask.  Why isn't your party the same? (Hence why I started this thread)

[Jake]

Obviously, because we'd rather keep power firmly collected in our hands and because we favor stability in the system. There is a reason why there hasn't been a strong third party movement recently in America. It would totally destroy our political stability by forcing drastic changes in the Electoral College and all popular vote elections. I much prefer the status quo.

[minionofmidas]

Obviously, because we'd rather keep power firmly collected in our hands and because we favor stability in the system. There is a reason why there hasn't been a strong third party movement recently in America.

Define "recent". The 1990s are pretty recent to me...

[Jake]

By third party movement I mean they actually won a number of state house, state senate, Senate, and House seats. Pulling 19% and 8% in two elections is hardly a success.

[minionofmidas]

By third party movement I mean they actually won a number of state house, state senate, Senate, and House seats. Pulling 19% and 8% in two elections is hardly a success.

One in five votes for president not a success? Lmao here. Perot just got royally screwed by fptp.
And yes, Reform was always lacking in ticket depth, even in 96. You're right on that. Of course, question is why? gerrymandering springs to mind, so does the sheer amount of money in us politics, so does people voting for the incumbent as a sort of default ... which is something about the us that I'll probably never get my head around...

[Jake]

A success would be continuing to get that vote total election after election. Instead, Reform fell away a few years later eventually nominating Nader, a candidate who shares few of their positions. Reform is the most successful third party since the Progressives, but ultimately never achieved any real change in the political process in the US.

[zorkpolitics]

Rather than eliminating ballots, I prefer to eliminate polling places.   Let everyone vote over the internet, then no matter where anyone is in the world, they could pull up their home town ballot and vote.  No more disenfranchisement of the military or overseas Americans, no long lines that discourage people, no running out of ballots, no broken voting machines.  For those without Internet acces at home or work, libraries would be available
Besides, all states could then keep their polls open 24 hrs on Election day, so there would be no early calls of East Coast states.

For all you tin-foil hat types, out-source the voting to VISA or Mastercard, since they know how to run secure transactions. 

[minionofmidas]

Hmmm...they also keep records of your transactions for quite a while. I don't want VISA to know how I voted, thank you very much.
There are horrible ideas, very horrible ideas, and internet voting.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I'm all in favour of internet voting. Provided that I get to count the votes.

[MaC]

uurgh, I would not want internet voting for several reasons

1.not everyone has internet access
2.hackers can always dig into data bases and change votes
3.if you have several screennames, you could probably vote more than once.  Even if was linked to a serial number, there's still hackers that could find a way around it.
4.there's no paper trail to count and check the votes in case a re-count effort is needed or something.

[KillerPollo]

uurgh, I would not want internet voting for several reasons

1.not everyone has internet access
2.hackers can always dig into data bases and change votes
3.if you have several screennames, you could probably vote more than once.  Even if was linked to a serial number, there's still hackers that could find a way around it.
4.there's no paper trail to count and check the votes in case a re-count effort is needed or something.

i think I told you some of these.