Josh Sigurdson: Gary Johnson EXPOSED – Sabotage, Lies & Corruption

110 thoughts on “Josh Sigurdson: Gary Johnson EXPOSED – Sabotage, Lies & Corruption

  1. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I haven’t watched more than the first few minutes and most likely won’t have a chance to watch it tonight tonight. I generally don’t have a problem with Josh Sigurdson’s reporting,, though.

  2. Kevin S Bjornson

    Excellent documentary, thank you.

    The whole thing is credible, with one small qualification. Candidates with similar views, tend to siphon from each other. If they had attacked Trump personally, and with credibility, Trump would have been hurt. Their speaking favorably of Hillary the person, probably helped her. Though if they had spoken favorably of Trump policies, that would have hurt Trump.

    Weiss speaks of a conflict within the LP, between purists and moderates. I see things a little different. There seems to be great confusion over what constitutes libertarian purity. Someone might be pure but wrong (from a libertarian viewpoint).

    “aggression” and “intervention” are not at all synonymous. Intervention is aggression when siding with the aggressor, but not aggression when siding with the victim of aggression.

    Further, liberty does not mean, giving a third finger salute to traditional values; either by supporting government intervention against those who do not wish to associate with non-traditional people; or by calling on government to actively sanction all lifestyles.

  3. Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

    And the year is 2017. Some of you may have noticed that the Libertarian Party has failed to produce any results for freedom. It does not work because the least ethical are always most motivated to steal power and money who end up in control. The Economist has published some useful articles, beginning in 2004, on psychopathy which lead to the conclusion the cooperative efforts of these neurologically flawed individuals are responsible for the present meltdown and related problems. Fascinating reading.

    In 1979 the Kochs, using Ed Crane and his cabal of wanna be PAID campaign people and luminaries at CATO orchestrated a campaign that makes the two Johnson Campaigns look like amateur hour.

    In 1979 non-Libertarians were paid to show up and vote from states without full delegations, promises were made along with threats. How many decades does it take you to learn?

    The Kochs kept trying to own their own political machine and finally succeeded with the Tea Party, not that it was their idea originally. The idea was born with the Ron Paul event in December of 2007 in Boston organized by Walter Burien. The Tea Party is now fracturing, thank goodness. The only question remaining is what stupid con-artist with a small time, non-satellite TV, grasping campaign manager will Libertarians choose next?

    I delivered the bad news to Roger MacBride, who had encouraged Hunscher to run. Bill Hunscher was a real entrepreneur who had started three successful high tech businesses. He was committed to going local and supporting local candidates, just like Roger had.

    But Roger is never mentioned or remembered other than his electoral vote for John Hospers. That remains the only such vote the LP ever received. Roger campaigned in his own plane, No Force One and worked hard to encourage local folks to use their initiative and work for freedom.

    Roger gave more to the LP in terms of PR and positioning than all of the think-tanks together and placed the LP for enacting real change in 1979. It did not happen. Here is why.

    The Kochs are fascists. Crane is not a Libertarian, he has always been a libertine who used the Party to find women to screw and for the money. He told Gail Lightfoot and Karl Jack Bray he was going to DC to get rich in 1979 during the National Convention. It was a rare, honest moment for Ed.

    Johnson could have been on satellite TV on his own Life Free Network with his own uplink TV crews. He refused. He also refused to debate the other third party candidates.

    Given the evidence I suggest you take up tatting. At least you will end up with your money intact and something of potential value in hand.

  4. D. Frank Robinson

    Libertarians are not as susceptible to a cult of personality presidential candidate as many people, but too many Libertarians are still too susceptible. The LP should deemphasize the presidential ticket and emphasize Congressional and state legislative candidates. A presidential candidate who demands a secret campaign contract with the LNC should be disqualified.

  5. Jim

    That’s the first time I’ve heard anyone suggest Johnson was being funded by Democrats prior to the convention as an explanation for why his campaign was taking in far more money than theirs. The more likely explanation is that he was tapping his 2012 donor list and the other candidates didn’t have a donor list built on a previous nationwide campaign.

  6. Tony From Long Island

    Where is Andy with a mile long post about how awful Johnson / Weld was? I’m disappointed

  7. Andy

    I met Judd Weiss at the national convention in Orlando, and I spoke to him for a few minutes. He seemed to be an insightful. I think that he’s generally correct with his analysis here (I disagree with a few things he said, like putting Weld on top of the ticket because he does not come off as awkward as Johnson in interviews. I think that this would have been a bad idea, because even though he was not as awkward in interviews as Johnson, he came off as being even less libertarian than Johnson did, which is pretty bad, plus Weld is more directly connected to the political establishment than Johnson is.).

    Everyone reading this should keep in mind that I was a Gary Johnson skeptic from day one. I was ahead of the curve when it came to seeing through Gary Johnson, and once again, I have been proven to have been correct. I was also one of the early skeptics of Bob Barr and Wayne Root, and of course, I called it from the beginning on Bill Weld. Go through my record, and you’ll see that I have been correct about a whole bunch of other things as well.

  8. Andy

    Melinda Pillsbury-Foster said: “Crane is not a Libertarian, he has always been a libertine who used the Party to find women to screw and for the money.”

    Being that the Libertarian Party has a male super-majority, the LP is not the best place to pursue this endeavor.

    The LP has attracted con-men/hucksters/ripoff artists over the years, but in the grand scheme of politics, the LP is small potatoes. There are plenty of political groups out there that have lots more money than the Libertarian Party, which means lots more money to steal, or to spend inefficiently to line certain people’s pockets.

  9. Tony From Long island

    Andy, the fact that there’s someone else who shares your opinion about GJ does not make you “proven right.”

  10. Tony From Long island

    What exactly was the point of this? Does Weiss think this makes him look positive in the eyes of the party?

    He was the running mate of a nut-job and now wants to attack someone who is pretty much retired. What does he expect to accomplish?

  11. Andy

    I’m glad that Judd made this video. The truth needs to come out to encourage members of the Libertarian Party to stop nominating candidates like Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, and for those the party who actually care about libertarian principles, to be on the lookout for future non-libertarian hucksters and scampaigns.

  12. Marc Montoni

    I really don’t know what Judd’s point is either.

    However…

    I am kind of hoping Johnson’s fawning acolytes — many of whom were among the cadre who chose Barr (and Johnson in 2012), will take this video and other evidence to finally decide their picks have been less than stellar and that it’s time for them to make better decisions or move the on.

    We don’t need any more seat-stealing do-nothing one-day attendees who haven’t made any long-term investments in the LP to show up at the national convention.

    Earn the fucking seat and don’t steal mine.

  13. Andy

    Marc Montoni said: “Earn the fucking seat and don’t steal mine.”

    How do you suggest that delegates earn their seats?

  14. Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

    Andy commented on my post regarding the history of the LP. Clearly, he is relatively new. In the first decade there were far more women activists. In Los Angeles activists were fairly balanced. But the issues for women were ignored and denigrated. Not surprisingly, most left.
    I know from where I speak. I was Southern Vice Chair for CA for six terms, funded an office, and ran 14 LP campaigns. The LP has died because it is corrupt, incompetent in real politics, and filled with opportunists, eager to do exactly what Johnson did.
    But keep watching. The free market does work and we are preparing a demonstration.

  15. Thomas L. Knapp

    “How do you suggest that delegates earn their seats?”

    Making sure they do so is the job of the state parties, and there’s a logistical problem involved:

    There are simply way too many delegate seats available. Most states — especially states that are distant from wherever the convention is in a particular year — have trouble filling their seats and pretty much end up taking anyone who wants to be a delegate.

    And then many of them STILL arrive at the convention with partial delegations and make their seats available to people who come from other states. While I personally appreciate that, as I’ve served in delegations from other states myself, what it means is:

    We need to re-do delegate allocation and reduce it by about half. My proposed formula:

    Each state party gets delegate seats equivalent to that state’s electoral votes. Two “base” delegates plus one per US House district. That’s 538 delegates total instead of the more than 1,000 we had in Orlando.

    With half as many seats available, maybe more states will be able not just to fill their seats, but to exercise discretion on who they fill those seats with. The gal who put in 400 hours on party work last year gets to be a delegate. The guy who showed up at the state convention and that was the first time anyone ever saw him, well, he can try again in two years after he shows he’s actually invested in the party’s success.

  16. paulie

    Melinda, and anyone else,

    Please do not attach non-working URLs to your name in comments. If you don’t want to add a working site, simply leave that box blank when submitting your comment and your name will show up without a link.

  17. paulie

    Andy commented on my post regarding the history of the LP. Clearly, he is relatively new. In the first decade there were far more women activists.

    It depends on what you mean by new. Andy has been in the LP for over 20 years.

    Interesting datum that there were a lot more women activists in the LP in its first decade. In another thread, Robert Capozzi, who, if I’m not mistaken, was also involved with the LP at some point in its first decade, was trying to claim that there were virtually none at the convention which passed the Statement of Principles. I thought that sounded hard to believe.

  18. Andy

    “Melinda Pillsbury-Foster
    March 13, 2017 at 16:49
    Andy commented on my post regarding the history of the LP. Clearly, he is relatively new.”

    Not unless you consider “relatively new” to mean since July of 1996, which is getting close to 21 years in the party.

  19. Andy

    Paul said: “Interesting datum that there were a lot more women activists in the LP in its first decade.”

    I’d like to see some verifiable confirmation before I’d believe this to be an accurate statement.

  20. paulie

    As she said, she was there and very actively involved at that time. Why do you find it so unbelievable? There are quite a few women at non-partisan student libertarian conferences, for example.

  21. Andy

    “paulie
    March 13, 2017 at 17:18
    As she said, she was there and very actively involved at that time. Why do you find it so unbelievable? There are quite a few women at non-partisan student libertarian conferences, for example.”

    It goes against anything I have witnessed or heard about from others who’ve been involved for a long time, and it goes against any demographic data that is available from surveys that have been conducted. It also goes against a simple perusal of LP donors lists (far more male names than female names on any list I have ever seen), and a simple looking at the crowds in attendance at the meetings/conventions/rallies.

    Some people have a tendency to exaggerate, so I’d like to see some actual verifiable evidence before I buy something that goes against every piece of data I’ve ever seen.

  22. D. Frank Robinson

    So the LP has often nominated a national ticket unacceptable to nearly half of a convention and by election day perhaps a large majority of the LP membership. Is there a plausible remedy the LP could try?

    I appreciate Thomas Knapp’s suggestion, but does anyone have other proposals to change the rules? I am working on my proposal, but want to hear more ideas. Show us what ya got.

  23. dL

    It depends on what you mean by new. Andy has been in the LP for over 20 years.

    an abysmal failure of libertarian education in this instance

  24. Jim

    Andy “Being that the Libertarian Party has a male super-majority….”
    Andy “It goes against anything I have witnessed or heard about from others who’ve been involved for a long time, and it goes against any demographic data that is available from surveys that have been conducted….”

    Are you referring to Ron Paul primary surveys? Because those did skew heavily male. In 2012 most of them were 60% – 75% male and it was worse in 2008. The Republican party skews male, and Paul more so than most Republicans.

    But I just checked 4 Johnson surveys (two from the final week and two from early summer) and they were all in the 53% – 57% range.

  25. Jim

    George Phillies “A spectacular interview.”

    Spectacular in its level of unsubstantiated accusations and rumor mongering.

  26. Jim

    Thomas L. Knapp “There are simply way too many delegate seats available. … We need to re-do delegate allocation and reduce it by about half.”

    The time to do that would have been in 2004, not right after a surge in party interest and activity. The LP may have built a house that was too big at the time, but it’s now rapidly growing into it.

  27. Jim

    D. Frank Robinson “So the LP has often nominated a national ticket unacceptable to nearly half of a convention and by election day perhaps a large majority of the LP membership. Is there a plausible remedy the LP could try?”

    I’d like to see states hold straw polls at state or county conventions and allocate pledged (though non-binding) delegates proportionally based on the results. That could drive up interest, although voting would have to be restricted to members for some length of time. That would make the rank and file members feel like they had more control over the nominee, which hopefully would translate into more support.

  28. Thomas L. Knapp

    Jim,

    “The LP may have built a house that was too big at the time, but it’s now rapidly growing into it.”

    D. Frank Robinson has suggested massive increases in the size of the national legislature, and I happen to think that’s a good idea. But somehow America has managed to get by with 538 presidential electors and 537 national elected officials (435 US Representatives, 100 US Senators, a president and a vice-president). It seems to me that if a nation of 310 million can manage on that many legislators, etc., a party of at most a few tens of thousands can manage on that many delegates.

  29. Andy

    Jim said: “Are you referring to Ron Paul primary surveys? Because those did skew heavily male. In 2012 most of them were 60% – 75% male and it was worse in 2008. The Republican party skews male, and Paul more so than most Republicans.”

    But I just checked 4 Johnson surveys (two from the final week and two from early summer) and they were all in the 53% – 57% range.”

    No, I am referring to every survey that has ever been conducted which I have seen as to the makeup of self identified libertarians. I am also referring to every big “L” Libertarian and small “l” libertarian meeting, convention, or rally that I’ve ever attended, and I have been in the party and movement since 1996, and I’ve attended meetings, conventions, or rallies in California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, Missouri, Illinois, Tennessee, Alabama, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts (so a good sampling of the country).

  30. Andy

    In Search of Libertarians in America

    http://www.prri.org/research/2013-american-values-survey/

    From the article: “According to a newly developed Libertarian Orientation Scale, less than 1-in-10 (7%) Americans are consistent libertarians, and an additional 15% lean libertarian. At the other end of the spectrum, an equal number of Americans are consistent communalists (7%), and an additional 17% lean communalist. A majority (54%) of Americans have a mixed ideological profile, falling in between libertarian and communalist orientations.

    Compared to the general population, libertarians are significantly more likely to be non-Hispanic white, male, and young. Nearly all libertarians are non-Hispanic whites (94%), more than two-thirds (68%) are men, and more than 6-in-10 (62%) are under the age of 50.”

  31. Andy

    Thomas L. Knapp
    March 14, 2017 at 03:22
    Jim,

    ‘The LP may have built a house that was too big at the time, but it’s now rapidly growing into it.’

    D. Frank Robinson has suggested massive increases in the size of the national legislature, and I happen to think that’s a good idea. But somehow America has managed to get by with 538 presidential electors and 537 national elected officials (435 US Representatives, 100 US Senators, a president and a vice-president). It seems to me that if a nation of 310 million can manage on that many legislators, etc., a party of at most a few tens of thousands can manage on that many delegates.”

    If the Libertarian Party really had its act together, people would have to run for delegate seats at state conventions, and there would be actual competition to get those seats, and every seat would be full, but since the party does not have its act together, the delegate seats pretty much go to whoever has paid membership dues and shows up.

    How about some kind of by-laws change that would mandate a longer time frame for having been a Libertarian Party member in order to obtain a delegate seat? This may not be a perfect solution, but it least it would eliminate last minute party jumpers from being seated as delegates.

    I also wonder if there should be some kind of a time extension for party membership for who can be a candidate. This would make it more difficult for people like Bill Weld to be nominated in the future. The flip side of this is that there are people out there who are “libertarian enough” to be a Libertarian Party candidate but who are not members of the Libertarian Party, but of course if these people are really serious about being candidates for the party, they could join the party say a few months prior to nominating conventions rather than joining the party say two or three weeks or less before the nomination takes place at a convention.

  32. dL

    Compared to the general population, libertarians are significantly more likely to be non-Hispanic white, male, and young. Nearly all libertarians are non-Hispanic whites (94%), more than two-thirds (68%) are men, and more than 6-in-10 (62%) are under the age of 50.”

    In the US, demos that are similar to atheist demos. Internationally, of course, those demos don’t hold. In either case. Of course, rather than use that data as a clarion call for white nationalism–which is your apparent way to interpret the data–most would see that as something that needs to be improved on. Certainly for a political party. Remedy this persistent negative side-effect of libertarian-conservative fusionism that has held sway from the latter half of the 20th century,

  33. Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

    Leave the seats empty if the person is not elected during the state’s own convention or only fill from an approved list of alternates.

  34. paulie

    No, I am referring to every survey that has ever been conducted which I have seen as to the makeup of self identified libertarians.

    Not true. You have seen and responded to many others that I have posted here over the years which showed much more balanced support for libertarian views. Also, Melinda was talking about the 1970s and explicitly said that things changed.

  35. paulie

    Leave the seats empty if the person is not elected during the state’s own convention or only fill from an approved list of alternates.

    That would have left me and quite a few people I know left out at any number of conventions. A lot of times travel plans come together at the last minute.

  36. Jim

    Andy “From the article: “According to a newly developed Libertarian Orientation Scale, less than 1-in-10 (7%) Americans are consistent libertarians, and an additional 15% lean libertarian. At the other end of the spectrum, an equal number of Americans are consistent communalists (7%), and an additional 17% lean communalist. A majority (54%) of Americans have a mixed ideological profile, falling in between libertarian and communalist orientations. Compared to the general population, libertarians are significantly more likely to be non-Hispanic white, male, and young. Nearly all libertarians are non-Hispanic whites (94%), more than two-thirds (68%) are men, and more than 6-in-10 (62%) are under the age of 50.”

    Also from your article:

    59% of libertarians oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry
    45% of libertarians identify as Republican
    35% of libertarians support a minimum wage hike
    31% of libertarians favor making it more difficult to access Internet pornography
    29% of libertarians oppose making marijuana usage legal
    80% of libertarian voters say they supported Mitt Romney in the 2012 election
    44% of libertarians have a favorable view of Governor Chris Christie

    Is that consistent with the conventions you have attended?

  37. Andy

    Jim, I agree with you that some of those answers are problems, but the survey is from people who are across the ideological spectrum, and when they mention libertarians, they are including people who lean libertarian, so this includes people who would fall at the low end of the diamond on the Nolan Chart.

  38. Jim

    You’re probably right that they fall generally at the bottom of the Nolan Chart. But the survey was not of Libertarian activists or voters. It was mostly of libertarian leaners within the Republican party.

  39. Andy

    I meant to say people who fall into the low end of the Libertarian quadrant on the Nolan Chart when I mentioned the libertarian leaners above.

  40. paulie

    I doubt most of them fall anywhere in the libertarian quintile at all. MSM and “libertarian Republicans” have convinced way too many people that “libertarian” means far right Republican. A smaller but not insubstantial number of people think it means something along the lines of independent, moderate, or modern “liberal” (progressive). A smaller number of Americans identifies the term with anarcho-socialism, which at least is historically accurate. Some people think it just means legalize pot, regardless of any other issues. There’s a great deal of confusion in “self-identifying” libertarianism.

  41. Andy

    The Libertarian quadrant, and the world of libertarian learners, is a lot bigger than the LP, and it includes people who most of us would not consider to be “real libertarians,” but then again, we are the party that just ran Johnson/Weld and they barely qualify as libertarian leaners, if they qualify at all.

  42. paulie

    The Libertarian quadrant, and the world of libertarian learners, is a lot bigger than the LP, and it includes people who most of us would not consider to be “real libertarians,”

    No doubt. However, that’s still a group with only partial overlap with self-identified libertarians. I don’t believe that anything like 80% of those who would test in the libertarian quintile voted for Romney. In fact, the only scientific random sample of the Nolan quiz/chart that I know of found that African-Americans were more likely than Euro-Americans to test in the libertarian quintile, and African-Americans certainly did not vote for Romney in any significant percentage — one of many examples of how the categories fail to overlap.

  43. Jim

    Thomas L. Knapp “D. Frank Robinson has suggested massive increases in the size of the national legislature, and I happen to think that’s a good idea. But somehow America has managed to get by with 538 presidential electors and 537 national elected officials (435 US Representatives, 100 US Senators, a president and a vice-president). It seems to me that if a nation of 310 million can manage on that many legislators, etc., a party of at most a few tens of thousands can manage on that many delegates.”

    Let’s take the broadest measure of those interested in the the respective parties.

    Presidential votes / delegates who voted at their respective national convention

    Republican
    62,985,106 / 2,472 = 25,479 : 1
    Democrat
    65,853,625 / 4,763 = 13,826 : 1
    Green
    1,457,222 / 286 = 5,095 : 1
    Libertarian
    4,489,233 / 925 = 4,853 : 1
    Constitution
    203,069 / 339.5 = 598 : 1

    That’s not the broadest measure of participation in the selection process, though. And that is my primary concern – I don’t think fewer people ought to be included in the selection process. So let’s look at presidential votes compared to how many people participated in the selection process through primaries and caucuses

    Republican
    62,985,106 / 31,183,841 = 2 : 1
    Democrat
    65,853,625 / 30,633,131 = 2 : 1
    Green*
    1,457,222 / 17,865 = 82 : 1
    Libertarian**
    4,489,233 / 41,481 = 108 : 1
    Constitution***
    203,069 / 1,175 = 173 : 1

    *The Greens had Presidential preference primaries in 35 states, but only the results from 14 are posted on wikipedia.

    **The results from the 6 states that had Libertarian presidential preference primaries listed on wikipedia.

    ***The Results from the 2 states that had CP presidential preference primaries listed on wikipedia.

    I would be fine with cutting the number of delegates in half if every state had a primary, with the results bound and proportionally allocated as 50% of the state’s delegation. The actual delegates could be unpledged. In other words, there could be 1,000 votes for the presidential candidate with 500 coming from the primary results and 500 from the unpledged delegates. The rest of the work (platform, electing officers, etc.) could be left up to the delegates.

    But, I think it’s important to expand the pool of participation, not shrink it. Limiting participation, or the perception of it, leads to accusations of rule by party insiders, which smells of corruption and drives people away from the party. Most people only care about the presidential selection, though, so that’s really the only thing that needs to expand.

  44. Jim

    Andy “The Libertarian quadrant, and the world of libertarian learners, is a lot bigger than the LP, and it includes people who most of us would not consider to be “real libertarians,”…”

    We were only talking about the Libertarian Party, though. The broadest measure for which is Libertarian Party voters. And the surveys from last year were only about 55% male, give or take. We can’t just look at conventions or candidates or party donors because I’m willing to bet pretty much every party in America would skew male. And I don’t think we can include Republicans who lean libertarian as part of the Libertarian Party sphere. As part of the philosophy, maybe. But not as part of the party.

  45. Thomas L. Knapp

    “But, I think it’s important to expand the pool of participation, not shrink it.”

    I agree completely.

    Delegates are, IN THEORY, representing their state parties at the national convention. But IN FACT, the number of delegates is so large that it denies the members of those state parties representation. The delegates are just “anyone who’s interested, and then anyone else we can beg into going” rather than people chosen because they’ve successfully convinced the state party members “I think this, you should send me to do that.”

  46. D. Frank Robinson

    Well, I never thought or intended to imply in the LP Bylaws that national convention delegates were mere automatons of the members in the affiliate parties. The function of the delegates was to use their best judgment on the business put before them. It remains my view that those delegates must be assumed to have been selected because their judgment was respected.

    The only plausible way to assume pure representation is for all members of the LP to assemble in convention and that form of direct democracy is not regarded as practical. Perhaps, one day technology will make it possible. For the time being we must regard delegates independent agents.

    The fact that None of the Above has always been in the Bylaws indicates that individual delegates have individual vetoes in party elections.

    The questions are how to get the most philosophically consistent members to serve as delegates to chose candidates as philosophically consistent from those available. Which means how can the LP attract the most philosophically consistent and persuasive candidates from which the delegates can choose?

    I suggest that making such judgments has become to compressed and time constrained. What was good enough in the early decades has become not good enough in the recent decade or so.

    Thomas Knapp’s proposal serves to open the debate and I thank him for that. There are other possibilities to consider. Let’s hear them. I have a few ideas, but it is important to listen to the members – if the members will speak up.

  47. Tony From Long island

    Jorge Philipe: ” ,. . . . A spectacular interview. . . . ”

    What’s so spectacular about a sour-grapes failed candidate spreading rumors about a guy who’s pretty much retired?

  48. Andy

    “Jim
    March 15, 2017 at 03:24
    Andy ‘The Libertarian quadrant, and the world of libertarian learners, is a lot bigger than the LP, and it includes people who most of us would not consider to be ‘real libertarians,’…’

    ‘We were only talking about the Libertarian Party, though. The broadest measure for which is Libertarian Party voters. And the surveys from last year were only about 55% male, give or take. We can’t just look at conventions or candidates or party donors because I’m willing to bet pretty much every party in America would skew male. And I don’t think we can include Republicans who lean libertarian as part of the Libertarian Party sphere. As part of the philosophy, maybe. But not as part of the party.'”

    Given that the libertarian movement, and the Libertarian Quadrant on the Nolan Chart, are both much larger than the Libertarian Party, I think that it would be better to analyze the entire group, or perhaps to break each group into subdivisions.

    I don’t know where you are coming up with this 55% figure, especially since we have secret ballots in this country. If you are claiming that 45% of the people who voted for Gary Johnson and Bill Weld were women, I’d like to see some data to back this up. Also, keep in mind that Johnson/Weld did not really run on what many of us who are active in the party and movement would actually consider to have been a libertarian platform, as they advocated for gun control, Carbon Taxes, Universal Basic Income, taxpayer funding for abortion, the United Nations, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (a fake “free” trade agreement), plus they called Hillary Clinton a “wonderful public servant,” to name just a few of their deviations from libertarian orthodoxy.

    So IF your assertion is correct, and this brought in more female voters, and I remain skeptical of this claim until you show some kind of verifiable data to back it up, as much as I’d like to see more women in the Libertarian Party, if the party has to sell out its principles to this extent to get them, then we may have to remain a mostly albino sausage festival (as in lots of white males) if we don’t want to end up as the LINO Party (Libertarian In Name Only).

    Also, keep in mind that some of the votes for Libertarian Party candidates are protest votes, as in they are not so much for the candidates or the party or the principles, but rather they are cast as a way of protesting the major party candidates, and given the dynamics of the presidential race last year, there was an increase in the number of protest votes cast for minor party/independent candidates for President. Jill Stein got over 1.4 million votes, and she was only on the ballot in 44 states plus DC, and she was not a famous person, and she did not have lots of money on which to campaign. Evan McMullin jumped in the race at the last minute, and although he had some establishment backing, he only made the ballot in 10 states, and he was not a well known person, yet he still received over 716,000 votes. Constitution Party candidate Darrell Castle ran on a shoe string budget, and he only made the ballot in 24 states, and he still received over 203,000 votes, which is the most raw votes a Constitution Party candidate has ever received for President (and this was the least amount of ballot access that the Constitution Party has had in a presidential election).

    So people voting for Johnson/Weld does not mean that all of these voters were actually libertarians, and some of them may not even qualify as libertarian leaners.

    Also, there is a big difference between joining the Libertarian Party and just voting for a Libertarian Party candidate who is on the ballot. Joining the party generally means that the person has a bit more dedication to the cause (I say generally, due to people like say Bill Weld, who obviously doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the party or the cause, even though he was a candidate for the party).

  49. Andy

    Has anyone here ever been to a Libertarian Party meeting or convention, or some kind of small “l” libertarian meeting/event, where a super-majority of the people there were not males? I have been to many, and I can’t recall any.

  50. Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

    The issue is activism, not years of membership. I had served as a local chairman , done newsletters for two years and managed a petition drive before I was named as a delegate for a national convention. More, actually, outside the formal party Walter K Olson and I had started the first deregulation think-tank. Have you studied the science of electoral politics? What are your credentials for decision-making?
    How many LP campaigns take advantage of, or allow budget for, optimized mailings with additional data fields? We tried to get the Kochers running the Ron Paul Campaign in 07 and they insisted on using the Klugelists the GOP supplied. Not that they were to believed on that, either.

  51. Andy

    Melinda Pillsbury-Foster said: “We tried to get the Kochers running the Ron Paul Campaign in 07 and they insisted on using the Klugelists the GOP supplied.”

    If you are referring to the Koch brothers, they never supported Ron Paul, and they in fact supported his mainstream Republican competition. The Koch brothers did not even support Rand Paul, as they backed the guy he was running against, who was a neo-con, in the Republican US Senate primaries.

    I worked on and closely followed the Ron Paul campaigns of 2007-2008 and 2011-2012, and I can tell you that most of his supporters, and most of his campaign workers, did not come out of traditional Republican ranks.

    The Rand Paul for President campaign did have more mainstream Republican campaign staffers, and this was one of the reasons that it was not as successful as his father’s campaigns.

  52. Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

    True. My own activism began in 1973. I formally left the L:P in 1988 because every presidential campaign focused on raising money, paying salaried and misrepresented the ideas of libertarianism, much the same as Conservatism, agreed on in 1969 – 1971.

    Using the form of a political party was part of the strategy. But making the LP was just a tool, to be disbanded when the job was done. Establishing a ‘Party’ was, absolutely, not to perpetuate any control but to return control to individuals acting in their communities. We agreed all individuals needed access to dispassionate justice and to be accountable for their actions.

    We agreed corporations were not persons in the definition of natural rights but creatures of the State.

    Power corrupts and Absolute Power corrupts absolutely. We did prove that, didn’t we? Thanks to the Koch Folk and others, including Michael Emerling Cloud and many, many more.

    We came from diverse backgrounds to arrive at these agreed principles. When I use the word ‘We’ I mean those with whom I was active. Others might have viewed this differently but I thought were was general, broad, agreement.

    This matters because today it is nearly impossible discern the difference between a NeoCon who calls themselves a Conservative and a fascist.

    And no one has the foggiest what a Conservative really is, thanks to paid operatives like William F. Buckley, Jr, Ronald Reagan, and more.

    No. 95 – April 29 – Will the real Conservative Please Stand?
    http://observationsfrommelindasworld.blogspot.com/2014/10/no-95-april-29-will-real-conservative.html

  53. Just Saying

    “Also, keep in mind that some of the votes for Libertarian Party candidates are protest votes, as in they are not so much for the candidates or the party or the principles, but rather they are cast as a way of protesting the major party candidates, and given the dynamics of the presidential race last year, there was an increase in the number of protest votes cast for minor party/independent candidates for President.” — Andy

    Exactly. Three-quarters of the votes cast for Gary Johnson were merely protest votes from those who couldn’t stomach Clinton or Trump. The same thing was true, albeit to a far lesser degree, of the other third-party candidates, especially since most of them didn’t receive even a scintilla of the media coverage lavished on the flaky and ill-prepared Libertarian candidate.

    Given the widespread disdain for both major-party candidates, Perot-type numbers were certainly possible in 2016. From a strictly third-party perspective, Johnson’s bungled candidacy might have been the greatest missed opportunity in history.

  54. NewFederalist

    “My own activism began in 1973. I formally left the L:P in 1988…” – Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

    Wow! You lasted longer than I did. Dec 1974 until Sep 1986 for me.

  55. Jim

    Andy “Given that the libertarian movement, and the Libertarian Quadrant on the Nolan Chart, are both much larger than the Libertarian Party, I think that it would be better to analyze the entire group, or perhaps to break each group into subdivisions. ”

    …. We were talking about the Libertarian Party. Did you forget? Melinda Pillsbury-Foster said Crane was using *the Party* to pick up women and you said that wasn’t the best place for it because *the Party* had a male super majority. The only evidence to that effect that you have posted is your personal experience at events and a poll where only 12% of the respondents (at best) could be considered part of the Libertarian Party, and even that was likely split with the Constitution Party.

    My assertion is that the broadest definition of the party is its voters and the several polls I checked pegged its male support at around 55%, give or take.

    Andy “I don’t know where you are coming up with this 55% figure, especially since we have secret ballots in this country. If you are claiming that 45% of the people who voted for Gary Johnson and Bill Weld were women, I’d like to see some data to back this up.”

    I told you where I got them. Two polls from the final week and two from early summer. Specifically:
    57% male http://www.investors.com/politics/ibd-tipp-presidential-election-poll/
    57% male http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/07/fox-news-poll-results-11716.html
    57% male http://www.investors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/ibdtipp-Tables_June2016_Posting-1.pdf
    53% male http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2016/05/18/fox-news-poll-2016-national-release-may-18/

    I didn’t say I looked at exit polls. But I can give you those, too.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/exit-polls/
    Johnson got 4% of men and 3% of women. That’s 57% male.

    Andy “keep in mind that some of the votes for Libertarian Party candidates are protest votes, as in they are not so much for the candidates or the party or the principles, but rather they are cast as a way of protesting the major party candidates, and given the dynamics of the presidential race last year, there was an increase in the number of protest votes cast for minor party/independent candidates for President”

    Do you have any evidence that such protest votes weren’t evenly distributed between men and women?

    Andy “So people voting for Johnson/Weld does not mean that all of these voters were actually libertarians, and some of them may not even qualify as libertarian leaners.”

    You’re willing to count a poll where 80% of the respondents claim they support Mitt Romney, but won’t claim a poll where 100% say the support Johnson? I don’t think you’re being rational.

    Andy “Has anyone here ever been to a Libertarian Party meeting or convention, or some kind of small “l” libertarian meeting/event, where a super-majority of the people there were not males? I have been to many, and I can’t recall any.”

    Yes, I have. In 2009/10, in Connecticut, I was in a group called the Independence Caucus. The leadership was about 80% women. It was kind of a Glenn Beck meetup spinoff (which was run by the same women), but the IC included a mix of supporters from Ron Paul’s 2008 campaign. It had a limited government ideology, it interviewed candidates, voted on which ones to endorse, and then helped the candidate’s campaign. I one watched them rip some Republican apart over his support for the Small Business Administration. I was so proud. The only candidate they endorsed that you might have heard of is Peter Schiff, a solid libertarian who was running for US Senate in the Republican primary.

  56. Jim

    Jim “But, I think it’s important to expand the pool of participation, not shrink it.”

    Thomas L. Knapp “I agree completely. Delegates are, IN THEORY, representing their state parties at the national convention. But IN FACT, the number of delegates is so large that it denies the members of those state parties representation. The delegates are just “anyone who’s interested, and then anyone else we can beg into going” rather than people chosen because they’ve successfully convinced the state party members “I think this, you should send me to do that.”

    Cutting the number of delegates in half does not expand the pool of participation, regardless of who they are representing.

  57. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Cutting the number of delegates in half does not expand the pool of participation, regardless of who they are representing.”

    At the party’s current size, more delegates means less participation for each party member, because instead of being able to select delegates who plausibly represent him or her, it’s just begging anyone who can afford a plane ticket to go.

    If there are 10 delegate seats and only six people really qualified by commitment, experience, etc. who want to serve, then each of the four “he was planning a vacation in New Orleans anyway and we managed to talk him into being a delegate” delegates reduces the average party member’s ability to meaningfully participate by choosing truly representative delegates whose judgment he trusts.

    If there are five delegate seats and six qualified applicants for those seats, then the average party member’s ability to meaningfully participate is enhanced because now he gets to pick and choose the BEST representative delegates in his opinion.

    More CAN be better, but it is not NECESSARILY better. When state parties have to beg people to be delegates and then have open slots when they get to the convention, that is the delegate seat market saying “supply of seats is too high versus demand.”

  58. Andy

    Melinda Pillsbury-Foster said: “But making the LP was just a tool, to be disbanded when the job was done. ”

    The end goal of the Libertarian Party is to create a libertarian society, and we are nowhere near close to this, so the Libertarian Party is not close to be “done”. Even if we were to establish a libertarian society, there’d still have to be some kind of organized effort to preserve the libertarian society, and if there is not, then that libertarian society is not likely to remain a libertarian society, which makes the quote from Thomas Jefferson, “The price for liberty is eternal vigilance.” come to mind.

  59. Andy

    Jim said: “You’re willing to count a poll where 80% of the respondents claim they support Mitt Romney, but won’t claim a poll where 100% say the support Johnson? I don’t think you’re being rational.”

    I ALREADY acknowledged that not everyone in the poll was what most of us would call a real libertarian. Voting for Gary Johnson or any other Libertarian Party candidate who is on the ballot, regardless of their merits or demerits, does not automatically make one a libertarian either.

    There are also lots of people out there who have some libertarian leanings, but they may vote for Republicans or even Democrats, or they may not vote at all.

  60. Marc Montoni

    I believe it should be nearly impossible for seat stealers to become delegates.

    State parties have proven beyond a doubt that they are unwilling to send only people who have actually earned their seats. So the evidence is long since in, and now it’s time to try something else.

    I would prefer to have at least two additional filters:

    1) Increase dues. $1,000 or more in donations or in-kind work for/to the national LP since the last national convention.

    2) Substantial contributions of money ($1,000 or more) or time (100 hours, recognized and certified by the state committee) to the state party, since the previous national convention.

    I know some people are unsure of whether they will be able to get the time off or that they can afford to go until the last minute. However I do not believe that is more than a few people and besides I don’t think it’s a sufficient excuse to continue the sloppy way we run convention admission.

    This business where intellectual frauds and opportunists are given the same privilege (as a deeply committed many-hours-a-week activist) to show up at a national convention and decide how the Party will conduct its affairs is complete bullshit.

  61. Andy

    “Marc Montoni
    March 16, 2017 at 11:31
    I believe it should be nearly impossible for seat stealers to become delegates.

    State parties have proven beyond a doubt that they are unwilling to send only people who have actually earned their seats. So the evidence is long since in, and now it’s time to try something else.

    I would prefer to have at least two additional filters:

    1) Increase dues. $1,000 or more in donations or in-kind work for/to the national LP since the last national convention.

    2) Substantial contributions of money ($1,000 or more) or time (100 hours, recognized and certified by the state committee) to the state party, since the previous national convention.”

    Marc, I agree with you that a person ought to have more of a record of commitment to the Libertarian Party and its principles than just filling out an oath (of which they may not understand or agree with, or have even read) and sending in $25 a few weeks before the convention (or as I understand this, even a few days before the convention, or after the convention has started), but I do not like the idea of putting a $1,000 price tag on it. This could price some good people out, especially considering that a person could easily drop $1,000 or more attending a convention, even if they do it on the cheap, depending on where they are traveling from (plus opportunity costs from days they may miss working). $1,000 may not sound like a lot of money for some people, but it is for other other people, and I don’t think that it would be good for the party to price otherwise good people out and become a rich person’s club.

    I do agree with you that volunteer work could be a criteria. Actually, it might even be good to require those that have lots of money to throw around to also do volunteer to help keep out people who think that they buy our party’s nomination without having shown the dedication to the party that doing volunteer work takes.

    Some people may argue that some people are too busy working and making money (along with their family commitments and etc…) to do volunteer work, and that it is easier for them to just make a donation. I could see this argument, but again, if all it takes to get seated as a delegate is to send in a donation, even for a relatively high amount, then this leaves the party’s nomination open to being for sale to whoever can come up with enough money to stack the conventions with delegates who may not have the best interest of the party or the cause in mind.

    Volunteer work could manifest itself in a lot of different ways, from doing office work to gathering petition signatures or voter registrations or signing people up to a Libertarian Party contact list, to handing out party literature at some venue that carries public foot traffic, or manning an outreach table at a fair or festival or college or some other type of event, to engaging in public speaking for the party or cause, to posting videos online that promote the party or cause, to writing letters that mention the party or cause to newspapers or magazines, to posting articles or comments online that promote the party or cause, to etc…

    “I know some people are unsure of whether they will be able to get the time off or that they can afford to go until the last minute. However I do not believe that is more than a few people and besides I don’t think it’s a sufficient excuse to continue the sloppy way we run convention admission.”

    This has been a real problem for me, as due to my schedule and travel, I am often unable to plan to attend things well in advance, and I sometimes don’t even know if I will be able to attend at all until it is close to an event happening.

    “This business where intellectual frauds and opportunists are given the same privilege (as a deeply committed many-hours-a-week activist) to show up at a national convention and decide how the Party will conduct its affairs is complete bullshit.”

    I agree that some steps ought to be taken to prevent, or at least make it more difficult, for some of the things that have happened at the last few national conventions from happening again.

    The fact that it is so easy for charlatans/con-artists/hucksters/hijackers to show up at LP conventions and capture nominations is a sign that the party does not have its act together.

  62. Andy

    “also do volunteer to help keep out people who think that they buy our party’s nomination ”

    Should read, “also do volunteer work to help keep out people who think that they can buy our party’s nomination…”

  63. D. Frank Robinson

    These are points we in the LP meed to think hard about.

    Consider the agenda order of the convention. Would it help to make the presidential nominations the last, or next to last order of business AND only delegates registered on the first day are eligible to vote for the candidates for the nomination?

    Would that do more then just run up the expense of running in carpet-bagger delegates? Elsewhere I note that HRC raised over $330 million for her campaign and could easily have afforded to divert one percent of that ($3 million or even less) to neutralizing the LP by packing the convention with “ringers”. I am not claiming that was done only that it was financially feasible for her to do it. So, even a $1000 price tag on a seat in the convention might work to their advantage if they only needed to purchase a couple of hundred delegates.

  64. George Phillies

    To be a 2020 delegate, you must have been a National party Sustaining member at the start of 2016.

    Of course

    Krooked
    Kampaign
    Konsulting

    could install their plants early at low expense.

  65. George Phillies

    My state party only accepts people who live in our state. Our delegation was a bit small, but there were no real ringers.

  66. Andy

    “D. Frank Robinson
    March 16, 2017 at 13:06
    These are points we in the LP meed to think hard about.

    Consider the agenda order of the convention. Would it help to make the presidential nominations the last, or next to last order of business AND only delegates registered on the first day are eligible to vote for the candidates for the nomination?”

    Some delegates who are good people are not able to attend the entire convention, either because they can’t afford it, or they have other commitments (work, business. school, family, etc…).

    Also, if it were a requirement to attend the entire convention, as a way to weed out plants/ringers/hijackers/con-artists, this could actually backfire, because it means that more of these type of people will vote on party business, as in platform planks, resolutions, LNC seats, Judicial Committee seats, or anything else that gets voted on at a convention.

    “Would that do more then just run up the expense of running in carpet-bagger delegates? Elsewhere I note that HRC raised over $330 million for her campaign and could easily have afforded to divert one percent of that ($3 million or even less) to neutralizing the LP by packing the convention with “ringers”. I am not claiming that was done only that it was financially feasible for her to do it. So, even a $1000 price tag on a seat in the convention might work to their advantage if they only needed to purchase a couple of hundred delegates.”

    Good point. There are plenty of people out there, both in government and outside government, who’d have an interest in sabotaging, or hijacking the the LP. The amount of money that it would take to do this is chump change for some people and/or groups.

    I don’t know where you got the $330 million figure from for Hillary Clinton’s campaign. I heard that her campaign spent over $1 billion. Maybe you mean $330 million spent on winning the primaries. I don’t know if the $1 billion plus figure was just her campaign, or a combination of her campaign and Super PAC money, or what.

    I heard that Donald Trump’s campaign spent over $600 million. Trump already being a well known celebrity prior to running for President meant that he could get by without spending as much as he would have had to have spent if he had not already been so famous.

  67. Andy

    “George Phillies
    March 16, 2017 at 13:13
    To be a 2020 delegate, you must have been a National party Sustaining member at the start of 2016.”

    I assume that this is something you are proposing, unless this is something that has been passed without my knowledge.

  68. D. Frank Robinson

    George, I would presume the LNC has the attendance records from the credentials committee. It might be possible to track who came and who went after the nomination vote.

    BTW, I was a “floating” delegate myself. Paid up member before the convention, but not chosen by Oklahoma to be a delegate. It doesn’t matter to me and I don’t care why. I was able to attend because my more affluent son got me there. So I was seated by the PA delegation. I oppose the idea of super-delegates. The fact I am the co-founder of the LP should not give me any voting privileges that any other member cannot have.

    Any more ideas how we can improve the nomination process?

  69. Jim

    D. Frank Robinson “HRC raised over $330 million for her campaign and could easily have afforded to divert one percent of that ($3 million or even less) to neutralizing the LP by packing the convention with “ringers”. I am not claiming that was done only that it was financially feasible for her to do it. So, even a $1000 price tag on a seat in the convention might work to their advantage if they only needed to purchase a couple of hundred delegates.”

    Some, if not most states with party registration and closed primaries have time commitments before someone can vote in a party primary. They have to be registered with the party 90 or 100 days before the primary.

    Being an LP member for a year to be a delegate seems reasonable. But even that leaves the convention open to hijacking if an opposing candidate knows they will run more than a year in advance. Both Hillary and Trump were planning the day after the 2012 election. It wouldn’t be hard for Hillary or Trump to get a couple hundred people to become LP members a year in advance of the convention and then have them drop big checks on the state parties in exchange for delegate positions.

    But, it would be hard to do that AND get a hundred thousand people to become libertarians, say 100 days in advance to vote in each state preference primary (which means people would have to do it the year before the general election for most primaries.) I still think that’s the way to go. Allocate the primary preference proportionally, distribute the points to the states proportional to membership, and make the sum of that equal to the number of delegates, with each delegate also getting one vote. 500 delegates up for grabs, 500 points from the primary up for grabs, 1,000 points total, and a candidate needs 501 to clinch.

    Concentrating power is a mistake. Decentralization is always a better option.

  70. Jim

    Andy “I ALREADY acknowledged that not everyone in the poll was what most of us would call a real libertarian. Voting for Gary Johnson or any other Libertarian Party candidate who is on the ballot, regardless of their merits or demerits, does not automatically make one a libertarian either. There are also lots of people out there who have some libertarian leanings, but they may vote for Republicans or even Democrats, or they may not vote at all.”

    Voting for Johnson, if nothing else, puts a person in the most distant orbit of the Libertarian Party where it is still possible to associate them with the party at all. And that was the topic of discussion – the Party, not those on the periphery of the philosophy.

  71. Marc Montoni

    After many years of trying to convince my fellow members in VA to tighten up our rules on who could be a delegate, the last couple of delegations were finally required to be all of the following:

    a) Virginia dues-paid members from at least the closing gavel of the state convention,

    b) national dues-paid members from at least the closing gavel of the state convention, and

    c) both resident of and domiciled in Virginia.

    This eliminated carpet bagging delegates. It also eliminated national Johnny-come-latelies.

    It wasn’t perfect [and if you have a majority of LP members who don’t give a shit about carpetbaggers, it never will be perfect] but it eliminated most of the seat stealing.

    All of that aside, I have made a bet with myself that since I moved from VA, what rules the state party had last year governing delegates, will now be eliminated. We shall see.

  72. D. Frank Robinson

    I consider the presidential primary elections mandated by the legislators of the two state-sponsored parties as illegitimate interference in the affairs of other political parties. To the extent legally feasible, financially, the LP should ignore the state-sponsored parties interventions and their manipulative primary elections.

    That is the problem isn’t it?

    Our concern in this context is how to avoid the sabotage inflicted on all other “upstart” parties and the state subsidized candidates for the last 100 years.

  73. Andy

    Marc Montoni said: “c) both resident of and domiciled in Virginia.”

    Marc, what about people who live on the road all or most of the year? There are people who travel all or most of year for work, or who are full time RV’ers, etc…

    What about somebody who has to go to another country for their work or business, or spends a lot of time in another country (due to a lower cost of living, or the climate, or whatever other reason)?

    Taking this to an anal standard could eliminate some good people from being delegates.

  74. Andy

    “D. Frank Robinson
    March 16, 2017 at 14:20
    I consider the presidential primary elections mandated by the legislators of the two state-sponsored parties as illegitimate interference in the affairs of other political parties. To the extent legally feasible, financially, the LP should ignore the state-sponsored parties interventions and their manipulative primary elections.

    That is the problem isn’t it?”

    The results of Libertarian Party presidential primaries (which only some states have) are not binding on national convention delegates.

  75. Andy

    Jim said: “But, it would be hard to do that AND get a hundred thousand people to become libertarians, say 100 days in advance to vote in each state preference primary (which means people would have to do it the year before the general election for most primaries.) I still think that’s the way to go. Allocate the primary preference proportionally, distribute the points to the states proportional to membership, and make the sum of that equal to the number of delegates, with each delegate also getting one vote. 500 delegates up for grabs, 500 points from the primary up for grabs, 1,000 points total, and a candidate needs 501 to clinch.”

    There are a lot of states where the Libertarian Party does not even get a primary.

  76. D. Frank Robinson

    Maybe I am going to rattle some cages when I propose to kick down four walls around our thinking. So far we have a general agreement on the objective – more grassroots participation.

    The LP could do something revolutionarily innovative in choosing our national ticket.

    Suppose the affiliate parties hold a one-day convention in their respective states simultaneously with the national convention. Those simultaneous affiliate party conventions could view the proceedings at national and those delegates only cast their votes along with those of the delegates physically present at the national convention for P and VP candidates. The national delegates would vote on all other business. This appears to me to be technologically feasible today and minimize the cost to members to have a decisive say in selecting the LP national candidates. If implemented, it may be acceptable to also reduce the size of the national convention to 500 or so delegates and lower costs.

    The 2018 LP Convention would give us the time to set this up in the Bylaws and give everyone time to plan for the 2020 campaign for the nomination.

  77. Jim

    Andy “There are a lot of states where the Libertarian Party does not even get a primary.”

    Yes, it would have to be run by the state parties. The Greens had them in 35 states last year and I doubt many of them were run by the government.

  78. George Phillies

    “So far we have a general agreement on the objective – more grassroots participation.”

    Well, no. A fair part of the critique above is that the roots have very little information or experience, so the number of delegates should be cut.

  79. D. Frank Robinson

    Well, then, George, there’s no point in trusting to select them to select delegates either.

    However, with my idea the affiliates would see the convention and have about the same information about the candidates as those in the convention hall.

  80. Jim

    I’m not sure every state could pull it off on the same day. If it worked, that would send a strong message about our organizational ability. How confident are you that every state could make that work on the same day?

  81. D. Frank Robinson

    What to call my notion? The Virtual Primary Plan? Hmmm.

    Anyway, with so much voting power decentralized to the states, it would seem to behoove (how long since you saw that word?) the candidates to be active in the states before the NatCom and inform the people and maybe pull a few gaffs where the fallout is minimal and polish their message.

    Could energize local candidates and get them free media also. The more I consider it, the more I think I need feedback. George Phillies set me off on another track. Thanks, George.

  82. D. Frank Robinson

    Jim, I’m not sure at all what the states could do. That’s why I’m sending up this balloon while we have plenty of time to kick it around. I’m confident that LP members are resourceful within reason.

    Back in ’72 I would have said it will take a damn miracle if the LP survives into the 21st century. Damn miracle slapped me in the face.

  83. paulie

    I know some people are unsure of whether they will be able to get the time off or that they can afford to go until the last minute. However I do not believe that is more than a few people and besides I don’t think it’s a sufficient excuse to continue the sloppy way we run convention admission.

    From my experience it’s more than a few people, and has included myself and many party activists I know many times. I don’t think there’s a problem with too many delegates. Lots of delegates is a good thing and provides better TV optics (and ideally, better fundraising). Artificially limiting the size of the convention will backfire. Think about who is better at organizing to put slates on platform, bylaws, etc. Think about who’s better at getting their people to the floor for early morning votes. Why wouldn’t they also be better at making sure their people have all their ts crossed to pack delegations via state conventions?

  84. paulie

    Any more ideas how we can improve the nomination process?

    Most of what I am seeing proposed here – pretty much all of it, unless I missed something – would IMO make things worse, not better.

  85. paulie

    But, it would be hard to do that AND get a hundred thousand people to become libertarians, say 100 days in advance to vote in each state preference primary (which means people would have to do it the year before the general election for most primaries.) I still think that’s the way to go. Allocate the primary preference proportionally, distribute the points to the states proportional to membership, and make the sum of that equal to the number of delegates, with each delegate also getting one vote. 500 delegates up for grabs, 500 points from the primary up for grabs, 1,000 points total, and a candidate needs 501 to clinch.

    About half the states don’t have LP voter registration, so I’m not sure how this would work.

  86. paulie

    Also not clear how it would work in practice. For example, at the 2012 convention I made my decisions of the P and VP nominations at the convention itself. Would I have needed to have made my decision before the convention and gotten on a slate of delegates to be selected at a primary?

  87. George Dance

    Andy: “I think that he’s generally correct with his analysis here…. I was a Gary Johnson skeptic from day one.. I was ahead of the curve when it came to seeing through Gary Johnson, and once again, I have been proven to have been correct.”

    Did someone say “confirmation bias”?

  88. paulie

    both resident of and domiciled in

    Some of us aren’t, in any state. Personally I’m a lot more nomadic than that and I am not the only one.

  89. paulie

    Those simultaneous affiliate party conventions could view the proceedings at national and those delegates only cast their votes along with those of the delegates physically present at the national convention for P and VP candidates.

    Too many technology and vote counting issues, and most of the costs of the national convention are relatively fixed, so having half as many people there would be relatively more, not less, expensive.

  90. paulie

    The Greens had them in 35 states last year and I doubt many of them were run by the government.

    They also have proxy votes. Having observed their convention process and the LP’s, I like the LP’s better.

  91. paulie

    It’s not a good idea to require huge commitments of time and/or money on top of what to many is already a huge commitment of time and money to get to the convention. It would reduce participation, and leave more people feeling like they had no say in the process so why should they support the party in any way at all? Likewise, requiring people to attend the entire 3-4 days reduces buy-in in the same ways. I oppose any such proposals.

  92. JamesT

    Everything that he says about the LP being worse than useless is 100% true from my personal experience. Sinkhole for good people and energy.

  93. Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

    “Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it”. Edmund Burke

    New activists or hopeful new members who want to be delegates are generally ignorant of LP history. This takes place both intentionally and by neglect.
    It is not possible for good-intentioned individuals to make the right choices if they do not know what really happened. Additionally, because the LP has been managed for most of its history by people who perpetuate practices which are inherently ineffective (reinventing the square wheel so to speak) it is not possible to advance toward any real freedom. At best, the LP is promoting a holding action which has never worked.
    We used to joke that the only consistent thing produced by the LP was former members. This is, in fact, true.
    I suggest those committed to using the LP as a tool for freedom first understand the organization’s real history. In this process question everything.

  94. JamesT

    Also his point about how the war between the moderates and purists doesn’t matter cause neither have a viable path is also valid. People who just want it to be their private drinking club vs people who want to sell out before they’ve even sold 10 copies of their record are both ridiculous. Issue populism seemed to work somewhat for Ron Paul. I can’t stand the “radical” caucus no particular orderism. It’s literally just “let’s fight a battle without strategy or tactics.”

  95. Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

    Don’t forget having no free market solutions. Too much thinking for them to produce those!

  96. George Dance

    paulie: “It’s not a good idea to require huge commitments of time and/or money on top of what to many is already a huge commitment of time and money to get to the convention.”

    … especially if it’s coupled with the other idea, of binding their presidential votes through state primaries. Why invest this time and money to do someone else’s bidding?

  97. Jim

    paulie “About half the states don’t have LP voter registration, so I’m not sure how this would work.”

    It wouldn’t use voter registration at all. It would use LP membership. You wouldn’t even have to be registered to vote. This would be run by the state parties, not the government.

    paulie “Also not clear how it would work in practice. For example, at the 2012 convention I made my decisions of the P and VP nominations at the convention itself. Would I have needed to have made my decision before the convention and gotten on a slate of delegates to be selected at a primary?”

    The delegates wouldn’t be selected by the primary. They would be selected well before the national convention. That might happen the same day as the primary if it isn’t feasible to have 50 primaries simultaneous to the national convention. The delegates to the national convention would be not be pledged to any candidate.

  98. Jim

    George Dance “especially if it’s coupled with the other idea, of binding their presidential votes through state primaries. Why invest this time and money to do someone else’s bidding?”

    Delegates to the national convention wouldn’t be bound.

    The idea was to give half of the voting power to the delegates and half to a primary process. The primary half would have points awarded to candidates based on their proportional vote count from each state (and each state’s total points based on LP membership counts.)

    We’ll use California as an example.

    Let’s say in 2016 California sent 116 people to the national convention. That would be cut in half to 58. Those 58 people could vote for whomever they wanted at the convention. Using last years numbers cut in half, 24 voted for Johnson, 17 for Petersen, 10 for McAffee, and 7 for others.

    There would also be a primary in California. California did have a primary in 2016 in which more than 31,000 people voted, so we’ll use the results from that: 62% for Johnson, 10% for McAffee, 6% for Petersen, 22% for others. So Johnson would get 36 points from the California primary (.62 x 58), McAffee would get 5.8 (.10 x 58), Petersen would get 3.5 (.06 x 58), and others would get 12.7 (.22 x 58).

    The total from California then (national delegates + primary) would be 60 Johnson, 20.5 Petersen, 15.8 McAffee, 19.7 others.

    First candidate to get more than 50% of the 1,000 available points (501) wins.

  99. paulie

    Still cuts into buy-in, but beyond that it could also lead to the nomination being decided even before any human attendees show up, which would remove one of the major reasons for going at all.

  100. D. Frank Robinson

    There’s no such thing as ‘bound delegates’ under LP Bylaws. Every delegate has the authority under LP Bylaws to vote for None of the Above. Period. Affiliate party officials should be well aware of this and rule any attempt to “bind’ delegates to vote for any candidate as out of order.

  101. Jim

    paulie “it could also lead to the nomination being decided even before any human attendees show up, which would remove one of the major reasons for going at all.”

    Eh… If there was only one candidate running uncontested in all 50 state primaries and he received every single vote in every state, he would still be 1 point short of the nomination. If we’re doing that kind of theoretical, all 500 delegates could then vote for someone else leaving two people tied at 500. Some kind of rules would have to be worked out for that.

    The whole idea is to decentralize the delegate power in this area. This proposal wouldn’t remove it from the delegates entirely, though. And the delegates would still have full control over all other matters.

  102. Andy

    JamesT said: “I can’t stand the ‘radical’ caucus no particular orderism. It’s literally just ‘let’s fight a battle without strategy or tactics.'”

    I’m as radical as anyone in the Libertarian Party and movement, and I agree with you that no particular orderism is completely irrational and stupid (as I have illustrated in comments on other threads here). I totally agree that strategy and tactics are important. If you go into battle without an understanding of strategy and tactics, you are destined to lose.

    The Libertarian Party and movement has a lot of people who are good at spouting philosophy, but this is all they can do. They are arm chair philosophers and keyboard warriors. They will preach to the choir or argue with other libertarians, but they do little or nothing that actually advances the cause.

    Very few Libertarians have a clue when it comes to political strategy and implementing their philosophy in the real world (and I’m talking about “radicals” and “moderates” and everyone in between).

  103. paulie

    Also his point about how the war between the moderates and purists doesn’t matter cause neither have a viable path is also valid. People who just want it to be their private drinking club vs people who want to sell out before they’ve even sold 10 copies of their record are both ridiculous.

    Radical libertarians don’t want the party to be a private drinking club, contrary to the often repeated claims of those who turn it into more of one every time they get a chance.

    I can’t stand the “radical” caucus no particular orderism. It’s literally just “let’s fight a battle without strategy or tactics.”

    No, it’s not. It’s actually a highly strategic understanding of how the opposition attacks libertarianism and how to best counteract it.

  104. Christopher Thrasher

    To Whom It May Concern:

    In a recent video, several unfounded accusations and slanders were thrown towards me regarding the 2016 Libertarian Presidential campaign. At first, I dismissed these as nothing more than sour grapes.
    Unfortunately, these slanders have continued unabated, and I now have no choice but to respond.

    During the first quarter of 2016, I served as the campaign manager for John McAfee’s bid for the Libertarian Presidential nomination. When I came onboard after an aborted independent run, there was no campaign team, no infrastructure, nor was there much in the way of resources available. Even still, as a political professional, I knew that there was a narrow path to victory. I began to set the campaign on track for a legitimate chance to clench the nomination, crafting a new platform, and engineering several earned media narratives that dominated the national news cycle for a time. The campaign took off and began to succeed.

    In seeking supporters for McAfee, I approached Judd Weiss through mutual acquaintances with the idea of holding a fundraiser for the campaign. Weiss immediately inserted himself into the conversation for Vice Presidential running mate.

    I was vehemently opposed to Judd Weiss’ candidacy for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was his 2012 arrest for Felony Sexual Assault, which culminated in his pleading no contest to a felony.
    It was immediately clear that Weiss had no intention of engaging in any of the necessary legwork to actually win the nomination. In fact, were it not for my own (literally) last minute nomination at the California Libertarian Convention, Weiss would not have even been a delegate to the national convention.

    Instead of engaging in the immediate crucial and time sensitive task at hand – appealing to delegates and focusing on the internal Libertarian campaign – Weiss chose to focus on marketing to a “movement” using online videos with dubious copyright status. While such a marketing campaign may have been effective in the general election, it did nothing towards the task of winning the Libertarian Party nomination.

    Around this same time, I also began to notice that Mr. McAfee’s priorities had shifted. There are many factors that may have contributed to this. Mr. McAfee is an extremely intelligent man, and I believe he may have seen the writing on the wall. Now, Mr. McAfee is once again making money as the head of successful technology firm. I certainly hold no ill will towards him for possibly making a calculated decision that was arguably in his best interest.

    With Weiss’ constant interference, and the continued de-emphasis on campaigning to delegates, I came to the realization that there was no longer a reason for me to continue with the campaign.
    There was no doubt in my mind at that time that due to Weiss’ involvement, and to a lesser extent Mr. McAfee’s shift in priorities, the narrow path to victory had ceased to exist.

    I attempted to leave quietly and cordially. When Mr. McAfee contacted Austin Petersen about my departure, Petersen’s team posted articles about my departure. I did not make any public comment until after the story was published. My intention was to simply transition out, quietly and professionally.

    Weiss makes a claim of sabotage surrounding convention of the Libertarian Party of Louisiana. This was the week following my official departure, and yet I was still trying to assist the campaign during the transition. In fact, Mr. McAfee had committed to this convention quite early in the cycle, before other priorities came into view. I know where John was that weekend. John knows where he was that weekend. I am certain Weiss to this day has no idea. After getting no response from the supposed new campaign manager all week, I then contacted Weiss.

    Thus began a continual narrative from the new campaign; making me the scapegoat for practically anything and everything that went wrong after my departure.

    Weiss then goes on to make the ridiculous claim that I was “Paid Off” by the Johnson campaign.
    Let me be clear: the reason I left the McAfee campaign was due to the detrimental change in philosophy and lack of cohesive political strategy that accompanied Weiss’ inserting himself into the campaign.

    After sitting out several weeks, I was offered and accepted the position of Floor Director for the Johnson campaign’s convention efforts.

    Make no mistake, despite Weiss’ dubious and unsubstantiated claims of impropriety, what won the nominations was superior organization and convention floor work. A plan of action, successfully conceived and executed by Apollo Pazell, myself, and others, won the day for our candidates.

    Upon our successful convention victory, I chose to continue working on the campaign in a capacity where I would have a tangible goal, and be in the best position to further the Libertarian Party’s future.

    As the Director of Ballot Access for the Johnson/Weld campaign, I successfully coordinated the effort to achieve ballot access in all 50 states. It was the first successful 50 State + DC ballot access drive for an Independent or Third-Party candidate in more than two decades.

    Weiss makes the outrageous and untrue claim that the compensation I received for these efforts was a “Payoff” from the Johnson campaign. This is nothing more than a vicious slander from a failed candidate.

    As a political professional, I am no stranger to baseless attacks. However, my professional reputation in politics also relies on preserving my name and accomplishments. It is for these reasons I have written this response, in an attempt to end the nonsense and rumors that have been so irresponsibly disseminated. -CT

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *