should we elimiate ballots?

[MaC]

we could just write the candidate's name on a piece of paper, and those with the highest count wins.  I hear it used to be done like this...

[MaC]

GEORGE BASH
JOHN F. CAREY
RAPHL NADER
GEORGE T. BUSH

eh, if people do this, like the first the vote will go to George Bash and not George Bush.  If they've not been blind and living under a rock in the last 4 months, they should have the common sense to spell their names correctly.  Stupidity should discredit a vote in this case.

[MaC]

GEORGE BASH
JOHN F. CAREY
RAPHL NADER
GEORGE T. BUSH

eh, if people do this, like the first the vote will go to George Bash and not George Bush.  If they've not been blind and living under a rock in the last 4 months, they should have the common sense to spell their names correctly.  Stupidity should discredit a vote in this case.

What if it's semi-readable?

If they can make it out fine, if they can't don't bother.  People will usually have strong feelings about who they're voting for, so they'll print it out clearly.  Those who don't have strong feelings may not write so clearly, but if they'll vote isn't counted, they probably wouldn't care anyways.

[MaC]

GEORGE BASH
JOHN F. CAREY
RAPHL NADER
GEORGE T. BUSH

eh, if people do this, like the first the vote will go to George Bash and not George Bush.  If they've not been blind and living under a rock in the last 4 months, they should have the common sense to spell their names correctly.  Stupidity should discredit a vote in this case.

What if it's semi-readable?

If they can make it out fine, if they can't don't bother.  People will usually have strong feelings about who they're voting for, so they'll print it out clearly.  Those who don't have strong feelings may not write so clearly, but if they'll vote isn't counted, they probably wouldn't care anyways.

What about the elderly and those with diseases such as Parkinson's?

They could have access to a typing machine or have a worker at the polls help them.

[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.

[MaC]

major party candidates never choose candidates with hard to pronounce names anyways because of how simple minded people can be.  It's really an unfair bias, but look at the names, how hard is it to pronounce Bush, Gore, Kerry, Clinton, Dole?  I mean even if Dennis Kucinich was a sane person with an ideology that didn't make opebo look like a moderate, he'd still loose beacuse his people wouldn't want a president who's name they have trouble pronouncing.

[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.

When the Libertarians win automatic ballot access, the can get on the ballots for free also.

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?

[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.

When the Libertarians win automatic ballot access, the can get on the ballots for free also.

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?

Absolutely shaking in fear. 

Bwahahahaha!  Teh LP shall rise again!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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%

[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)

[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.

[MaC]

well, it's one thing we can agree on.  You're not the only one who's convinced me internet voting is a bad idea.