Begrudging Another Battle of Ballot-Boxing

[kgregglv]

Begrudging Another Battle of Ballot-Boxing

by Kenneth R. Gregg

A lot of highly-motivated and principled people have put an incredible amount of hard work and money into getting thousands to voting booths for Libertarian Party (LP) and Republican Liberty Caucus (RLC) candidates when in most, certainly in all non-local, elections, there was no realistic prospect of election. The numbers show it and these friends of liberty should be justly proud of it. There may even be a state-wide candidate or two who received a majority of votes somewhere, although I have yet to hear of any. There will most certainly be a few local offices filled by some open, out-of-the-closet, libertarian who will be touted as the latest poster-child for the LP or RLC, allowing them to point and proclaim, "Yes, You See! We've won again!" The totals may be lower, the popularity of the Great Libertarian Elect may not have been noticed as well as the last campaign, but it sure felt good to see that candidate gallop to the victory circle with the flowers, didn't it? I even had a twinge of pride for a moment. A fellow-libertarian won! Even if it was only for garbage-collector or animal control.

But did we?

Over the last thirty-five years, libertarians have been pouring scarce resources, our labor, finances and heart, into such campaigns, and the result has not weathered the test of time. The state is stronger than ever, engaging in futile wars without a thought about the U.S. Constitution, growing like a cancerous tumor metastasizing in every possible direction. The individual states have increased in power and influence, with state taxes, regulations, controls, prohibitions and the like. Local municipalities have grown with financial budgets the size which can only be compared to nations abroad; and even the invention and massive growth of "quasi-municipalities" such as Home Owner Associations has occurred without individual citizens' recourse to civil liberties and rights.

Has either the LP or RLC stopped this growth? Has either group even slowed the process? Not that anyone can see.

When John Hospers arrived at the Los Angeles Airport from the first Libertarian Party Convention in Colorado, June, 1972, I was there waiting for a friend of mine arriving on the same flight from the same convention. When I saw Dr. Hospers (we had met previously at a USC Conference), I asked him if he had seen my friend, and then asked him what fool had received the LP Convention nomination as their presidential candidate. He looked at me somewhat oddly and mumbled to me as he passed on. I discovered later that he was the Grand Elector. My opinion has yet to change about the consequences of the LP. It is an exercise in tomfoolery.

The only options, outside of third-parties, as I have been told time and time again, are working within major parties or the dreaded non-participation alternative: non-voting, to which the old canard is tossed--"if you don't vote you have no right to complain!"

Well, I have tried working within the regular parties and found it wanting. As I initiated my own process of discovery about politics after discovering the libertarianism of Paine, Chodorov and Rand, I quickly became Area Coordinator for a group of Young Republican clubs (campus and community) for the Southeastern section of Los Angeles County and worked with YRs and the upper levels of the Republican Party in L.A. County, both elected and appointed. It didn't take long to notice a significant difference in attitude between the two groups: the individual members wanted freedom. They wanted the government off of their backs and out of their pockets. That was what the GOP meant to them. The goals of the leadership was another thing altogether. They wanted funds, services, and the influence which more and more active supporters were to provide for them. The ultimate goal was the accumulation of power in their own hands and in their control, and they wanted me to be part of it. Party politics is a racket and it didn't take long to discover this. I considered moving further up the political ladder but I was more constituted for freedom than authority. I quit. I would neither be a controller nor one of the controlled. For some, it would have been a dream come true--money, power, and more power. Not for me.

I then began working with the "Peace and Freedom" party in California, but saw power-politics almost immediately. I came to the realization that corruption was inherent in the political process, and left politicking forever. Third-party politics left a sour taste in me.

That left me with the last option, the anti-ballot.

I found, upon reflection, it isn't strictly nonvoting, but rather voting in the marketplace as opposed to participating in ballot-boxing. In the marketplace, your choices and decisions are unanimously made. You and another party agree on a purchase price and sales price. You make the trade. That's it.

In politics, your vote publicly acknowledges that the question at issue can be rightfully decided by majority vote, and you tacitly agree to the consequences, whatever they may be. If you participate in voting for prohibition of marijuana, or for an immoral war, you have acknowledged the justice of the decision-process as well as the outcome. It may have been one vote short of unanimity or one less than a majority, it's your acceptance of the process which provides it with legitimacy.

In effect, this is a recognition, not of the "if you don't vote you have no right to complain", but of its inverse: "if you vote, you have no right to complain"--a point which politicians, in their attempt to push their civic religion upon you, fail to mention.

If we play a game of chance with set rules and you win goodies from me, there is no reason for me to object, for you have played by the rules. Likewise, if I win, you have no objection (being a non-cheater myself, of course!). That the way it's played. If you decide to play and I don't want to, that's another matter. If you take my goodies from me, proclaiming you are playing the game and I'm not, then of course I have a right to object! And I will, too!

The political vote may be for a particular agenda, like a proposition or referendum, or for a person, which is more unpredictable in its outcome. When you vote for a particular issue, then it is presumed the agenda will proceed once the ballots are tallied and the agenda agreed upon. A person in an election has an immediate vote, yes or no, whether they attain power or not. If the vote is no, assuming a yes or no, up or down, choice, then that person has not gained the office of power and will have no control over you. However, the voting process in a representative democracy such as in the U.S., is not as simple as that. There will be a choice of multiple candidates, or parties, upon which you are to choose. Once one person or party is chosen, then they are in power until another vote takes place and sends them away. This leaves you without control over the matters which The Chosen One can decide upon.

Unlike the marketplace, where the purchase of goods and services is definite and specific, The Chosen One can do pretty much what he wants to do until re-election comes back around. Whereas the marketplace operates constantly throughout the year, The Chosen One has no such restrictions, save for ballot-boxing day. We're not mind-readers, and we will never know the intent or plans hiding in any person's brain, especially someone in politics.

But what if The Chosen One is a libertarian, you ask? What if The Chosen One is part of an elite corps of libertarians who have made a pact with each other to toe the libertarian line, sing the libertarian song and salute the libertarian flag? What if he is a member of the Libertarian Party?

Hey, libertarians are great people and I love being around them! I love socializing with fellow libertarians and think the world of them (some of my best friends are..., well, you know). But the Libertarian Party can only go so far and no more in promoting libertarianism. Libertarians are human, and political institutions direct thoughts and energies toward specific goals; not only because it is political power which is sought, but because it is the prospect of obtaining power which directs the energies of the LP. Indeed, even the whiff of a chance of a possibility of attaining power will completely cloud men's minds.

Politics is the Great Moral Compromise, and political institutions, in order to attain power, must follow the dictates of moral compromise. Regardless of the personal morality of any individual in power, once having obtained the reins of power, power can and must be used. The effort to seek office leads one in giving up ones principles because we do not live in a libertarian world. Some people want the state to provide one service; others prefer another, each person's moral values will come into conflict with another's and some form of compromise must occur. That's politics. Each service requires the use of force, if for no other reason than to receive taxes which maintain the instrumentalities of the state. The stronger a state becomes, the more taxes it requires; the more taxes required, the more force needed to enforce the dictates of the state. The cycle of abuse is inherent in the state, and proclamations about limiting the power of government will do little to alleviate this matter.

Agents of the state use the fact that many vote as evidence they are legitimate representatives. They need this legitimacy if their actions are to be viewed as acceptable by the general populace. It being discovered long ago that so long as the proportion of the populace which holds the state in favor increases, the fewer resources a state needs to use in order to keep the rest under control. That is, the greater legitimacy a state has, the less it needs to use violence against any single person or faction. A state which continually uses violence to achieve its ends would soon be seen for exactly what it was: a criminal ring.

Where does this lead the LP? In order to become successful, it must limit its own conscience and principles to fewer and fewer ideals. If it doesn't, it will fail to collect an ever-growing number of votes. If a member of the LP were ever elected, you would still never know what he was going to vote for in office. He has been elected, not to represent the LP, but to represent the needs of his electorate--and they will be very demanding of him--both the citizens and the special interests who have provided the financial support for his election. The opportunities offered, the reputation among his all-important peers, and his admiring interest groupies will turn him in a direction which he may never have considered before.

In supporting the political anti-vote, I'm not going to proclaim the non-voting public are of a single mind about this because there are many reasons for not ballot-boxing. Some may refrain from the voting booth because they dislike taking the time out for such a wasted effort. Some just may have forgotten about it. The reasons go on and on. I can only speak for myself, and encourage others to understand those reasons. At the same time, however, I am continually voting in the marketplace for products, services, and even ideas! And encouraging others to do the same--and educating them about the virtues of the freedom philosophy and the problems inherent in statism.

Now I often hear all about voting as self-defense. It usually goes something like this: "A vote for the LP is not only a vote for the reduction of the state and its violence, it's an act of self-defense. If I vote to reduce the initiation of aggression, I am not engaging in any act of violence to any degree whatsoever."

Aren't you foolish to turn down the use of the ballot-box? You may even recognize it destroys morality and is pervasive in our society. So many people have used it that you are truly tempted to use it yourself. If others do it, it must be OK. Countless others have, some more successful than most others. Certainly the incentives are there, and it becomes easier each time the ballot-box is used. You're just being civic-minded, that's all.

Ballot-boxing is a process whereby one gives consent to being governed by another. Voting is the most common form of legitimization. It fulfills the purpose of political legitimization because one has tacitly and publicly accepted the principle that those who play the game must accept the outcome, no matter whether you are on the winning or losing side. Why do politicians plead that everyone's civic duty is to get out and vote? It is because voting is recognized as public legitimization of the political process. You have committed yourself to being governed. Through ballot-boxing you have accepted the process of statism as a way of life and proclaimed for all to hear you are part of the ruled. Through ballot-boxing you have sanctioned not only your own victimhood, but of others as well. You have tacitly accepted and publicly informed your family, friends and communicants your primary recourse is political, and you must hire this third party, the state, to inflict violence on others. You have announced to the world, “I must engage the engines of the state to bulldoze a path through all who are in my way!!” This is self-defense? This is not aggression? Who has paid for the ballot booth? Who has directed the state to go forth and prosper! You, my friend. Taxpayers have paid for the process, agents of the state rely upon it and claim it for themselves, and are more than happy to have you involved with them.

There are boundaries to self-defense, a proportionality that limits one's actions from harming the innocent while protecting yourself, and sustaining injury to no others than the perpetrator from whom you need safety. You are responsible for any harm you may do to the innocent, even while engaging in self-defense. Ballot-boxing is a path best avoided, for it is fraught with many dangers in the pursuit of said self-defense. It is a weapon which does not stop on command and is akin to fighting an opponent carrying a stick with an atom bomb—yes, that stops the opponent, but it also maims or kills any nearby and leaves a deadly residue for many years to come. This is a point all-too often ignored.

Ballot-boxing enables statism and gives it the drive and power to continue. People line up to use the ballot booth for the satisfaction of their own dream and desire by giving indefinite power to those who are more than willing to use it for far more. The voting public is not clean of the consequent use of power, for by such voting, each endorses the statism under which he lives. By the act of voting, each is saying: "It's right and proper for some, acting in the name of the state, to pass laws and to use violence to compel obedience to those laws if they are not obeyed." Each, through the process of voting, sanctions the violence used by agents of the state. Each voter assumes the right to appoint a political guardian over other human beings.

Our social realm succeeds because we vote constantly in the marketplace for the goods and services which we need and desire. There is no plunder in our profit, only the produce of willing hands and hearts which we purchase and sell with the coin of the realm. The social world advances with every refinement of choice, every act of profit, recompensing each for the products and services which are placed in the hands of others within the marketplace. We perfect our needs and desires through this repetitive compensation of others for their needs and desires. This social vote is far more productive, more powerful than a vote in a ballot-box. This is freedom; the rewards are greater than the state can put into anyone's hands. Each step of discovery of another market alternative to some violent occurrence (whether by the hands of the state or by a different criminal ring) takes us closer to freedom and further from harm. This is the cycle of progress.

Take the next step to freedom, my friend. Leave politics behind.

39029.8799537037

http://classicalliberalism.blogspot.com/up...Ken1-762731.JPG

Kenneth R. Gregg (send him mail) writes from Las Vegas where dreams, sometimes, come true. He blogs at CLASSical Liberalism, Spencer Heath, Charles T. Sprading and at Liberty & Power

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ken,

You make a compelling case for not voting. I think the following is a very important point.

In effect, this is a recognition, not of the "if you don't vote you have no right to complain", but of its inverse: "if you vote, you have no right to complain"--a point which politicians, in their attempt to push their civic religion upon you, fail to mention.

With politics being what they are, we are struck in a situation on voting of damned if you do and damned if you don't.

In Brazil, where I lived for over 30 years, voting is compulsory. This is not as bad as it sounds because the obligation is basically a formality more than anything else. There are many loopholes. (The Brazilian way is to have many laws and not obey any of them when it suits them.) The one thing Brazilian politicians fear above all is a blank vote--these are tallied along with the rest. A high margin of blank votes means that the winner in the election will be targeted and dogged by the press and most of his power trafficking monkeyshines will be blocked by his opponents. He will not be able to claim sanction of the people without being hooted down in public. He basically becomes a lame duck.

I haven't seen blank votes used in American politics. This is different than not voting. It is a declaration of "none of the above are approved."

It might be a good idea to campaign for something like that as a compromise when the candidates are particularly bad.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Ken and Michael; I remain convinced that the way to work in electoral politics is with ballot questions. Ballot questions were successful. Even in places were they failed they can succed in getting ideas in the public area. The anti-affirmative intivative in Michigan was successful. Everyone in the state establishment was against but it still passed. I think as people work on these ballot questions they will meet like-minded individuals. I would suggest that people who could establish reputations as activists on some ballot question that some of these individuals can be put forward as candidates for public office. Lets not abandon political action but let's make it effective.

[sjw]

I haven't seen blank votes used in American politics. This is different than not voting. It is a declaration of "none of the above are approved."

Now that would be nice.

Is Ken an anarchist?

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

From what I have read, Ken is a libertarian with anarchistic leanings. But he seems extremely reasonable.

I don't agree that one should simply walk off the field and just let politics grow among the power-mongers. Obviously they will come knocking on your door with more and more rights abuses as they gain more and more power.

But Ken presented such a thorough analysis of what voting means other than just choosing one candidate over another that I find this to be very valuable in thinking about what to do when voting time comes around. For example, here in Objectivism-land there was a great deal of discussion about this candidate or that, but in practical terms, the result of either is about the same. Recipients of entitlements is about the only difference I have seen in many.

So Ken would argue that in these cases, focus on your own life and you will do the world and yourself a lot more good than spending the precious moments of your life in the service of a power-monger. I fully agree with him to that extent.

I enjoyed this essay a lot.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

This was a very thorough and interesting article....

The only thing I can think of is that there are times when a candidate is just so bloody rotten I will vote against him. That simple. And if you don't, and they win, you think about what you didn't do, and how it might have mattered if you and everyone like you did vote.

Bob Taft in OH. The worst governor in the U.S. It was misery and we finally got rid of him. ALMOST ANYBODY WOULD BE BETTER THAN BOB TAFT. I regret not voting in that election, if only because it would have been one more vote against that worthless schmuck.

At least Strickland is a businessman. Sheesh!

Ken Blackwell and his fundamentalist cronies... he started off strong, and would have won if people didn't get with the mojo. (Of course, what no one dare mentions around OH but something I put some stock in is that there were plenty of hoe-dads that no effing ways was going to vote fer a n****r governor, Bobby..(spits tobacco juice).

Ohio is really getting to be a Nazi state, and voting here, anymore, is more like a last-ditch survival thing...something to be done grimly, and with low expectations.

Edited November 10, 2006 by Rich Engle

[kgregglv]

Micheal said:

In Brazil, where I lived for over 30 years, voting is compulsory. This is not as bad as it sounds because the obligation is basically a formality more than anything else. There are many loopholes. (The Brazilian way is to have many laws and not obey any of them when it suits them.) The one thing Brazilian politicians fear above all is a blank vote--these are tallied along with the rest. A high margin of blank votes means that the winner in the election will be targeted and dogged by the press and most of his power trafficking monkeyshines will be blocked by his opponents. He will not be able to claim sanction of the people without being hooted down in public. He basically becomes a lame duck.

I haven't seen blank votes used in American politics. This is different than not voting. It is a declaration of "none of the above are approved."

It might be a good idea to campaign for something like that as a compromise when the candidates are particularly bad.

Micheal,

I reside in Nevada where "None of The Above" (NOTA) was added to the ballot some years ago. Typically, it receives a larger vote than any third-party candidate and sometimes receives the second-largest vote. Regrettably it has no real influence on the voting process and is largely ignored. Most non-voters here simply don't vote, rather than register a NOTA. I would expect "blank voting" to be common in situations like Brazil's process with mantatory voting.

Chris said:

I remain convinced that the way to work in electoral politics is with ballot questions. Ballot questions were successful. Even in places were they failed they can succed in getting ideas in the public area. The anti-affirmative intivative in Michigan was successful. Everyone in the state establishment was against but it still passed. I think as people work on these ballot questions they will meet like-minded individuals. I would suggest that people who could establish reputations as activists on some ballot question that some of these individuals can be put forward as candidates for public office...

Chris,

In this day of the internet, there are better ways for like-minded people to contact each other. Certainly Objectivist Living is an example of this!

I originally thought much the same as you are expressing, but a review of the history of propositions and initiatives (initiative and referendum, I&R) as they are structured in the U.S. does not leave me particularly optimistic. I once did a paper analyzing the history of the ballot process in California from its inception onward (should dig it out, refine it and publish it sometime-it's quite an interesting history). It is far easier for special interest groups to use I&Rs to gain particular political advantages than it is for a democratic populist group to reduce regulations and increase freedom. Even when local groups use I&Rs, it is far more likely that in the long run, the results will be less freedom than otherwise. A good source is Richard J. Ellis' Democratic Delusions: The Initiative Process in America (Laurence KS: The University Press of Kansas; 2002. 260 pp.)

Shayne asked:

Is Ken an anarchist?

If I knew precisely what you mean by "anarchist", I could give you a clearer response, Shayne. I generally regard myself as a classical liberal, but that is a very broad term and consider myself in the more radical wing of classical liberalism. I do identify, politically speaking, with people like Thomas Hodgskin, Spencer Heath, Robert LeFevre, George H. Smith and Wendy McElroy, but I think only a couple of them would call themselves "anarchist." I think that I'm at that point where minarchist and anarchist hits, but couldn't give you a better description.

Part of the reason why I am less concerned about labels is that I've spent nearly two decades doing family mediation (domestic relations) and have seen legal process from the standpoint of the individual. I've seen what judges and the courts do, and don't regard justice as having much to do with the reality of our justice system. And the laws which people must follow were once set on a local level where individuals have the greatest effect on the creation of the laws that they must follow. Now, the U.S. legal system has become increasingly federalized and micromanaged on the state and federal level. I know that many objectivists seem to believe that one law should be universally applicable in some "One-World" sense (maybe by the U.N.?), but that is the reality of a dictatorship on a massive scale, not the applicable rules for a free society which respects individual rights.

Michael said:

So Ken would argue that in these cases, focus on your own life and you will do the world and yourself a lot more good than spending the precious moments of your life in the service of a power-monger. I fully agree with him to that extent.

I enjoyed this essay a lot.

Absolutely! As objectivists, our selfish concern is for our own life and of those close to us. We should look for better ways of protecting ourselves and defending ourselves than relying upon those with little or no concern for freedom, personal responsibility, and happiness. And we should be ready to shake off support for those institutions which do us no good, whether it be the LP, GOP or the state.

Thank you for your kind comment, Michael!

Rich said:

This was a very thorough and interesting article....

The only thing I can think of is that there are times when a candidate is just so bloody rotten I will vote against him. That simple. And if you don't, and they win, you think about what you didn't do, and how it might have mattered if you and everyone like you did vote.

Thank you, Rich!

Acting from anger does not always get what you want. Remember "'brer rabbit and the patch". "brer bear goes further and further into the patch until he's trapped and can't get out. All he wanted was a 'brer rabbit snack and thought he was too smart for 'brer rabbit. This is what happens with us. We become so invested in our anger and in using politics to even the score that we have forgotten our intent--freedom.

I think this is what has happened with the LPers. Many have invested their lives in a failed venture, and don't realize (or don't want to realize) that there is less freedom now than when they began their venture. It's a good time to reevaluate the process--and move on to something more productive.

Best to you all!

[Rich Engle]

I've been threatening to burn my LP party card for years. This year might be it. So very disappointed...

[kgregglv]

I've been threatening to burn my LP party card for years. This year might be it. So very disappointed...

Rich,

Don't think of it as a disappointment, think of it as something that has weighed heavily upon you. I suspect that you are going to be more relieved than you realize. You were invested in something that didn't help you, and you have the chance to be rid of it, once and for all.

Cheers!

[Barbara Branden]

Ken, I voted for Ronald Reagan, and when I walked out of the polling booth, I felt I was walking on air. I had heard the magnificent speech he gave for Barry Goldwater sixteen years before, and I had said to a friend: "When do I get to vote for him for President?" And I was not disappointed in Reagan. Yes, he was not perfect, but I had not expected him to be. No, he did not do everything I would have wished him to do, but I had not expected him to. I recognised that politics is the art of the possible, that Reagan lived in this world, not in some impossible Utopia of the future, and that he had to make compromises on lesser issues in order to accomplish his more important purposes. And when the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union collapsed, I thought that I would never have forgiven myself had I not voted for Reagan -- twice -- (I'd still be voting for him if I could) --in the name of a purity that, had I and others considered it more important than reality, could well have resulted in atomic war wirh the Soviets. The problems of sanction, of power, of the unpredictability of candidates that you cite, all are real; but so are atom bombs.

No, I don't think Objectivists and libertarians who voted for Libertarian candidates should be proud of themselves. I have to look up the specifics, but I read that their votes, taken from Republicans, may well have handed control of Congress to Nancy Pelosi, Murtha, and the Democrats.

I voted for George Bush in the last presidential election -- not as happily as I voted for Reagan -- but because I consider terrorism the greatest danger facing the world today, and Bush deals with it with more courage and understanding than any other politician -- except one. That one, as I understand him to date, is Rudy Guiliani, and I hope to vote for him in 2008. I live in this messy, complicated, often confusing country, filled with uncertainties and compromise, with courage and cowardice, with principles and pragmatism, that we call the United States. I may have to get my hands dirty in the process, but whatever I can do to save this country that I love from disaster, I shall do.

Barbara

[Chris Grieb]

Barbara; One of my greatest regrets is I that I don't vote for Ronald Reagan. I voted for the LP candidates both times. I would still defend my vote in 1980. I regret badly my vote in 1984. I must say the more I find out about Reagan the more impressed I am. Read his letters and the scripts for radio program and you see a man who was a thinker. I still get a thrill when I hear " Tear down this wall". I love the fact he had to keep fighting with the State department to keep that statement into his speech. Barbara I must say election night 1980 I was still happy.

[kgregglv]

Barbara and Chris,

I certainly agree. Ronald Reagan was a remarkable person, and was proud to work for him in California when he was governor. He was a great speaker, but even more charismatic on a personal level than he was on the podium. As I am sure you are well aware, people like him are few and far between. It may be a long time before we see the likes of him. He worked well with everyone and managed to work with a long-entrenched Democrat control in California. He was a good man; an opinion I still hold. My last political act was to work for Barry Goldwater, Jr's campaign to get elected in California (successful), mainly due to my respect for his father.

Several of my old buddies went on to become part of Reagan's administration--one is still a congressman in Orange County, CA. Many of my friends of that time went on to become part of his successor's ("Duke" Dukmejian) administration instead, and I had a close view of California politics. I also learned much of what had gone on during Reagan's gubernatorial administration as well from my friends. I worked with one of the Reagan "Kitchen Cabinet" members afterward (in a nonpolitical position) and he was quite open with me.

I did not particularly care for much of Reagan's Presidential administration, as there was little in the way of reducing federal power that had been accomplished during that time, and the federal government growth actually increased during that time. I did like the minimalist approach to foreign policy. Outside of the Grenada invasion, which could be argued was an effort to keep our military in fighting order than an actual war (Grenada was barely a nation and more akin to an old, dusty Carribean community), and an incursion in Lebanon (he backtracked quickly on that one), he was more an isolationist than a Wilsonian internationalist like Bush II.

I know that many of us had hoped that Bush Il II would follow in his footsteps, but his administration has done so much damage that it may not be possible to ever find a "frugal" government for yet another generation. On foreign policy I just have no regard for his policy of invasion in Afghanistan and the invasion in Iraq--which has opened up into a near world war in the islamic countries against the Christian west. Neither action addressed the problem of terrorism. Nor does bombing madrasses (islamic schools) in the middle east do anything but increase the likelihood of terrorist acts. Bush has no respect for the rights of people in these countries. These people are not terrorists, even though they don't think the same way that we do. There are terrorist-wannabes there and terrorists, but our actions do not clearly demonstrate in the court of public opinion that we are considerate of the lives and property of others.

Barbara, I doubt that the LP handed control of both houses to the democratic party. The LP votes would not have necessarily gone to the GOP. Most likely, most would have gone to non-involvement, the Greens or some alternate party, and would have been irrelevant to the vote totals.

[Barbara Branden]

Ken, this appeared on Real Clear Politics. (By "Libertarian," he means both party members and non-party people):

"The Libertarian Effect

Posted by ROSS KAMINSKY

In one closely watched Congressional race (Sodrel v Hill, IN-9) and two critical Senate races (Missouri and Montana), the Republican candidate was defeated by fewer votes than the Libertarian candidate received.

[Note: the last data I could find on the Missouri race still had two of the 3746 precincts to report, so it is possible that statement isn't true for Missouri, but if it is not true it is still very close and does not diminish my point.]

In other words, in these two critical Senate races and if the Republican had gotten the Libertarian's votes, the Republican would have won."

I agree that some of these votes would not have gone to Republicans, but if one includes libertarians who are not LP members, as the poster does, it might have turned the tide.

(This reminds me of conversation I had with the owner of a delicatessan in New York when Ford was running against Carter. Over my macaroni salad, I said to him, "Have you voted?" "No," he answered. "Aren't you going to?" 'Well," he said, "I'm waiting to see if it's a tie. If it is, I'll vote.")

I'm glad we agree about the kind of man Ronald Reagan was. And I can't argue with you about Bush's record on domestic policy.But about the war, I'd like us to agree to disagree. I've had so many arguments about it for so long and with so many people, that the thought of once again diving into the same discussion, with the likelihod that no one's mind will be changed, makes me wish that politics had never been invented (which I'm rather inclined to wish in any event). I don't doubt that you feel the same way.

Barbara

[Chris Grieb]

Barbara; Thanks for the story about the NYC deli owner. I think the next time someone asks me if I voted I'll tell them if it's a tie then I'll vote.

[Barbara Branden]

A report from the Libertarian Party: "Over the weekend, our executive director, Shane Cory, told me a story from last week in which a reporter called him for comment on our election results. The reporter stated that in Montana our U.S. Senate Candidate, Stan Jones, beat the margin and it can be said that the Libertarian Party was responsible for the Republicans losing the Senate. "

Barbara

[kgregglv]

Barbara said:

I'm glad we agree about the kind of man Ronald Reagan was. And I can't argue with you about Bush's record on domestic policy.But about the war, I'd like us to agree to disagree. I've had so many arguments about it for so long and with so many people, that the thought of once again diving into the same discussion, with the likelihod that no one's mind will be changed, makes me wish that politics had never been invented (which I'm rather inclined to wish in any event). I don't doubt that you feel the same way.

Oh gosh, Barbara, that's fine. After the Vietnam foolishness ended, the last thing I ever wanted to do was talk about another war, and never expected anyone in politics of any party to engage in any invasion akin to that war. I sincerely hope that war will never be an issue again.

I suspect that we can never know for certain whether a third party of a minor stripe like the LP had enough votes to overturn an election with the GOP. I would expect that if the leading figures in the GOP knew that it was the case, the GOP would actively and handily destroy the LP. For the GOP, it would be like smashing a gnat with a sledgehammer. My experience in politics tells me it would be easy to do. My own training was with some of the "old boys" in the Nixon camp who knew what dirty politics was. The LP wouldn't know what hit them.

[Judith]

From the time I registered to vote, I never voted anything but straight Libertarian. I didn't care for either the Republicans or the Democrats. It didn't really seem to matter who won -- I sort of vaguely preferred Republicans to Democrats, but they were the slightly lesser of two very definite evils, and I decided I'd vote for who I REALLY wanted or, if no Libertarians were running, I wouldn't vote at all.

All that changed on September 11. In November of 2004, I went to the polls and cast my first votes for Republican candidates ever. This year I went and did the same. Now it matters.

The Libertarian Party lost my loyalty when they came out as less than strong on the war on terror. To me, anything less than a hawkish position is unacceptable.

One thing I will say in favor of having Libertarian Party candidates on the ballot is that when they have a strong showing, it encourages the Republicans to incorporate some of their positions into the Republican platform. Not all Republicans are Bible-thumping evangelicals. In fact, I've seen Bush himself answer downright evasively during a press conference when asked what he's going to do to please the religious right base of the party. A number of Republicans and conservatives are atheists/agnostics/freethinkers, and a number of Republicans are libertarians, and both are getting more vocal in the conservative publications. Having the LP turn out a respectable number of votes encourages the Republicans to take these voters seriously and add more libertarian planks to their own platform.

Judith

[kiaer.ts]

I have a few comments on party registration that some posters may not be aware of, depending especially upon their locality of registration.

During the first Clinton campaign, while I was living in New York City (where I still reside) my employer wished to have us all register and vote for Bill Clinton because, get this, he had promissed, as his first act as president, to sign an exceutive order ending the prohibition against homosexuals in the U.S. military.

I registered as independent, and voted for Ross Perot, who was almost kept off the ballot in NY by Dem & GOP machinations. My district then was nearly 95% Spanish speaking, all the ballot workers spoke Spanish, few English. No problem. In 1996 I went to vote in the primary for Buchanan, who was expected to lose, but for the mere reason that Dole had done all he could to keep Buchanan off the ballot. I was surprised, when I showed up to vote, that since I was registered as independent I was not entitled to vote in any primary. NY State has closed primaries. This means that only people registered as a member of a party can vote in that party's elections, even though those elections are held at State expense. I was shocked. I had learned in high school in New Jersey (which has open primaries) that this practice had ended in the Dark Ages with the progressive reforms of the end of the 1800's.

Evidently New York had never left the dark ages. After the machinations of the 1996 election, it was decided that the putative Republican and Democrat candidates for primaries would not face such stringent petition requirements, and candidates for statewide office would not have to seek separate ballot access in each disctrict. And, generously, it was decided that "alternative" parties would automatically get a place on the ballot if they drew at least 5% of the vote in a state wide race. (That is, we do have an establishment of party in this country, if not of religion.) Perot did well enough in each election to keep the Independence party (which, confusingly, was different from being registered as an independent) on the ballot for the 2000 election. I considered registering as a Democrat, so as to vote for that Bill Bradley the ex-basketball player ex-senator over Algor, as I enjoyed hearing Rush Limbaugh call him. I registered Independence to help keep the party on the ballot state wide. I knew I would not vote for McCain or Bush or any of the Democrats. By this time I was in an Irish-Jewish-Puerto Rican district and when I showed up to vote, even though I had received my voter-registration card, found out that my "name was not on the rolls" and that I would have to vote provisional ballot. I did so, filling out a #2 pencilled questionaire, which was not able to be sealed. I asked a creature out of Starnesville where the ballo box was to place my votes. The creature stretched out and seized my ballot, and threw it on a folding chair in the corner - that time honored "folding chair of provisional ballots." I asked when the vote would be submitted, would it be sealed. I was told by Jabba the Hut that the poll wrkers knew "how to handle things."

No doubt they did, becasue in 2004 when I went to vote for Bush who would lose the state anyway (and I should have been registered given my 2000 ballot) it turned out I was not on the ballot again. In otherwords my prior ballot had been "suppressed" - no doubt by Bush's cronies in that 99% Democratic district. I did not bother to vote provisionally that time.

I did not vote in this last midterm. I vote by merit. I might vote for Ed Koch or Ronald Reagan or Daniel Patrick Moynihan. I had no one to vote for in this election. I am happy for the most part about the results. The Repblicans have shed some dead weight and vice and the Democrats will now have to show themselves for what they are. The 2008 election will be something indeed, if Manhattan still stands.

Ted Keer, 19 November, 2006, NYC

[Barbara Branden]

Judith: "Having the LP turn out a respectable number of votes encourages the Republicans to take these voters seriously and add more libertarian planks to their own platform."

The problem with this is that the LP is now heavily tilted against the war on terror, and in favor of abandoning Afghanistan and Iraq -- and against any intervention in Iran; and a great many members are pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel. There is no guarantee that it is the LP's domestic policies, rather than its foreign policies, that the Republicans would feel encouraged to adopt. Even Ron Paul is opposed to Bush's foreign policy, besides being opposed to abortion.

Barbara

[Barbara Branden]

Ted: "the Democrats will now have to show themselves for what they are."

But -- God help us all -- we know what they are. They are Nancy Pelosi and Algor and Hillary and Kerry and Teddy Kennedy and Rangel (did you read that he wants the draft reinstated?) and Murtha.

I almost voted for Ross Porot. I was about to be sent out to make speeches for him when the fiasco over his daughter's wedding occurred, which effectively soured me on him. I, like you, would happily vote for Moynihan, even Ed Koch -- but I would rather vote for Teddy Kennedy or Kerry, even for McCain, whom I distrust, than for Buchanan; I'll never vote for a racist.

I knew that New York politics was corrupt -- I lived there for a number of years -- but your story of voter registration is a horror. But it's nevertheless a great city with a wonderful spirit, and it will still stand in 2008. . . .unless the Democrats have their way.

Barbara

[kiaer.ts]

Rangel (did you read that he wants the draft reinstated?) and Murtha.

Yes, Rangel has been my Congressman (I've moved around) and Schumer & Clinton are my Senators. As I work for a unionized Corporation we get to hear Rangel rant regularly. He's obscene. The Republicans did not put up a serious fight against her in 2000, the Republican candidate was backstabbed and undercut at every turn by the party. At one point, when I called campaign headquarters to point out that two days after an alleged true on "attack adds" the Clinton campaign was still running them, the Republican staffer said that it didn't matter. Then to whom did it matter?

but I would rather vote for Teddy Kennedy or Kerry, even for McCain, whom I distrust, than for Buchanan; I'll never vote for a racist.

The question at that point was really a protest. Dole had done everything he could to keep two minor challengers, Buchanan and another, off the ballot in the Primary. I already intended to vote Perot in the General election, as I had always despised Dole. Buchanan was poling at 10% support, so I knew that by voting for him I would not be electing him. And, in any case, Perot or Clinton would have beaten him in the general election. Nonetheless, I was still registeresd "independent" and so could not vote at all. That seems like an unconstitutional establishment of party to me. I am surprised closed elections at taxpayer expense are even allowed.

I knew that New York politics was corrupt -- I lived there for a number of years -- but your story of voter registration is a horror. But it's nevertheless a great city with a wonderful spirit, and it will still stand in 2008. . . .unless the Democrats have their way.

I don't mind being in the city, where I work on Vesey & West at the N/W edge of the WTC pit. But when I drive past in NJ at the point on the turnpike where I would normally see the Towers, I shake with rage. (Usually I am the passenger.) But I wanted to bring up the voting irregularities, given the fact that it is Democrtaic volunteers that run the polling at most precincts, with perhaps one GOP token observer, If anyone is going to engage in third-party politics, they should look at poll fraud (and the need for a paper trail over this electronic nonsense) as very important issues. I expect that my vote was discarded twice leading to my choice not to bother to cast a provisional ballot the third time. I will probably register Dem or GOP for 2008 depending on which primary candidate I most want not to win.

Ted Keer, NYC

[kgregglv]

It's interesting to consider political corruption as an element of any city residence. Not solely with regard to the local voting procedures. During the lobbying process on almost any financial matter, there are always some special interest groups that are compensated, admittedly in often rather strange ways, which gain special benefits. Today's laws, particularly on a local city/county level, or even on the federal level, are complicated with numerous exceptions, special options, grafts, corruptions, giveaways to one politician's backers or another.

Some political machines are terribly corrupt and cause great harm to the individual resident. Those are cities which it would be smart to avoid--particularly if you are outspoken about such matters.

Others have a different vantage-point regarding corruption--it helps local businesses to protect themselves from the vices and crimes of the local city fathers, the cops, various regulatory boards, etc., etc. Here in Las Vegas, it's called "juice". "Juice" gets you a sympathetic ear with a prominent lawyer with connections, the Mayor or this board or that one. If you are particularly friendly and loose with your cash-box--with this campaign fund, or that offer for a job opening later on, it's the accepted way of doing things--and the doors open for you with smiles on every face.

It's not pretty, and I've watched local politics long enough to know who is part of the "old boy" network (also known as the "Mormon mafia" here because of the city's roots in the regional mormon culture) and who isn't. New residents are shocked and surprised when they come up against the way things are done, but if you live here long enough, you find that local politics, which is where politics begins, has nothing to do with principled action.

This is part of the reality of small-town politics and cities which, like Las Vegas with over a million in population now, have rapidly grown but not grown out of the small-town politics. Many issues come to the fore which become useful to local politicians, not the least being environmentalism and conserving local wildlife. It gives the local politicians leverage in controlling the community.

Not that a conservation or environmental issue stop a project politically desired. Let me give you an example. Las Vegas used eminent domain to take a small nature preserve and turn it into a golf course. The nature preserve was given to the city of Las Vegas, along with an annual stipend, with the proviso that it remain in a "natural state". Once the land was gifted to the city, judges and local attorneys took the issue of the land grant to court (the local court, btw). It was next to a courthouse and the ones who primarily use the golf course are judges and attorneys in their off-hours, lunches, breaks, or when they are supposedly working on other projects (it's also less than a mile from where I live in Las Vegas).

Having worked as a mediator (domestic relations) for years with numerous local attorneys and judges has given me something of an ear for the goings-on in the local courthouses and legislative bodies. Also, Nevada, being relatively small, means that I have had contact with more politicians that I particularly care for.

Anyway, I'll get off of my soap-box for now. I do want to point out that corruption is a natural element in city/county politics. Kind of reminds me of the old comment made by Frank Chodorov about the McCarthy anti-communist crusade to get communists out of the federal government: "You can't get rid of them--It's their natural breeding ground!" Same way with corruption in local politics.

Cheers!

Edited November 24, 2006 by Kenneth R Gregg