New poll results
Bob Bickford
j...@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>
> poll dates Clinton Bush gap
> ==================== ========= ======= ==== ===
> ABC/Post 8/21-8/23 47 42 5
> ABC/Post 8/21-8/25 51 41 10
> ABC/Post 8/26-8/30 55 36 19
> Gallup/Newsweek 8/27-8/28 49 39 10
> Yankelovich/Time/CNN 8/25-8/27 46 40 6
> Times/CBS 8/23-8/24 51 36 15
>
I note with interest that the *minimum* "neither of these" response
above is 8%, and the maximum is a whopping 14%. While I'd like to
claim that all of these people are going to vote Libertarian, even
I'm not *that* optimistic. But it *does* irk me that the above polls
consistently omit the other name that will be on the November 3 "poll"
for virtually every citizen of the US: namely Andre Marrou. Isn't it
just a bit dishonest to conduct a poll relating to a vote and omit one
of the choices that will be on that vote in the poll? If Marrou
wasn't going to be on virtually all (probably *will* be all plus DC) of
the state ballots then there might be some argument that he isn't
really a choice for some people. But that's not the case; his name is
fully qualified in 39 states, pending some counting and minor
paperwork in 7 more, and nearly done in the other 5. (Uh, that
includes DC, btw.) Marrou's name will be in front of well over 90% of
the population of the country on November 3rd, right beside Bush and
Clinton (poor company, but what can you do? ;-).
The Perot supporters probably have similar feelings about their
candidate, but at least in his case the argument could be made that
until and unless he re-declares himself a candidate, the fact that his
name might be on a lot of ballots is meaningless. Even so, he'll
probably get a lot of votes.
Anybody know how we might inject some rationality into the polling
organizations? Convince them that any name which is going to be in
front of well over 90% of the population of the country should be
included in their polls...? Is anybody from one of the networks
reading any of these newsgroups? ;-)
--
Robert Bickford /-------------------------------------\
r...@well.sf.ca.us | Don't Blame Me: I Voted Libertarian |
\-------------------------------------/
Brandon D. Ray
[deleted a long message asking how we can get libertarian
candidates included in public opinion polling]
Could the LP possibly commission its own polls? How mcu u
How much does it cost?
Tom Epperly
What about organizing a poll using this newgroups? We could have
volunteers from around the country(hopefully) call some number of
people randomly selected from their phone book and report the results
via email to someone who will tally the results. Is there someone out
there who knows how to do polling accurately who could help with this
idea? Who knows we might even be able to get help from supporters of
the other candidates as long as they agree to report all replies.
Tom
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Epperly University of Wisconsin-Madison Chemical Engineering
(608) 262-8264 epp...@osnome.che.wisc.edu Graduate Student
Member of the League for Programming Freedom(fighting software monopolies)
For more info contact me or lea...@prep.ai.mit.edu
If you feel you must flame, please send email rather than posting.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Stueven
>In fact, I think that putting Marrous Name on these polls would be
>somewhat dishonest, as it provides free propaganda for a small extremist party.
This "small extremist party" is the third-largest in the country. The
main reason for its small size is the lack of exposure (some might call
it suppression) in the "mainstream" media.
>On the other hand, I think that people responding with "None of the Above"
>should be asked about their preference, and candidates receiving more than
>about 2% should be reported in the results.
That's very arbitrary, isn't it? Why 2%? Why "about"?
>BTW, the next two candidates in '88 were Leonora Fulani and David Duke. Are you
>suggesting that they also be included in the polls ?
Absolutely.
What's dishonest about reporting on every candidate who appears on the ballot?
What's honest about restricting the coverage to two candidates?
---
gak Der Herr Buergermeister gibt bekannt, dass ab
g...@wrs.com Donnerstag Bier gebraut wird und deshalb ab
attmail!gakhaus!gak Mittwoch nicht mehr in den Bach geschissen
107/H/3&4 werden darf.
Matthias Neeracher
>In article <1992Sep2.1...@cbnews.cb.att.com>,
> j...@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>>
>> poll dates Clinton Bush gap
>> ==================== ========= ======= ==== ===
>> ABC/Post 8/21-8/23 47 42 5
>> ABC/Post 8/21-8/25 51 41 10
>> ABC/Post 8/26-8/30 55 36 19
>> Gallup/Newsweek 8/27-8/28 49 39 10
>> Yankelovich/Time/CNN 8/25-8/27 46 40 6
>> Times/CBS 8/23-8/24 51 36 15
>>
>
>I note with interest that the *minimum* "neither of these" response
>above is 8%, and the maximum is a whopping 14%. While I'd like to
>claim that all of these people are going to vote Libertarian, even
>I'm not *that* optimistic. But it *does* irk me that the above polls
>consistently omit the other name that will be on the November 3 "poll"
>for virtually every citizen of the US: namely Andre Marrou. Isn't it
>just a bit dishonest to conduct a poll relating to a vote and omit one
>of the choices that will be on that vote in the poll?
I don't think that it is dishonest to leave out a candidate whose party at the
last election got less than 1% of the winner's votes (Bush 48'886'097, Ron Paul
432'179). In fact, I think that putting Marrous Name on these polls would be
somewhat dishonest, as it provides free propaganda for a small extremist party.
On the other hand, I think that people responding with "None of the Above"
should be asked about their preference, and candidates receiving more than
about 2% should be reported in the results.
BTW, the next two candidates in '88 were Leonora Fulani and David Duke. Are you
suggesting that they also be included in the polls ?
Matthias
-----
Matthias Neeracher ne...@iis.ethz.ch
"There once was an Age of Reason, but we've progressed beyond it."
-- Ayn Rand, _Atlas Shrugged_
John Gossman
Give up on the Libertarian vote. In 1988 the Libertarian candidate
got less than 1% of the vote. The New Freedom Party got almost as many
votes. You CAN'T poll Marrou supporters because the numbers would be
statistically insignificant (much smaller than the margin of error). With
a sample of 800-1500 Marrou might get 5 or 40 supporters, and statistically
the numbers would be the same.
-JG
Ronald David Stieger
>> poll dates Clinton Bush gap
>> ==================== ========= ======= ==== ===
>> ABC/Post 8/21-8/23 47 42 5
>> ABC/Post 8/21-8/25 51 41 10
>> ABC/Post 8/26-8/30 55 36 19
>> Gallup/Newsweek 8/27-8/28 49 39 10
>> Yankelovich/Time/CNN 8/25-8/27 46 40 6
>> Times/CBS 8/23-8/24 51 36 15
>I note with interest that the *minimum* "neither of these" response
>above is 8%, and the maximum is a whopping 14%.
While I haven't seen the results firsthand, I suspect that, as in most
polls, most of those who didn't choose Clinton or Bush responded "don't know"
rather than "neither of these". Of course it would be interesting to
know what the result would be in November if "none of the above" was
an option. :-)
--
--Ron Stieger **** JUST VOTE NO. ****
sti...@cco.caltech.edu
"Hush my darling, be still my darling, the lion's on the phone."
-They Might Be Giants
Michael Sandy
with Perot as active campaigner, on a recent CNN news.
The polls showed I think 13% if he was just on the ballot, 20% if he
actively campaigned. The gap between Bush and Clinton was 15% in the
former, 11% in the latter. Since 11% is the average gap the current
polls are showing between Bush and Clinton anyway...
Clinton is picking up a lot of people who are willing to spend moeny
and time getting the vote out November 3rd. I wouldn't be too
surprised if the _weather_ on voting day would make a 3-6 point shift
in outcome.
Sometimes I feel the polls _more_ accurately reflect American sentiment
than the actual election. Crazy hunh?
--
Michael Sandy
mich...@m2xenix.psg.com
"No Blood for Oil!" ? But Blood is a renewable resource, Oil isn't!
Michael R Linksvayer
>In 1988 the Libertarian candidate got less than 1% of the
>vote. The New Freedom Party got almost as many votes.
The New *Alliance* Party got about half as many votes as the
LP.
>You CAN'T poll Marrou supporters because the numbers would be
>statistically insignificant (much smaller than the margin of
>error). With a sample of 800-1500 Marrou might get 5 or 40
>supporters, and statistically the numbers would be the same.
Unfortunately you're right. However Marrou could be included
in polls that ask whether people have a favorable opinion of a
candidate, whether a candidate is competent to handle the
economy, foreign affairs, etc.
--
Mike Linksvayer m-link...@uiuc.edu +1 217 344 1326
Pat McManus
>>> ==================== ========= ======= ==== ===
>>> ABC/Post 8/21-8/23 47 42 5
>>> ABC/Post 8/21-8/25 51 41 10
>>> ABC/Post 8/26-8/30 55 36 19
>>> Gallup/Newsweek 8/27-8/28 49 39 10
>>> Yankelovich/Time/CNN 8/25-8/27 46 40 6
>>> Times/CBS 8/23-8/24 51 36 15
>>>
>>
<some stuff deleted...>
>
>I don't think that it is dishonest to leave out a candidate whose party at the
>last election got less than 1% of the winner's votes (Bush 48'886'097, Ron Paul
>432'179). In fact, I think that putting Marrous Name on these polls would be
>somewhat dishonest, as it provides free propaganda for a small extremist party.
Your notion of free propoganda is an accurate one, where I take issue is for
whom. The idea that the major parties are entitled to the propoganda while
the smaller one is not is not exactly rooted in reason. You may term the
libertarians extremists, but apparently they agreed with a significant
number of people (400,000 is a lot of people!) and that deserves to be
acknowledged. Note I am not champion cheerleading, but if you conduct a poll
and selectively limit the results you report, in effect you are cheerleading
for those that get reported, and not reflecting the results of your survey.
>BTW, the next two candidates in '88 were Leonora Fulani and David Duke. Are you
>suggesting that they also be included in the polls ?
Yes. I see no reason to supress opinions just because they run contrary to
mine.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
'He who governs least, governs best.' - no attribution
Pat McManus '96 CS.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Bickford
ne...@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher) writes:
>
>BTW, the next two candidates [after Ron Paul, in terms of votes cast]
>in '88 were Leonora Fulani and David Duke.
(Note that Fulani was on all 50 state ballots while Paul was on 46,
outspent us by a factor of 2-to-1, and yet got half as many votes as
we did. As for Duke, he was on a very few ballots and polled just a
bit over one-tenth what we did; even so I find his total shocking and
disgusting.)
>Are you suggesting that they also be included in the polls ?
If you had read the remainder of my previous posting, you would have
noticed that I stated my criteria: any name which will be in front of
the really overwhelming majority of voters (I used the figure 90%) on
November 3rd should be included in the polls, otherwise the polls are
dishonest and manipulative. I further noted that since Marrou's name
will probably be on all 50 states (the machinations of the Republicans
in Alaska are the only thing keeping me from being sure of that) then
his name belongs in the polls. Fulani can't possibly be on the ballot
in more than 43 states (missed the other deadlines) and may be on
fewer as events unfold; however, if her name will be in front of more
than 90% of the electorate on November 3rd then I would also argue for
her inclusion.
If you had read the rest of my posting, you would also have noted my
comments about Perot, which I think are more responsive (and less
inflammatory) to the issue you raise than the names you chose.
Polls without all the names are dishonest and manipulative.
--
Robert Bickford r...@well.sf.ca.us
Vice-Chair, Libertarian Party /-------------------------------------\
of Marin County (CA) | Don't Blame Me: I Voted Libertarian |
\-------------------------------------/
David Veal
That's OK. Nobody ever said starting political parties was easy or
quick. But then, it's not surprising so few support him, considering so
few have *heard* of him. (Ditto for the rest of the minor parties.)
We *are* living in a country where a significant portion of the population
think that the major parties are the *only* parties.
Hell, Ross Perot was said to be starting "a third party."
========================================================================
| David Veal PA14...@utkvm1.utk.edu |
| University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
========================================================================
Matthew Huntbach
>I don't think that it is dishonest to leave out a candidate whose party at
>the last election got less than 1% of the winner's votes (Bush 48'886'097,
>Ron Paul 432'179). In fact, I think that putting Marrous Name on these polls
>would be somewhat dishonest, as it provides free propaganda for a
>small extremist party.
In the UK, where the third party is much larger (around 20% of
the vote, and in fact the second placed party in about one
third of the country), it has been noted that opinion polls
conistently differ in their results. One organisation whose
practice is to ask a whole load of lead-in questions on the
parties, their policies and their leaders, before asking "how
will you vote?" consistently scores a higher third-party figure
than others which start off asking "how will you vote?". The
reason seems to be that the lead-in questions remind people of
the third party option.
It should also be noted that the opinion polls got the UK
election earlier this year wrong. They predicted a Labour
victory, we got a Conservative victory. The reason seems to be
that a high proportion of those who responded "Labour" were
non-voters (in the UK voter registration is compulsory so very
high, thus there is no point in asking whether those polled are
registered voters, they usually are, but voting itself is not
compulsory and turnout tends to be in the 70-80% region)
whereas a high proportion of those answering "don't know" or
"won't say" were in fact Conservative voters. Also the
Conservatives ran a nasty but effective campaign appealing to
personal greed, thus a lot of people voted Conservative but
were ashamed to admit it. As someone once said, "voting
Conservative is like masturbating - everyone does it, but
no-one admits to it".
I would not be surprised to see the USA campaign go along the
same lines - Clinton leads in the polls throughout, but Bush
wins the actual election.
Matthew Huntbach
~WISP at CU~
[Stuff about how useless opinion polls are...]
>"won't say" were in fact Conservative voters. Also the
>Conservatives ran a nasty but effective campaign appealing to
>personal greed, thus a lot of people voted Conservative but
>were ashamed to admit it. As someone once said, "voting
>Conservative is like masturbating - everyone does it, but
>no-one admits to it".
Oh, please! Labour lost that election because a) their manifesto was a
wish-list that couldn't possibly be lived up to, b) the unions still
control the party, c) Kinnock is a born-again loser and d) the Nuremberg rally
at Sheffield frightened a lot of people. It wasn't a particularly dirty
campaign, and much of what there was came from Labour (like Hill's threat
to 'get the wives involved. Good job he didn't: the Tories would have
increased their majority...).
What we need in PR: get consensus politics back, instead of this
confrontational bullsh*t...
Chris W.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Williams <cs...@uk.ac.warwick.csv> aka <cs...@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
"Tony Greig in the slips, legs apart, waiting for a tickle"
Brian Johnson (thanks to A. Simha 8^>)
A T Furman
>Conservatives ran a nasty but effective campaign appealing to
>personal greed, thus a lot of people voted Conservative but
>were ashamed to admit it. As someone once said, "voting
>Conservative is like masturbating - everyone does it, but
>no-one admits to it".
It figures. We live in a time of financial Victorianism. Substitute
"sex" for "money" and "orgasms" for "profits", and you can freely
convert back and forth between 19th century sexual puritan rhetoric,
and 20th century social-democratic finanancial puritan rhetoric.
H.L. Mencken defined puritanism as "the haunting fear that someone,
somewhere may be happy". When someone decides to use his or her
penis/vulva/money to attain happiness in a solitary way that does not
put Society first, the puritan calls it perversion/impurity/greed.
Alan T. Furman | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!! Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
atfu...@cup.portal.sig | (800)682-1776 for more information
Edward J. Branley
> In article <1992Sep7.1...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> m...@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Hu
>
> [Stuff about how useless opinion polls are...]
> >"won't say" were in fact Conservative voters. Also the
> >Conservatives ran a nasty but effective campaign appealing to
> >personal greed, thus a lot of people voted Conservative but
> >were ashamed to admit it. As someone once said, "voting
> >Conservative is like masturbating - everyone does it, but
> >no-one admits to it".
>
> Oh, please! Labour lost that election because a) their manifesto was a
> wish-list that couldn't possibly be lived up to, b) the unions still
> control the party, c) Kinnock is a born-again loser and d) the Nuremberg rall
> at Sheffield frightened a lot of people. It wasn't a particularly dirty
> campaign, and much of what there was came from Labour (like Hill's threat
> to 'get the wives involved. Good job he didn't: the Tories would have
> increased their majority...).
>
> What we need in PR: get consensus politics back, instead of this
> confrontational bullsh*t...
>
Hmmm...your points are quite interesting. For all of the folks in the US:
a. "a wish-list that couldn't possibly be lived up to"
So far, more farm subsidies, 100% rebuilding of LA and South FL, F16s
to Taiwan, plus an accross the board tax cut, a capital gains tax cut
and he's still going to cut spending.
b. "Unions still control the party"
This one's a toss-up, given the long-standing affair with unions and the
Dems, but GHWB's pandering last week to the defense workers last week
does change the picture of Republicans who don't like labor.
c. "Kinnock is a born-again loser"
Substitute Bush for Kinnock. Of course, 'born-again' in GHWB's case has a
double meaning, given his shameless pandering to the Radical Religous
Right.
d. "Nuremberg rally at Sheffield frightened a lot of people"
Substitute Houston for Sheffield, and you've got a good summary of the
GOP convention.
Jeez, if someone would have offhandedly said that the British Labour Party and
the GOP had a lot in common, I would've thought they were in left field.
|Edward J. Branley ele...@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
|Seashell Software UUCP: rex!mintir!elendil|
|3508 North Woodlawn Avenue Compu$erve: 71237,2227|
|Metairie, LA 70006 voice: +1-504-455-5087 bbs: +1-504-455-8665|
Peter Nelson
>In article <1992Sep3.1...@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
>n844...@henson.cc.wwu.edu (John Gossman) writes:
>
>> Give up on the Libertarian vote. In 1988 the Libertarian candidate
>>got less than 1% of the vote. The New Freedom Party got almost as many
>>votes. You CAN'T poll Marrou supporters because the numbers would be
>>statistically insignificant
> That's OK. Nobody ever said starting political parties was easy or
>quick. But then, it's not surprising so few support him, considering so
>few have *heard* of him. (Ditto for the rest of the minor parties.)
>We *are* living in a country where a significant portion of the population
>think that the major parties are the *only* parties.
> Hell, Ross Perot was said to be starting "a third party."
Nonetheless, Perot achieved very high popularity, at one point leading
the two major candidates in some polls. Moreover John Anderson and
George Wallace also had very credible third-party campaigns in the
last couple of decades. And Vermont recently elected a socialist to
national office. So it IS possible to run as a third party and get
heard. The libertarians are short on voters but they always have
ready supply of excuses. I mean, yes, getting heard as a third
party is an uphill battle but it's not impossible if you have a
a compelling message which resonates with the market.
The fact is that libertarianism has no natural cultural base in the US
(or anyplace else). Those who agree with them, say on welfare or free
markets, are most likely to be Republicans (hence the number of R.<->
L.P. party switches we've seen over the years) who are still all in
favor of intrusive Big Government in other areas. The cultural con-
ditions for minarchy have not existed in this country since the In-
dustrial Revolution took hold, and only those ignorant of history
fail to grasp that prior to this there were other cultural, traditional
and even institutional forces constraining individuals' behavior.
There never was a Golden Age of individual liberty, unless it is
today. Libertarianism is the political equivalant of "new age"
music or religion.
---peter
David Veal
nels...@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>In article <16859CF5E...@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA14...@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Val) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep3.1...@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
>>n844...@henson.cc.wwu.edu (John Gossman) writes:
>>
>>> Give up on the Libertarian vote. In 1988 the Libertarian candidate
>>>got less than 1% of the vote. The New Freedom Party got almost as many
>>>votes. You CAN'T poll Marrou supporters because the numbers would be
>>>statistically insignificant
>
>> That's OK. Nobody ever said starting political parties was easy or
>>quick. But then, it's not surprising so few support him, considering so
>>few have *heard* of him. (Ditto for the rest of the minor parties.)
>>We *are* living in a country where a significant portion of the population
>>think that the major parties are the *only* parties.
>> Hell, Ross Perot was said to be starting "a third party."
>
> Nonetheless, Perot achieved very high popularity, at one point leading
> the two major candidates in some polls.
With intense media exposure and 2 or 3 billion dollars *I* could
show up on the polls.
>Moreover John Anderson and
> George Wallace also had very credible third-party campaigns in the
> last couple of decades. And Vermont recently elected a socialist to
> national office. So it IS possible to run as a third party and get
> heard. The libertarians are short on voters but they always have
> ready supply of excuses. I mean, yes, getting heard as a third
> party is an uphill battle but it's not impossible if you have a
> a compelling message which resonates with the market.
I suppose I'll just have to try harder. :-)
>
> The fact is that libertarianism has no natural cultural base in the US
> (or anyplace else). Those who agree with them, say on welfare or free
> markets, are most likely to be Republicans (hence the number of R.<->
> L.P. party switches we've seen over the years) who are still all in
> favor of intrusive Big Government in other areas. The cultural con-
> ditions for minarchy have not existed in this country since the In-
> dustrial Revolution took hold, and only those ignorant of history
> fail to grasp that prior to this there were other cultural, traditional
> and even institutional forces constraining individuals' behavior.
> There never was a Golden Age of individual liberty, unless it is
> today. Libertarianism is the political equivalant of "new age"
> music or religion.
As a pure political concept you are probably correct. I've never
advocated pure libertarianism because I don't believe people are currently
capable of acting either in their own long-term best interests or in the
country's long-term best interests solely on their own. Since people
don't seem to have substantially changed in that regard since the
beginning of recorded time, it may never happen.
I do however believe that we need to move in that direction, and
at least back to a more strict constitutional view.
The Libertarians about the only party I'm aware of that are pointed
in that direction, which is primarily why I support them.
Minarchy is a tough thing to make work. It requires work at all levels
of government down to the general populace.
Maybe the Libertarians will be the next major party in the United States,
or maybe they'll disappear without a trace after this November. Either way
it doesn't change things.
Bruce A. Martin
>
> Give up on the Libertarian vote. In 1988 the Libertarian candidate
>got less than 1% of the vote. The New Freedom Party got almost as many
>votes.
BZZZZT! Error trap.
The New Alliance Party's candidate in 1988, Lenora Fulani, got barely HALF
as many votes as the Libertarian candidate, Ron Paul.
Ron Paul got 432,179 votes. Fulani got only 217,219.
How is that "almost as many"?
(In California, NAP is now called NFP.)
In fact, since 1976, the Libertarian vote has always been the highest of
any other party besides the Demoblican/Replicrat party. In 1980, Ed Clark
got MORE THAN 1% (and Marrou will probably beat that percentage).
In 1988, the Libertarian candidate got more votes than ALL OTHER 3rd PARTIES
PUT TOGETHER! This was also true in 1980. (I'm not sure about 1984.)
Unlike the other 3rd parties, Libertarians are running candidates for
President & Vice President in all 50 states (+DC). Over 500 Libertarian
candidates are running for office this year, and some will win -- adding
to the 100 or so Libertarians now in office (including state Legislators).
The Libertarian Party is America's third-largest party BY ANY MEASURE.
Comparison with the New Alliance Party in this regard is downright
ludicrous!
Jonathan King
>n844...@henson.cc.wwu.edu (John Gossman) writes:
>>Give up on the Libertarian vote. In 1988 the Libertarian candidate
>>got less than 1% of the vote. The New Freedom Party got almost as many
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>votes.
>
>BZZZZT! Error trap.
>
>The New Alliance Party's candidate in 1988, Lenora Fulani, got barely HALF
>as many votes as the Libertarian candidate, Ron Paul.
>
>Ron Paul got 432,179 votes. Fulani got only 217,219.
>How is that "almost as many"?
Yup, this is correct. My almanac says that the Libertarian share added
up to .47% of the the total 91,594,693 votes cast.
>In fact, since 1976, the Libertarian vote has always been the highest
>of any other party besides the Demoblican/Replicrat party. In 1980,
>Ed Clark got MORE THAN 1% (and Marrou will probably beat that percentage).
One pretty big nit: in 1980, John Anderson received 5,719,437 votes,
which is about 7%, and which was *definitely* greater than Ed Clark's
share. Anderson, in fact, came surprisingly close to winning at least
one state (Massachusetts).
The interesting thing about the 1980 election is that Reagan hardly
won the rousing majority of the popular vote that people assume he
did. In fact, he didn't win an outright majority of the votes cast!
Further, while Marrou might well get better than 1% of the vote, do
you really think he'll do substantially better than Ross Perot, who is
quietly on the ballot in a large number of states?
>In 1988, the Libertarian candidate got more votes than ALL OTHER 3rd
>PARTIES PUT TOGETHER! This was also true in 1980. (I'm not sure about
>1984.)
Again, I think this statement is *bizarre* if made in reference to
1980 when the Libertarians finished fourth. And, actually, whether
this was true in 1988 depends on how you define "3rd parties". The
broadest definition would include all votes *not* cast for Bush or
Dukakis, in which case we find that the Libertarians didn't quite make
it, winning 432,116 votes out of the total 899,522 votes cast for the
following:
Delmar Dennis
Earl Dodge
David Duke
Lenora B. Fulani
James C. Griffin
Jack Herer
Larry Holmes
Willa Kenoyer
Lyndon H. LaRouche
Herbert Lewin
William A. Marra
John G. Martin
Eugene J. McCarthy
Ronald E. Paul
James Mac Warren
Edward Winn
Louie G. Youngkeit
Write-in
None-of-the-above (Nevada option)
And to be more than fair, if you limit consideration to candidates
appearing on the ballot and toss out the Nevada Option (for whatever
reason), then the Libertarians *still* don't outpoll the others. Now,
admittedly, John G. Martin only captured 236 votes for the the Third
World Assembly, but you'd have to ignore his and at least 3 other
people's votes to make the claim true. What's up?
>Unlike the other 3rd parties, Libertarians are running candidates for
>President & Vice President in all 50 states (+DC). Over 500 Libertarian
>candidates are running for office this year, and some will win -- adding
>to the 100 or so Libertarians now in office (including state Legislators).
Just wondering though: aren't there many more than 100 "Independents"
(i.e. no party, not members of *The* Independent Party represented by
Louie G. Youngkeit in 1988) in offices where partisan affiliations are
allowed?
>The Libertarian Party is America's third-largest party BY ANY MEASURE.
>Comparison with the New Alliance Party in this regard is downright
>ludicrous!
They certainly got more votes in 1988, and I expect they enjoy a solid
lead in voter registrations, but we all know that the fortunes of
political parties wax and wane. The American Independents under
Wallace were the last third party to win electoral votes, and while
they haven't done diddly since then, rumor has it that their
membership is up this year. (Personally, I'm hoping this is due to
confusion about what Ross Perot's party was; that was the excuse given
in California, at any rate.) Right now the Libertarians are running
third, but when the third place share hovers around the 1% level and
you finish no better than fourth in 2 of the last 6 presidential
elections, you've certainly got some building to do.
jking
Matthias Neeracher
>In article <1992Sep3.1...@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n844...@henson.cc.wwu.edu (John Gossman) writes:
>>
>> Give up on the Libertarian vote. In 1988 the Libertarian candidate
>>got less than 1% of the vote. The New Freedom Party got almost as many
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>votes.
>
>BZZZZT! Error trap.
>
>The New Alliance Party's candidate in 1988, Lenora Fulani, got barely HALF
>as many votes as the Libertarian candidate, Ron Paul.
>
>Ron Paul got 432,179 votes. Fulani got only 217,219.
>How is that "almost as many"?
Close enough, considering that Ron Paul got not much more than 1% of the votes
of Dukakis.
>In fact, since 1976, the Libertarian vote has always been the highest of
>any other party besides the Demoblican/Replicrat party. In 1980, Ed Clark
>got MORE THAN 1% (and Marrou will probably beat that percentage).
>
>In 1988, the Libertarian candidate got more votes than ALL OTHER 3rd PARTIES
>PUT TOGETHER! This was also true in 1980.
... if you conveniently omit that John Anderson, an independent candidate, got
MORE THAN 5%.
>The Libertarian Party is America's third-largest party BY ANY MEASURE.
>Comparison with the New Alliance Party in this regard is downright
>ludicrous!
And the New Alliance Party (what the hell do the stand for anyway ?) is
America's fourth-largest party by any measure. Party #2 got almost 100 times
the vote of party #3. Party #4 got more than four times the vote of party #5.
Party #3 got about twice the vote of party #4. So it seems reasonable to
consider the two partys about in the same league of importance.
joseph.m.knapp
> The American Independents under
It must have been a maverick elector, but I notice that the Libertarians
garnered 1 electoral vote in 1972. So when it's all said and done, at least
it won't be a shut-out. But mark it down as an error, not an RBI.
---
Joe Knapp j...@cbvox.att.com
Scott Cromar
> In fact, since 1976, the Libertarian vote has always been the highest of
> any other party besides the Demoblican/Replicrat party. In 1980, Ed Clark
> got MORE THAN 1% (and Marrou will probably beat that percentage).
Didn't Anderson outpoll the Libertarians in 1980?
--Scott
StarWatcher
: b...@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin) writes:
:>In fact, since 1976, the Libertarian vote has always been the highest of
:>any other party besides the Demoblican/Replicrat party. In 1980, Ed Clark
:>got MORE THAN 1% (and Marrou will probably beat that percentage).
:>
:>In 1988, the Libertarian candidate got more votes than ALL OTHER 3rd PARTIES
:>PUT TOGETHER! This was also true in 1980.
:
:... if you conveniently omit that John Anderson, an independent candidate, got
: MORE THAN 5%.
I think the key terms to remember here are "party" and "independent
candidate." The LP runs many people for a variety of elected positions
each election. John Anderson (and Ross Perot, for that matter, before
he wimped out) was just one entry on the ballot. IMHO, that does not
a party make. Bruce's statement is still correct.
--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) "Republicans understand the
Internet: StarW...@uiuc.edu importance of bondage between
Bitnet: FREE1217@UIUCVMD parent and child."
Anonymous: wi5...@wizvax.methuen.ma.us -- Dan Quayle
UUCP: ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher
Jonathan King
Well, I *could* quibble and say I had said electoral votes, plural, but
that doesn't seem fair. For whatever it's worth, my almanac only noted
the maverick elector in a footnote, and didn't list a party. I take it
that John Hospers and Theodore Nathan were the people on the Libertarian
ticket that year? For what it is worth, the elector came from Virginia.
I'd probably mark it down as pinch runner scoring from third on a
sacrifice fly.
jking
Chris Struble
this weekend. Together with some other local LPers, I took an Operation
Politically Homeless booth to the Lollapalooza "concert" (I refuse to call
that stuff "music") near Houston. Before asking the usual ten questions,
we asked people their presidential preference. We included all the candi-
dates on the Texas ballot. From a total of 506 quizzes, the results were:
Clinton 50%
Bush 15%
Perot 10%
Marrou 4%
Undecided/Other/Daffy Duck, etc. 21%
The Clinton support is not surprising given the crowd, but I find the
support for Marrou particularly encouraging, considering that this was
BEFORE we did our spiel for the LP, and that these aren't the kind of
people (kids and freaks mostly) who watch C-SPAN. The message IS getting
out folks, if only in dribbles. Still, I have no illusions about an LP
landslide this year.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Christian Struble | The true civilization is where every |
| Mechanical Engineering | man gives to every other every right |
| University of Houston | that he claims for himself |
| mec...@jetson.uh.edu | -- Robert Ingersoll |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lee
>
> the maverick elector in a footnote, and didn't list a party. I take it
> that John Hospers and Theodore Nathan were the people on the Libertarian
> ticket that year? For what it is worth, the elector came from Virginia.
>
The maverick elector was Roger McBride, a Republican who could not stand
voting for Nixon.
Close, but not Theodore Nathan.
McBride voted for Libertarian candidates John Hospers and Tonie Nathan.
Tonie Nathan was the first woman to receive an electoral vote in the U.S.
Bob Bickford
ki...@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King) writes:
>>In fact, since 1976, the Libertarian vote has always been the highest
>>of any other party besides the Demoblican/Replicrat party.
>
>One pretty big nit: in 1980, John Anderson received 5,719,437 votes,
>which is about 7%, and which was *definitely* greater than Ed Clark's
>[1%] share.
I was given to understand that Anderson's efforts were done as an
independent and not as an official political party. In any case,
clearly there is no surviving organization of any note. Hence the
(valid) claim that the Libertarians had the most votes of any third
PARTY. (See below.)
>
>>In 1988, the Libertarian candidate got more votes than ALL OTHER 3rd
>>PARTIES PUT TOGETHER! This was also true in 1980. (I'm not sure about
>>1984.)
>
>Again, I think this statement is *bizarre* if made in reference to
>1980 when the Libertarians finished fourth.
Not in the least bizarre if candidates without a Party are not counted
in the total. Whether this would mislead anybody over the age of 18
is another question entirely........ I don't think so; the point of
the Libertarian Party is to be a continuing thing, to not revolve
around one candidate or issue, to not dry up and blow away after the
ballots are counted. To not be a "flash in the pan".
> And, actually, whether
>this was true in 1988 depends on how you define "3rd parties". The
>broadest definition would include all votes *not* cast for Bush or
>Dukakis, in which case we find that the Libertarians didn't quite make
>it, winning 432,116 votes out of the total 899,522 votes cast for the
>following:
[names ommitted -- rab]
>And to be more than fair, if you limit consideration to candidates
>appearing on the ballot and toss out the Nevada Option (for whatever
>reason), then the Libertarians *still* don't outpoll the others. Now,
>admittedly, John G. Martin only captured 236 votes for the the Third
>World Assembly, but you'd have to ignore his and at least 3 other
>people's votes to make the claim true. What's up?
The original numbers published widely (NYTimes: Paul-409,412, all
non-Dem and non-Rep votes-822,240, NOTA-6,923 for example) had us
solidly ahead of all others combined; the later "official" numbers
included quite a few more votes and naturally the smaller totals
gained the most since they were poorly reported at first.
BTW, I'm sure that 50 or 60 people will correct you about the
Electoral College votes point (you said that Wallace was the last
third party to receive any), so I'll just add my voice to the chorus
and remind you and everybody that the 1972 Libertarian ticket got one
electoral vote -- and of course this was the first time in American
history that a woman candidate for either Pres or VP received such a
vote (the woman was Tonie Nathan, our VP candidate that year).
--
Robert Bickford /-------------------------------------\
r...@well.sf.ca.us | Don't Blame Me: I Voted Libertarian |
\-------------------------------------/
Steven Reardon
>The Clinton support is not surprising given the crowd, but I find the
>support for Marrou particularly encouraging, considering that this was
>BEFORE we did our spiel for the LP, and that these aren't the kind of
>people (kids and freaks mostly) who watch C-SPAN. The message IS getting
>out folks, if only in dribbles. Still, I have no illusions about an LP
>landslide this year.
I sent a letter to Chris, but I'd just like to state publicly that I
believe he has misjudged and maligned the 'alternative' music crowd.
It doesn't take any thought to adhere to the 'norm', in music or anything
else. These people are not afraid to be themselves and like what they like.
These people have a vested interest in seeing freedom of expression protected.
It only makes sense that the LP should appeal to them.
The Bill of Rights, and the First Amendment in particular, protect the
dissenter, the misfit, the unpopular, and the visionary.
These people are doing what America is supposed to be about. They're
being themselves.
You sound like a Republican when you call them freaks.
I like most of the music of the groups who are participating in
Lollapalooza. I watch C-Span and CNN. You'd be surprised how thoughtful
and intelligent most of the people who like 'alternative' music are.
You might also be surprised at how thoughtful and intelligent the lyrics
to the songs are. They certainly require more thought than the mindless
generic fluff that the popular media spoon feeds the public.
The LP is the thinking person's party. It only makes sense that the LP
should appeal to the 'alternative' music crowd.
I am a freak. I am a Libertarian. At least the Libertarians recognize
my right to be what Chris considers to be a freak if that's what I want
to be.
Do you want to add anything davE?
--
* "I just got my coffee the right color. It's the only thing I have *
* going for me today. Don't f**k with it." *
* -James Belushi Steven Reardon *
* srea...@bradley.bradley.edu *
James J. Lippard
McBride was then the next LP candidate for president, in 1976.
Jim Lippard Lip...@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy Lip...@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
James J. Lippard
>>In article <1992Sep3.1...@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
>>n844...@henson.cc.wwu.edu (John Gossman) writes:
>>
>>> Give up on the Libertarian vote. In 1988 the Libertarian candidate
>>>got less than 1% of the vote. The New Freedom Party got almost as many
>>>votes. You CAN'T poll Marrou supporters because the numbers would be
>>>statistically insignificant
>
>> That's OK. Nobody ever said starting political parties was easy or
>>quick. But then, it's not surprising so few support him, considering so
>>few have *heard* of him. (Ditto for the rest of the minor parties.)
The Libertarian Party has been around for over twenty years. Isn't that
enough time to get started?
William H. Gray
|> ...
|> The maverick elector was Roger McBride, ...
More arcana-- Mr McBride is a direct descendant of Laura Ingalls Wilder (author of
the "Little House" series).
On the subject of Tonie Nathan, who as Mr Lee correctly points out was the first
woman to receive an electoral vote: arguably the Libertarians had their ticket
backwards then and have it backwards now. As I recall Tonie Nathan was the more
qualified of the two. Presently, Dr (JD, MD, take your pick) Lord may be the
most qualified candidate running for anything (if you don't count incumbency as
a qualification).
Perhaps one addresses her as Dr Dr (recalling the hilarious Chevy Chase, Dan
Ackroyd scene from "Spies Like Us").
========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========
Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights. No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
A T Furman
>most qualified candidate running for anything (if you don't count incumbency
>as a qualification).
Nancy Lord seems to be picking up a lot of fans in the LP this campaign.
I would say she is the odds-on favorite for the presidential nomination
next time.
Chris Struble
>I sent a letter to Chris, but I'd just like to state publicly that I
>believe he has misjudged and maligned the 'alternative' music crowd.
You're reading a lot into my statement. I believe I said "kids AND freaks",
not all freaks. The crowd WAS very young on average, though we got the
older people at our booth for the most part.
By "freaks" I mean, for example, the Skinhead hoodlums who were smashing
Japanese TV sets on one stage with nightsticks. Too much racism and nihilism
for my liking, thanks. At least, that's what it LOOKED like. Tell me it
was something ELSE, if you know so much about it.
>It doesn't take any thought to adhere to the 'norm', in music or anything
>else.
Nor to smash things and shave your head. Unless you think Skinheads are
closet Ph.D.s. BTW, I make no distinction between left-skinheads motivated
by "love" and right-skinheads motivated by "hate". Violence is violence.
>These people are not afraid to be themselves and like what they like.
>These people have a vested interest in seeing freedom of expression protected.
>It only makes sense that the LP should appeal to them.
I have no problem with their freedom of expression. I have a problem
with their smashing things. Senseless destruction is stupid, even when
its legal (such as smashing your own TV).
>You sound like a Republican when you call them freaks.
No, more like an Objectivist, maybe. You see, I think TV sets and cars
and computers, etc. are GOOD, because they can enrich our lives. I see
no difference between smashing such things and the Hilter Youth's book-
burning. Both are assaults on the products of human intellect. Both are
the acts of sick minds.
Perhaps the fact that I'm an ex-Leftie myself, whose mind was polluted
with all kinds of socialist junk (like "all rich people are evil greedy
exploiters", etc.) which I have spent the last two years trying to purge,
makes me especially sensitive to any contact with anything that looks
like it.
>I like most of the music of the groups who are participating in
>Lollapalooza.
I couldn't hear enough of it so say. Though I think SOME of the songs
by the Red Hot Chili Peppers have a "wealth redistribution" and
"equality of outcome" kind of tone. Not exactly laissez-faire. I'll
give another listen to their album sometime to make sure.
>I watch C-Span and CNN. You'd be surprised how thoughtful
>and intelligent most of the people who like 'alternative' music are.
>You might also be surprised at how thoughtful and intelligent the lyrics
>to the songs are.
So are Rush's songs. But they don't shave their heads and smash things.
I'll admit they do scream a bit (or did before Geddy Lee lost his voice
:-)
>They certainly require more thought than the mindless
>generic fluff that the popular media spoon feeds the public.
Hear, hear.
>The LP is the thinking person's party. It only makes sense that the LP
>should appeal to the 'alternative' music crowd.
>
>I am a freak.
I doubt it. At least not the way I meant it. Your thoughts are too
coherent. Anyway, peace.
Chris Struble
>Nancy Lord seems to be picking up a lot of fans in the LP this campaign.
>I would say she is the odds-on favorite for the presidential nomination
>next time.
I agree. I saw her at the Texas LP convention in June. Very smart and
well-spoken. She also seems to have a strong sense of how government
has hurt the poor, something Libertarians need to do a better job of
conveying if we are to become a major party in the future.
Richard Stueven
>Nor to smash things and shave your head. Unless you think Skinheads are
>closet Ph.D.s. BTW, I make no distinction between left-skinheads motivated
>by "love" and right-skinheads motivated by "hate". Violence is violence.
Interesting...what do you think of people who just like to have very short hair?
Like...me, for instance?
---
Richard Stueven
Technical Support Manager
Wind River Systems, Inc.
Richard Stueven
>>
>>The Libertarian Party has been around for over twenty years. Isn't that
>>enough time to get started?
Just out of curiosity, how much time elapsed between the formation of
the Republican party and the election of Abraham Lincoln?
---
Richard Stueven g...@wrs.com attmail!gakhaus!gak 107/H/3&4
To sight it must ring clear as a bell, it must snap
in the ear, feel pleasantly sticky between the fingers,
smell fresh and tempting and taste heavenly.
Philandros
>
>enough time to get started?
>
>Jim Lippard Lip...@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
>Dept. of Philosophy Lip...@ARIZVMS.BITNET
>University of Arizona
>Tucson, AZ 85721
Twenty years ago, the LP could fit inside a living room. It does
take time. The LP is already the largest third party, so I would say that
it is off to a good start.
There are still many hurdles to jump. I don't think that most people
realize just how difficult it is to make a third party successful. Just look
at the hundreds of thousands of dollars it takes just to get third party
presidential candidates ON THE BALLOT. This is a big drain of resources for
a third party. Imagine the difference it would make if that money could have
been pumped into network television commercials instead...
Libertarians have had to learn how to discuss their ideas persuasively
and to campaign effectly. No experienced Republican or Democratic politician
is likely to help out a new Libertarian candidate... There is a learning curve
to climb.
I'm not making excuses. I'm just stating reality. I believe that with
hard work and smart campaigning, the Libertarian Party will be the next major
party. (And it won't be a moment too soon!)
Mark Sulkowski
Bruce A. Martin
>In article <1992Sep8.2...@bnlux1.bnl.gov> b...@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin) writes:
>>
>>Ron Paul got 432,179 votes. Fulani got only 217,219.
>>How is that "almost as many"?
>
>Close enough, considering that Ron Paul got not much more than 1% of the votes
>of Dukakis.
Interesting mathematics.
Half as much and "almost as many" are "close enough".
Sounds like some recent budget and tax bills.
>>In fact, since 1976, the Libertarian vote has always been the highest of
>>any other party besides the Demoblican/Replicrat party. In 1980, Ed Clark
>>got MORE THAN 1% (and Marrou will probably beat that percentage).
>>
>>In 1988, the Libertarian candidate got more votes than ALL OTHER 3rd PARTIES
>>PUT TOGETHER! This was also true in 1980.
>
>... if you conveniently omit that John Anderson, an independent candidate, got
>MORE THAN 5%.
I also omitted Carter.
Yes, Anderson was either an independent or a renegade Republican (your call).
He was not a "third-party" candidate.
My statement stands: In 1988, the Libertarian candidate got more votes
than ALL OTHER 3rd PARTIES PUT TOGETHER! This was also true in 1980.
>And the New Alliance Party (what the hell do the stand for anyway ?) is
I don't think even they know the answer to that!
>America's fourth-largest party by any measure.
OK
>Party #2 got almost 100 times
>the vote of party #3. Party #4 got more than four times the vote of party #5.
>Party #3 got about twice the vote of party #4. So it seems reasonable to
>consider the two partys about in the same league of importance.
Interesting Math, again.
You have a weird, non-objective definition of "reasonable".
If the Demoblicans consistently got only half as many votes as the Replicrats,
who got more votes than all other parties put together, would you still say
that the two parties are "about in the same league"?
b...@bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin) BAM [My opinions belong to me only,
Master of the Tripods of Hephaestus. ~~~ and they represent no one else.]
# include discaimers.h+copyright.h ~o~ Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment now!
# delete BUSHLIPS&&SlickWillie /|\ Marrou/Lord in '92. (800) 682-1776
Bruce A. Martin
>jking writes:
>> The American Independents under
>>Wallace were the last third party to win electoral votes...
>
>It must have been a maverick elector, but I notice that the Libertarians
>garnered 1 electoral vote in 1972. So when it's all said and done, at least
>it won't be a shut-out. But mark it down as an error, not an RBI.
Actually, there were 3rd-candidate electoral votes in most of the last
dozen elections. However, Wallace (1968) and Hospers (1972) were the
last ones cast for other than Dem. or Rep. candidates (i.e Bentsen &
Reagan). Also, Wallace was elected as a Dem. many times before running.
Hospers is the only non-D/non-R to get an electoral vote in a few decades.
Jyrki Kuoppala
>My statement stands: In 1988, the Libertarian candidate got more votes
>than ALL OTHER 3rd PARTIES PUT TOGETHER! This was also true in 1980.
_All_ 3rd parties? How come there can be many third parties?
Around here, numbers go:
1
2
3
4
5
6
so if you would order political parties in alphabetical order (as an
example), you would have a first, a second, a third (note! only
one!), a fourth party and so on.
Perhaps you have a different system of numbers?
//Jyrki
Brian Mcbee
>
>>Nancy Lord seems to be picking up a lot of fans in the LP this campaign.
>>I would say she is the odds-on favorite for the presidential nomination
>>next time.
Maybe. I suspect it would be difficult to convince *anyone* to go through
a presidential campaign twice. A few power-mad dempublicans excepted, of
course.
StarWatcher
: bam@bnlux1 (Bruce A. Martin) writes:
: >My statement stands: In 1988, the Libertarian candidate got more votes
: >than ALL OTHER 3rd PARTIES PUT TOGETHER! This was also true in 1980.
:
: _All_ 3rd parties? How come there can be many third parties?
Uncle Webster writes:
: THIRD PARTY, 1. a political party organized as an independent rival of the
: two major parties [....]
Jyrki continues:
: Perhaps you have a different system of numbers?
No. Just a different language. I count 16 third parties that had
candidates running for President in 1988.
--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) "I'm Dan Quayle, who are you?"
Internet: StarW...@uiuc.edu -- D.Q. at a Hardee's
Bitnet: FREE1217@UIUCVMD "I'm your Secret Service agent"
Anonymous: wi5...@wizvax.methuen.ma.us -- the answer he got
UUCP: ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher
A T Furman
>a presidential campaign twice. A few power-mad dempublicans excepted, of
>course.
Compared with what libertarians have gone through to fight police states
(in America 200 years ago, in Eastern Europe recently), risking imprisonment
and death, a presidential campaign can seem downright pleasant.
About the only thing that is truly unbearable, in my opinion, is people
who say "I know that you represent what I believe in, and I know that
Clinton/Bush is a scumbag, but I don't want to waste my vote and let
Bush/Clinton win".
Steven M Casburn
Just out of curiosity, how much time elapsed between the formation of
the Republican party and the election of Abraham Lincoln?
The Republican Party was founded in 1854 from the ruins of the already
well-established Whig Party. Lincoln won in a four-way race in 1860.
--
Steve Casburn (scas...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)
*The* Ohio State University
"New occasions teach new duties; Time makes ancient good uncouth /
They must upward still and onward who would keep abreast of Truth..."
William December Starr
In article <BuI70...@chinet.chi.il.us>,
kate...@chinet.chi.il.us (Vickie of "Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago") said:
> The last extended conversation I got into with a Liberatarian was
> very confusing indeed. Even if I forget the fact that he said at one
> point "I spit in your face" (this was a net exchange) I still can't
> get over the fact that he raged at me because I supported the voting
> system. According to him, Libertarians don't believe in voting. Is
> this true? If so, why is there a Libertarian candidate running?
> It's no wonder the Party gets such a small percentage of the vote
> with such a wacky belief. If it's not true, then I wonder if this
> Libertarian is in any way representative of the party as a whole. If
> so, I shudder. If not, I still wonder why he would say such a
> thing. No, I didn't ask him because I got fed up with him and broke
> off contact.
The person you spoke with may have called himself a Libertarian, but I
don't think he wasn't very representative of the ideology of the
Libertarian Party. (I speak as a rabid small-l civil libertarian who
admires the civil-liberties side of the Libertarian Party but isn't so
sure about the rest of it.)
You have to bear in mind two facts here: (1) all political parties/
organizations/movements have their of (a) lunatic fringies, (b) rude
assholes and (c) both of the above. As much as the party's leaders
and its middle-of-the-road members may wish that they could say a
magic word and make these jerks disappear, they can't. There's just
no mechanism for formally excommunicating someone from a political
party, as the Republicans recently found out with regard to David Duke
and as the Democrats have known for years with regard to "Democrat for
President" Lyndon LaRouche.
Which brings us to point (2): the bigger and more well-known the
political party is, the smaller the overall damage caused to its
reputation by the above-mentioned jackasses and the easier job it has
(usually) of exhibiting plausible deniability and performing damage-
control. Inversely, the smaller and less well-known the party the
harder it is for the mainstream members, party leaders, etc. to get
the word out that no, Joe Blowhard is _not_ an authorized spokesman
for us, no, we _don't_ necessarily agree with some or any of what he's
saying, and even if we did, we'd be a lot more civil about it.
StarWatcher
: I can't even imagine what kind of chaos this country would experience
: if we ever had a Liberatarian president. It would *not* be pretty.
: Luckily I don't think we'll ever have to worry about it.
Yes, people would have to think for themselves, rather than blindly
accepting the actions of our friends in DC. Scary thought, indeed!
--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) "Who cares really? I've always
Internet: StarW...@uiuc.edu told everybody I don't care if
Bitnet: FREE1217@UIUCVMD Danny smoked pot. I think it
Anonymous: apb....@n7kbt.rain.com would have made him a better
UUCP: ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher person really"
--Brett Kimberlin, re. Quayle
Marrou/Lord in '92
Fritz Sands
| As I recall Tonie Nathan was the more
| qualified of the two.
Dr. Hospers was a professor of philosophy. Ms. Nathon was a journalist
sent to cover the convention. This may or may not support your
viewpoint.
Fritz
Philandros
>In article <BuFnr...@acsu.buffalo.edu> sul...@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Philandros) writes:
>>
>> Libertarians have had to learn how to discuss their ideas persuasively
>
How many Libertarians have you talked with?
>
>> I'm not making excuses. I'm just stating reality. I believe that with
>>hard work and smart campaigning, the Libertarian Party will be the next major
>>party. (And it won't be a moment too soon!)
>
>I can't even imagine what kind of chaos this country would experience
>if we ever had a Liberatarian president. It would *not* be pretty.
>Luckily I don't think we'll ever have to worry about it.
>
Uh huh... Would you mind trying to imagine the chaos you are
talking about and share with us what it is. I'm curious to hear what
you think will go wrong.
>The last extended conversation I got into with a Liberatarian was very
>confusing indeed. Even if I forget the fact that he said at one point
>"I spit in your face" (this was a net exchange) I still can't get over
>the fact that he raged at me because I supported the voting system.
>According to him, Libertarians don't believe in voting. Is this true?
Hmmm. No.
There are some people who are philosophically libertarian who have
been heavily influenced by Lysander Spooner, a 19th individualist who
thought that voting protected corrupt government. Many of these
"Spoonerians" refuse to vote on principle. Naturally, they aren't
members of the Libertarian Party. I wonder if your "friend" is one of
these people.
By the way, I am sorry that he raged at you. Almost every
Libertarian that I associate with is very polite and well mannered.
I am sure that there must be rude liberals, conservatives, and moderates
too... First impressions can form one's entire opinion of a group of
people -- an opinion which can be inaccurate. I hope you will give
Libertarians another chance.
>If it's not true, then I wonder if this Libertarian is in
>any way representative of the party as a whole. If so, I shudder.
Sadly, there are a few like him in every state. No, he isn't
"representative" of the party as a whole. Unfortunately for the LP,
people like him tend to be very vocal and give people like you bad
first impressions. Damage has been done, and libertarians concerned
with being pleasant and persuasive, like me, have to pick up the pieces.
>If not, I still wonder why he would say such a thing. No, I didn't
>ask him because I got fed up with him and broke off contact.
You're probably better off. He's just a flake. Don't worry
about him.
>
>Either way, I hope I'm long dead and gone before Libertarians get
>anywhere near the Federal Government.
Which Libertarians? You mean like the rude guy you talked
with? I agree. I hope people like him never get government power.
I'm just glad that I have met wonderful people like Nancy Lord (the
LP's VP candidate) and Norma Segal (an LP Senatorial candidate).
I think you would like them too if you met them. Nancy is very bright
and energetic, a real go-getter. Norma teaches public school in the
Bronx, she really understands the problems that NY is facing and has
great solutions for them.
>
>Vickie
I hope this helps. :^)
Mark
Jack Stecher
confusing indeed. I still can't get over
the fact that he raged at me because I thought it was rude to belch
in public. According to him, Democrats believe this is aristocratic.
Is this true? It's no wonder the Party gets such a small percentage
of the vote with such a wacky belief. If it's not true, then I wonder
if this Democrat is in any way representative of the party as a whole.
If so, I shudder. If not, I still wonder why he would say such a thing.
No, I didn't ask him because I got fed up with him and broke off
contact.
Either way, I hope I'm long dead and gone before Democrats get
anywhere near the Presidency.
Jack Stecher
ste...@atlas.socsci.umn.edu
William H. Gray
|> In article <1992Sep11.1...@inel.gov>, I wrote:
|> | As I recall Tonie Nathan was the more
|> | qualified of the two.
|>
|> Dr. Hospers was a professor of philosophy. Ms. Nathon was a journalist
|> sent to cover the convention. This may or may not support your
|> viewpoint.
Hmmm ... I wonder what the respective records of philosophers and journalists are
in high office. If the "philosopher kings" of Plato's _Rebuplic_ are any indication,
I might prefer the journalists. The nearest thing to such a king that comes to mind
is Marcus Aurelius. I think Dr Hospers would anathemize both flavors. Hard choice.
I still think Marrou/Lord is the best "wasted vote" one can cast; I just wish it
were Lord/Marrou (not that there's the remotest possibility of their election).
Richard Stueven
>Richard Stueven asks:
>
> Just out of curiosity, how much time elapsed between the formation of
> the Republican party and the election of Abraham Lincoln?
>
>The Republican Party was founded in 1854 from the ruins of the already
>well-established Whig Party. Lincoln won in a four-way race in 1860.
So much for that theory... :-)
Matthias Neeracher
>In article <NEERI.92S...@iis.ethz.ch> ne...@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep8.2...@bnlux1.bnl.gov> b...@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin) writes:
>>>
>>>Ron Paul got 432,179 votes. Fulani got only 217,219.
>>>How is that "almost as many"?
>>
>>Close enough, considering that Ron Paul got not much more than 1% of the votes
>>of Dukakis.
>
>Interesting mathematics.
>
>Half as much and "almost as many" are "close enough".
No, a difference of 0.22% of all people voting is close enough. If you prefer
numbers relative to the LP's voters: A difference which is about ONE THIRD of
the fluctuation of the Libertarian Party's vote during the 80ies (>1'000'000 in
'80, 432'000 in '88, how many votes did they get in '84, anyway ?) is close
enough.
>>>In fact, since 1976, the Libertarian vote has always been the highest of
>>>any other party besides the Demoblican/Replicrat party. In 1980, Ed Clark
>>>got MORE THAN 1% (and Marrou will probably beat that percentage).
>>>
>>>In 1988, the Libertarian candidate got more votes than ALL OTHER 3rd PARTIES
>>>PUT TOGETHER! This was also true in 1980.
>>
>>... if you conveniently omit that John Anderson, an independent candidate, got
>>MORE THAN 5%.
>
>I also omitted Carter.
Carter is 2nd party.
>Yes, Anderson was either an independent or a renegade Republican (your call).
>He was not a "third-party" candidate.
>
>My statement stands: In 1988, the Libertarian candidate got more votes
>than ALL OTHER 3rd PARTIES PUT TOGETHER! This was also true in 1980.
He was not a third party candidate in the sense that he was not backed by any
political party, but, like the third party candidates, he was not supported by
any of the two big parties, so I don't think it is entirely correct not to
mention him.
>>Party #2 got almost 100 times
>>the vote of party #3. Party #4 got more than four times the vote of party #5.
>>Party #3 got about twice the vote of party #4. So it seems reasonable to
>>consider the two partys about in the same league of importance.
>
>Interesting Math, again.
>
>You have a weird, non-objective definition of "reasonable".
>
>If the Demoblicans consistently got only half as many votes as the Replicrats,
>who got more votes than all other parties put together, would you still say
>that the two parties are "about in the same league"?
In your scenario, you're leaving out the important factor that there are *much*
larger parties running in the same election. I'll counter it with an equally
distorting scenario:
Suppose A and B would enter a long jump competition against Carl Lewis. Lewis
jumps 8.50m, A reaches 0.85m, and B reaches 0.42m. Would you consider it fair
to say that A and B are about in the same league?
Matthias
-----
Matthias Neeracher ne...@iis.ethz.ch
"There once was an Age of Reason, but we've progressed beyond it."
-- Ayn Rand, _Atlas Shrugged_
Dean Alaska
>In article <1992Sep10.2...@bnlux1.bnl.gov> b...@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin) writes:
>>In article <NEERI.92S...@iis.ethz.ch> ne...@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep8.2...@bnlux1.bnl.gov> b...@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin) writes:
>>>>
>
>>>>In fact, since 1976, the Libertarian vote has always been the highest of
>>>>any other party besides the Demoblican/Replicrat party. In 1980, Ed Clark
>>>>got MORE THAN 1% (and Marrou will probably beat that percentage).
>>>>
candidates have outpolled local LP candidates. Since the Greens believe
that grassroots comes first, they won't have a presidential candidate
for a long time (until the grassroots is solidified), so Marrou is
safe :).
If the two major parties were the LP and the Greens, then people would
have TWO choices for real change.
--
dingo in boulder (de...@vexcel.com)
Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago
>In article <BuI70...@chinet.chi.il.us>, kate...@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago) writes...
>>In article <BuFnr...@acsu.buffalo.edu> sul...@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Philandros) writes:
>>>
>>> Libertarians have had to learn how to discuss their ideas persuasively
>>
>>Not to me they haven't.
>
> How many Libertarians have you talked with?
The one I got into the extended conversation with, but I've been
reading the newsgroups, trying to make sense of it all.
I admit, I was in a bad mood when I posted and that's the wrong time
to post anything. My apologies for being so snippy.
I did receive some informative e-mail and I will read it all very
carefully within the next week (I'll hardly have any time at home
for a few days) and will get back to the people who sent info.
At least, I have the guy who I talked with pegged. He's not a
*real* Libertarian, he's a jerk and he's *not* representative
of Libertarians as a whole.
>>I can't even imagine what kind of chaos this country would experience
>>if we ever had a Liberatarian president. It would *not* be pretty.
>>Luckily I don't think we'll ever have to worry about it.
>>
>
> Uh huh... Would you mind trying to imagine the chaos you are
>talking about and share with us what it is. I'm curious to hear what
>you think will go wrong.
I'll let you know after I read the Party platform. My vague, ill-informed
(thanks to the jerk) ideas I had should not have been the basis of such
a post. I envisioned anarchy, revolution and horror beyond belief.
Those ideas might stick after I'm better informed, and they might not.
Again, I'll let you know.
>>According to him, Libertarians don't believe in voting. Is this true?
>
> Hmmm. No.
>
> There are some people who are philosophically libertarian who have
>been heavily influenced by Lysander Spooner, a 19th individualist who
>thought that voting protected corrupt government. Many of these
>"Spoonerians" refuse to vote on principle. Naturally, they aren't
>members of the Libertarian Party. I wonder if your "friend" is one of
>these people.
That sounds like him alright! He's not my friend, no way.
> By the way, I am sorry that he raged at you. Almost every
>Libertarian that I associate with is very polite and well mannered.
>I am sure that there must be rude liberals, conservatives, and moderates
>too... First impressions can form one's entire opinion of a group of
>people -- an opinion which can be inaccurate. I hope you will give
>Libertarians another chance.
Yes, I will. The people, anyway. I have yet to decide about the Party.
> I hope this helps. :^)
Thanks.
Vickie
>
>Mark
Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago
:-)
We'll find out in November if you're still alive or not. Please post and
let us all know, ok? Thanks!
Vickie
"Kill, for god forgives.../You should be certain to kill/Bush never lies...
Kill without feeling.../For the United Nations will clear the path"
Astrid Hadad
>
>Jack Stecher
>ste...@atlas.socsci.umn.edu
Kathy Beatty
: The last extended conversation I got into with a Democrat was very
If you are a representative of the intellectual capacity of Republicans (and
I think you may be, given the intellectually bankrupt nature of the Republican
Platform this year), it is absolutely imperative for us to remove you bozos
from positions of power. Can you spell "potatoe?"
Kathy
Dave Martin
} Either way, I hope I'm long dead and gone before Democrats get
} anywhere near the Presidency.
Guess you've got a bit under four months, then. <grin>
Seriously, It's amazing how divided we have allowed ourselves to become.
This two-party system is tearing the nation in half with finger-pointing and
name-calling over which candidate a person chooses to support and the party
that candidate is a member of. We have been maneuvered into two corners, and
now blindly follow where the parties lead -- "Democrats are liberal anti-
family gay-loving feminist socialists", "Republicans are white conservative
male gay-bashing rich elitists and television evangelists". While there may
be some truth to these sentiments, they can't be indicative of all members
of the respective parties. It is possible for Republicans and Democrats to
get along and work together as PEOPLE (witness the relief efforts in Florida
and Louisiana -- and Hawaii -- by volunteers and neighbors who help others
without care for party affilliation). It is possible for a great president
or congress member or *whatever* to come from either party, or even from
the void betwixt the two.
Just be glad that it's not a race between Dan Quayle and Teddy Kennedy. We'd
all be voting for the other side... <grin>
- -
- Dave Martin - Geochemical & Environmental Research Group, Texas A&M -
- DAVE@GERGA[GERGO,GERGI].TAMU.EDU - BRO...@TAMVXOCN.BITNET - AOL:DBM -
- -
Bruce A. Martin
>|> ...
>|> The maverick elector was Roger McBride, ...
>
>More arcana-- Mr McBride is a direct descendant of Laura Ingalls Wilder (author of
>the "Little House" series).
Sorry to quibble, but-
Roger MacBride was not a "direct descendent" but an "intellectually adopted"
one. (My term, but I'm trying to be brief here.) I think it was her daughter
(granddaughter?) who took Roger "under her wing", but there was no blood or
legal relation.
Later, he produced the television series based on her books.
>On the subject of Tonie Nathan, who as Mr Lee correctly points out was the first
>woman to receive an electoral vote: arguably the Libertarians had their ticket
>backwards then and have it backwards now. As I recall Tonie Nathan was the more
>qualified of the two.
Here, I must disagree strongly.
Tonie Nathan was and is a wonderful person (despite the fact that she is a
journalist. ;-) She is intellegent, sincere, and effective and probably would
have made a good President. (Certainly a better one than Nixon or McGovern.)
However, Professor John Hospers is at least as knowledgeable about the workings
of government, and he is unquestionably one of the most knowledgeable advocates
of libertarianism -- since he is, to some extent, one of the principal developers
of that philosophy!
Let's not argue. They were both well suited, and all libertarians owe both
an enormous debt of gratitude. I won't even point bother to point out that
either one is far better qualified than Bushlips, SlickWillie, Alfred E. Neuman,
or the ecoterrorist; so is Mickey Mouse.
>Presently, Dr (JD, MD, take your pick) Lord may be the
>most qualified candidate running for anything (if you don't count incumbency as
>a qualification).
I'm not going to fall into the trap of knocking Andre (who has become a very
effective campaigner, and who was an MIT graduate and a sucessful engineering
manager in earlier years). Yes, I agree Nancy Lord is terrific! She campaigned
here on Long Island and was VERY IMPRESSIVE. (I posted a short article about her
visit on "alt.politics.marrou"; I'd be glad to email or repost it on request.)
Without taking anything away from the pioneers like Hospers, Nathan, MacBride,
etc. nor from those who "pushed the envelope", like Ed Clark, it is good to
see that we are coming into the age of the professional. No, not the
professional politician, but the candidates who have the skills to wage
a serious campaign and run a professional operation, like Ron Paul,
Andre Marrou, and certainly Nancy Lord. This kind of determination,
experience, and professional competence is needed to take the LP
into the next phase of becoming a serious major party. It is one
of the few encouraging things about the American political landscape.
Jack Stecher
>ste...@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (Jack Stecher) writes:
>: The last extended conversation I got into with a Democrat was very
>: confusing indeed. I still can't get over
>: the fact that he raged at me because I thought it was rude to belch
>: in public. According to him, Democrats believe this is aristocratic.
>: Is this true? It's no wonder the Party gets such a small percentage
>: of the vote with such a wacky belief. If it's not true, then I wonder
>: if this Democrat is in any way representative of the party as a whole.
>: If so, I shudder. If not, I still wonder why he would say such a thing.
>: No, I didn't ask him because I got fed up with him and broke off
>: contact.
>:
>: anywhere near the Presidency.
>:
>If you are a representative of the intellectual capacity of Republicans (and
>I think you may be, given the intellectually bankrupt nature of the Republican
>Platform this year), it is absolutely imperative for us to remove you bozos
>from positions of power. Can you spell "potatoe?"
>
>
>Kathy
Sheesh.
My above post was clearly based on Vicki's diatribe;
I merely substituted the word `Democrat' where she had used `Libertarian'.
Okay, I changed the alleged circumstances as well. But the point was
to object to Vicki's logic.
The basic flaw, I believe, is shown by the following example:
(a) I heard that Kathy is sexually confused, in matters
involving goats.
(b) If so, I can understand why she seldom is invited to
the zoo.
(c) If not, I still wonder why anyone would spread such a
rumor.
(d) Either way, I hope I am long gone before Kathy gets anywhere
near any pets of mine.
True, I could have given an example regarding Republicans, perhaps objecting
that the last extended conversation I had with a Republican was confusing
because he raged when I objected to vomiting at dinner parties. I could
have had my fictitious Republican insist that vomiting at dinner parties has
a long, proud tradition, going back to the Romans. Then I might conclude
that whether this person represented Republicans or not, his statement makes
me dread Republican electoral victories.
The reason I chose the Democrats was that they're the one's with electoral
difficulties at the Presidential level, and this is being posted to news
groups concerning various Presidential candidates.
By the way, I will withhold conjecture on whether, had I posted on
Republicans, the responses would have been as strident and humorless.
Jack Stecher
ste...@atlas.socsci.umn.edu
David Veal
kate...@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago) writes:
>
>In article <BuFnr...@acsu.buffalo.edu> sul...@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Philandrs) writes:
>>
>> Libertarians have had to learn how to discuss their ideas persuasively
>
>Not to me they haven't.
>
>> I'm not making excuses. I'm just stating reality. I believe that with
>>hard work and smart campaigning, the Libertarian Party will be the next major
>>party. (And it won't be a moment too soon!)
>
>I can't even imagine what kind of chaos this country would experience
>if we ever had a Liberatarian president. It would *not* be pretty.
>Luckily I don't think we'll ever have to worry about it.
Unless there was a Libertarian legislature, something even further
off, if ever, not much would happen. A Libertarian President would
like be one of those "weak" Presidents they teach about in history
books. Not push his power beyond the Constitutional limits.
That is sort of the point, you know.
>The last extended conversation I got into with a Liberatarian was very
>confusing indeed. Even if I forget the fact that he said at one point
>"I spit in your face" (this was a net exchange) I still can't get over
>the fact that he raged at me because I supported the voting system.
There are people like this of every stripe and political
persuasion. To the best of my knowledge the Libertarian party
(which should be distinguished from libertarians (little l)) does
not advocate doing away with the voting system. (But then, I'm
not actually a member, so I may be mis-informed.)
Please, though, don't assume that this sort of insulting
attitude is inherent in liberatrian philosophy.
>According to him, Libertarians don't believe in voting. Is this true?
Sounds more like an anarchist than a Libertarian. Every other
Libertarian I've met have been pretty dead-set on working within
the system to produce change.
>If so, why is there a Libertarian candidate running? It's no wonder
>the Party gets such a small percentage of the vote with such a wacky
>belief.
>If it's not true, then I wonder if this Libertarian is in
>any way representative of the party as a whole.
A couple of points. First, again, Libertarian and libertarian
can be two entirely different thing, just like Democract (the Party)
and democrat (denoting a belief in a political system) are two different
things.
Also, before assuming his views have anything at all to do with the
Libertarian party *ask* them, or at least find out if he is in any way
associated with the Libertarians. (There are a lot of "Republicans"
and "Democrats" out there that give their parties a bad name, even
though they have no affiliation with those parties other than calling
themselves that.)
>If so, I shudder.
>If not, I still wonder why he would say such a thing. No, I didn't
>ask him because I got fed up with him and broke off contact.
>
>Either way, I hope I'm long dead and gone before Libertarians get
>anywhere near the Federal Government.
All I can suggest is you listen to others, hopefully more reasonable,
people rather than make your decision based on one rude poster.
========================================================================
| David Veal PA14...@utkvm1.utk.edu |
| University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
========================================================================
Kathy Beatty
Obviously, you can't spell "potatoe," Jack.
Kathy
Steve Brinich
>>In article <10SEP199...@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>, lip...@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes...
>>>
>>>The Libertarian Party has been around for over twenty years. Isn't that
>>>enough time to get started?
>
>the Republican party and the election of Abraham Lincoln?
>
If memory serves, about six years. Of course, this was before the creation
of the current Establishment-protection firewall system and a time of great
political upheaval, so the Republicans had better conditions for starting a
new party.
Lyford Beverage
I think you must have missed the point of this post. This is a paraphrase of a
previous post written by someone criticizing Libertarians in this way. Replace
"Democrat" with "Libertarian" and you would see what the original post said.
:):):) You see, it's a joke.
Chris Prael
More important, the Republican party was built in the ashes of the Whig
party. One could go so far as to say that the Republican party was really
the Whig party with a new name and a change in leadership. The roots of
the Whig and Republican parties are in the mercatile curture of the
north-east, just as the roots of the Democratic party are in the
agrarian cultures of the south-east (yes the plural is intentional).
So, there is no parallel between the founding of the Republican Party
and the founding of the Libertarian Party.
Chris Prael
Bob Bickford
Sounds to me like you met an anarchist who was calling himself a
Libertarian, for reasons I wouldn't even attempt to guess at.
Mainstream Libertarians recognize the limitations of voting (it's
wrong to have a vote on who to eat for dinner, for example) but are
otherwise not "opposed" to voting.
I suggest that you read our Party Program instead of paying attention
to rude people like that. I can email you a copy if you like.
--
Robert Bickford r...@well.sf.ca.us
Vice-Chair, Libertarian Party /-------------------------------------\
of Marin County (CA) | Don't Blame Me: I Voted Libertarian |
\-------------------------------------/
Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago
>
>Sounds to me like you met an anarchist who was calling himself a
>Libertarian, for reasons I wouldn't even attempt to guess at.
>Mainstream Libertarians recognize the limitations of voting (it's
>wrong to have a vote on who to eat for dinner, for example) but are
>otherwise not "opposed" to voting.
>
>I suggest that you read our Party Program instead of paying attention
>to rude people like that. I can email you a copy if you like.
Thank you, but someone has already sent me a copy. I will be honest and
say that I haven't had time to read through it thoroughly yet, but I
will.
Vickie