Why don't "libertarians" support the libertarian candidate?

[Luddly Neddite]

I've noticed that on this board that those who say they are Libertarian don't seem to support the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson. Watching him on Jon Stewart reminded me to ask why. It also reminded me that would make a much better candidate than the Crazy Uncle of the Republican Party.

It should be obvious but if you don't support him, there's not much chance he'll get anywhere close to winning. Of course, there's no chance he'll win if you do support him but why whine that you want a third party and then not actually support the candidate?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Just as I thought, looks like there aren't any real Libertarians on this board.

 

[AquaAthena]

Just as I thought, looks like there aren't any real Libertarians on this board.

Oh, but in our hearts, we are. But people like myself had to vote for the most conservative candidate we feel can beat Obama. That's it. The country is not ready for radical change, such as with a true Libertarian....Maybe in a few years, depending upon how well "hopeful" president-elect Mitt Romney does, with his cost cutting and job creating policies.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

Just as I thought, looks like there aren't any real Libertarians on this board.

Oh, but in our hearts, we are. But people like myself had to vote for the most conservative candidate we feel can beat Obama. That's it. The country is not ready for radical change, such as with a true Libertarian....Maybe in a few years, depending upon how well "hopeful" president-elect Mitt Romney does, with his cost cutting and job creating policies.

Excuses. I'll be voting Johnson, and I really don't care that he has no chance the win. I think if you don't vote for who you think is the best person to be president-that that's the real way to waste your vote. If anybody's a "real" Libertarian-they'd vote for somebody who has Libertarian beliefs-and not Romney.

 

[dblack]

I've noticed that on this board that those who say they are Libertarian don't seem to support the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson. Watching him on Jon Stewart reminded me to ask why. It also reminded me that would make a much better candidate than the Crazy Uncle of the Republican Party.

It should be obvious but if you don't support him, there's not much chance he'll get anywhere close to winning. Of course, there's no chance he'll win if you do support him but why whine that you want a third party and then not actually support the candidate?

Many of us do vote Libertarian. I haven't voted Democrat or Republican since 1980 (I fell for Reagan's bullshit the first time).

I suspect the reason why so many libertarian leaning voters vote Republican or Democrat instead is the same reason so many progressives do likewise. They fall for the 'lesser-of-two-evils' con game.

 

[Charles_Main]

I've noticed that on this board that those who say they are Libertarian don't seem to support the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson. Watching him on Jon Stewart reminded me to ask why. It also reminded me that would make a much better candidate than the Crazy Uncle of the Republican Party.

It should be obvious but if you don't support him, there's not much chance he'll get anywhere close to winning. Of course, there's no chance he'll win if you do support him but why whine that you want a third party and then not actually support the candidate?

Even if we all supported him, He has no chance. We live in a 2 Party Dominated System.

So it is all fine and Dandy to say we should support the Libertarian if we are Libertarian. By doing so we end up helping the Liberal Democrat win over the more Moderate Republican.

Sorry, But if my choices are Vote Libertarian and Obama wins, Don't Vote and Obama wins, or Vote Republican and Obama loses.

I choose Option 3.

I went the other route in the past, and Voted for the Libertarian Candidate, Only to see the Liberal Democrat win. In at least 1 case by a Margin Smaller than the % the 3rd Party Candidate got.

 

[dblack]

Just as I thought, looks like there aren't any real Libertarians on this board.

Oh, but in our hearts, we are. But people like myself had to vote for the most conservative candidate we feel can beat Obama. That's it. The country is not ready for radical change, such as with a true Libertarian....Maybe in a few years, depending upon how well "hopeful" president-elect Mitt Romney does, with his cost cutting and job creating policies.

Excuses. I'll be voting Johnson, and I really don't care that he has no chance the win. I think if you don't vote for who you think is the best person to be president-that that's the real way to waste your vote. If anybody's a "real" Libertarian-they'd vote for somebody who has Libertarian beliefs-and not Romney.

Exactly. The 'tell' in my opinion is the focus on "conservative" rather than "libertarian". Real libertarianism isn't "conservative" - it's radically liberal.

 

[dblack]

I went the other route in the past, and Voted for the Libertarian Candidate, Only to see the Liberal Democrat win. In at least 1 case by a Margin Smaller than the % the 3rd Party Candidate got.

Who was it you voted for?

 

[konradv]

I've noticed that on this board that those who say they are Libertarian don't seem to support the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson. Watching him on Jon Stewart reminded me to ask why. It also reminded me that would make a much better candidate than the Crazy Uncle of the Republican Party.

It should be obvious but if you don't support him, there's not much chance he'll get anywhere close to winning. Of course, there's no chance he'll win if you do support him but why whine that you want a third party and then not actually support the candidate?

Many of us do vote Libertarian. I haven't voted Democrat or Republican since 1980 (I fell for Reagan's bullshit the first time).

I suspect the reason why so many libertarian leaning voters vote Republican or Democrat instead is the same reason so many progressives do likewise. They fall for the 'lesser-of-two-evils' con game.

The real con game is the notion that, if we don't get big money out of the process, anything will change at all. They fund both "evils" and effectively prevent the emergence of a third.

SUPPORT PUBLIC FINANCING OF ELECTIONS.

It'll cost us less in the long run, as our representitives have fewer expensive promises to keep.

 

[dblack]

The real con game is the notion that, if we don't get big money out of the process, anything will change at all. They fund both "evils" and effectively prevent the emergence of a third.

SUPPORT PUBLIC FINANCING OF ELECTIONS.

It'll cost us less in the long run, as our representitives have fewer expensive promises to keep.

Oh gawd.... not this again.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Anyway, public financing of elections aside, which is a briliiantly short sided and non-fix to the problem, Gary Johnson isn't much of a noninterventionist. According to several interviews and his stances on foreign policy. So I don't really see why i would vote for that "brand" of libertarianism. I'd prefer the more constitutional approach, which is sided more with classical liberalism. Which is why I will, regardless of the waste, vote for "the republican party's crazy uncle".

 

[konradv]

The real con game is the notion that, if we don't get big money out of the process, anything will change at all. They fund both "evils" and effectively prevent the emergence of a third.

SUPPORT PUBLIC FINANCING OF ELECTIONS.

It'll cost us less in the long run, as our representitives have fewer expensive promises to keep.

Oh gawd.... not this again.

I say the same thing every time libertarianism is brought up. If you want, we can discuss all the libertarian governments that have been installed, since the philosophy came into vogue.

 

[dblack]

Anyway, public financing of elections aside, which is a briliiantly short sided and non-fix to the problem, Gary Johnson isn't much of a noninterventionist. According to several interviews and his stances on foreign policy. So I don't really see why i would vote for that "brand" of libertarianism. I'd prefer the more constitutional approach, which is sided more with classical liberalism. Which is why I will, regardless of the waste, vote for "the republican party's crazy uncle".

It's never a waste to vote for the candidate you prefer. The waste (and frankly, the corruption) of a vote happens when you lie - when you vote for a candidate you don't want for presumptive 'strategic' reasons.

 

[dblack]

I say the same thing every time libertarianism is brought up. If you want, we can discuss all the libertarian governments that have been installed, since the philosophy came into vogue.

That would be better, yes. The idea that the fix for an election system that heavily favors the two vested parties is to centralize control of the system under government is ludicrous. Perhaps you haven't noticed that government is controlled by the two vested parties. How are you fantasizing that a public financing scheme would do anything but perpetuate their dominance?

 

[Mad Scientist]

I've noticed that on this board that those who say they are Libertarian don't seem to support the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson. Watching him on Jon Stewart reminded me to ask why. It also reminded me that would make a much better candidate than the Crazy Uncle of the Republican Party.

It should be obvious but if you don't support him, there's not much chance he'll get anywhere close to winning. Of course, there's no chance he'll win if you do support him but why whine that you want a third party and then not actually support the candidate?

I listened to an interview he did when he first declared and he'd make a great President.

I'm still gonna' write in Ron Paul.

 

[konradv]

I say the same thing every time libertarianism is brought up. If you want, we can discuss all the libertarian governments that have been installed, since the philosophy came into vogue.

That would be better, yes. The idea that the fix for an election system that heavily favors the two vested parties is to centralize control of the system under government is ludicrous. Perhaps you haven't noticed that government is controlled by the two vested parties. How are you fantasizing that a public financing scheme would do anything but perpetuate their dominance?

How would it perpetuate their dominance, if parties were not allowed to solicit funds for campaigns and all qualified candidates got an equal amount of money? Your way just perpetuates a system whereby special interests fund both sides and only give us an illusion that we have a choice?

 

[dblack]

How would it perpetuate their dominance, if parties were not allowed to solicit funds for campaigns and all qualified candidates got an equal amount of money? Your way just perpetuates a system whereby special interests fund both sides and only give us an illusion that we have a choice?

You're just centralizing the point of corruption. When elections are financed by a government agency, controlling them will simply become a matter of controlling that agency. Think about it. Who are you imagining will write the rules for this "public" financing scheme?

 

[konradv]

How would it perpetuate their dominance, if parties were not allowed to solicit funds for campaigns and all qualified candidates got an equal amount of money? Your way just perpetuates a system whereby special interests fund both sides and only give us an illusion that we have a choice?

You're just centralizing the point of corruption. When elections are financed by a government agency, controlling them will simply become a matter of controlling that agency. Think about it. Who are you imagining will write the rules for this "public" financing scheme?

The rules would be simple. Set a qualifying standard, don't allow private contributions and give all qualifiers the same amount. Where's the room for corruption on the order of what we see with the present system? People will always try to finagle, but with this system the funding source would be out in the open and any additional funds collected from private sources would be hard to use, if all money used has to be reported.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

He wants to write the rules, dblack. We've been over this terrible idea ad nauseum. It's simply not going to work at all. Usually these types cry nonsense like "jail time" for those who don't disclose additional money taken, or from taxpayers to fund their two party bias election system.

As if that will ever happen.

 

[DiamondDave]

I am a staunch fiscal conservative.. and while I agree with a lot the libertarians have in terms of fiscal policy and some of the things with personal freedoms and responsibility, I do not agree with a lot of other things, as I am more authoritarian on crime and punishment...

That being said.. I live in MD, and there is no way that this fucked up state will go to anyone but Obama.. and I am not a huge Romney fan.. so it is not like a vote for Romney and hence against Obama will sway things... I may just vote for the 3rd party candidate