Libertarian Party elected officials

Sent by Scott Lieberman to contact.ipr@gmail.com:

Wes Benedict and Art DiBianca have worked hard over the past few months on this project, and they just posted a list of Elected Libertarians on the LP web site.

http://www.lp.org/candidates/elected-officials

Mr. Benedict told me to publicize the list so he can get some feedback on how people like it, and/or any changes they would like to see. I know that I would like to change it by increasing the number of elected officials on it by a factor of 1000!

Plus – after seeing the list, perhaps a few more elected Libertarians will step forward and tell LPHQ that they are in office.

63 thoughts on “Libertarian Party elected officials

  1. paulie Post author

    On the IPR list we suggested a list of appointed Libertarians as well.

    Also, I imagine there is a candidate list somewhere on the website, but I did not find it with the top button navigation.

  2. Scott Lieberman

    “Danny S: I think it would be useful to see which candidates hold partisan office and which do not.”

    ***********************************

    If you click on each name on the list, you can see if they are in partisan or non-partisan office.

  3. Morgan Brykein

    Now all some of these people need to do is run for higher office, keeping the Libertarian label. Certainly not all of them really want to climb the political ladder, but I bet some might not mind running for something else after the city council.

  4. Ralph Swanson

    Thanks for the hard work. I see problems. I hope they’ll be opportunities.

    >Why take down the appointed list? >95% of offices are appointed. So if I was Supreme Court Justice or US President (technically appointed by the Electoral College) I’m removed. Huh? Historically we have maybe 2/3rds appointed. They do much of the real social change. But this unveiling an elected list while removing the appointed elsewhere doesn’t help. I got a call asking if our appointed had resigned. That’s how I learned of this gratuitious removal of appointives from the state areas on the USLP site. That’s how I learned of your project. Keep this stuff up and they will resign if they’re not doing it already. Just didn’t appreciate the lack of heads up in the weekly newsletter leaving me to explain USLP, again.

    >Is USLP now de-emphasizing the appointed? That’s a lot MIA. Conservatives in the LP have pushed for that as a means of gutting the LP, to kill the farm team. MIA: Anywhere from over 3000 to 300. Also, we used to report offices removed. Our county removed all the Soil and Water Boards way back when. Unless the only offices LNC’s removing are our own.

    >Elective offices in the US are concentrated in a few states. We seem to be getting in still as well as anyone. 1% of our members are elected? Looks like we know what to do. Fine.

    >Partisan click throughs? Mmmm, looks like you’re hiding or don’t care. Put them in bold or something. That would be an easy solution. The ratios are normal, about 20% of elective offices are partisan in most areas. That’s good.

    >I just completed the LIO hard verification (my last). That plus what I know suggests you have some definition problems. In my state I’m pretty sure you have D & R’s listed, LP members though they may be. That’s fine but only for states without registration. States have different reporting. You might have better reporting with a stricter list with a larger list for people under our banner. NH has 90 people elected under different parties but who attend Libertarian events and many self-identify as Libertarian.

    >Get a web form already so people can report their office, their activities, their registration, and do a Nolan test while they’re at it. Have it link to an appreciation certificate. That’s in contrast to you want me to report people I’ve already reported after removing 2/3rds of the offices in Florida (with some of the strongest Libs that are typically appointive) while retaining D & R’s and some GOP moles? Why? Get real.

    >There is a wider problem that USLP has moved from supportive to counterproductive of its people in office. There’s plenty of talk about getting people in office but little talking to them to see what they require. What exactly is USLP doing for me, Libertarians in office, and local county affiliates besides giving national publicity to conservative but really fringe non-Libertarian or clueless reform candidates that say the opposite of what we’re doing and otherwise hinder our work if not create outright embarrassments, not sharing its member lists, and (petty, I know) losing my national lifetime membership. I e-mailed and called 7 times to get my name up as a Libertarian in (modest, but I’m working to privatize the post office) and was told it would never go down until I left the post. Instead I get phone calls saying looks like your USLP doesn’t like you. No, I’m not worried about Obama’s broken promises.

    >The local offices are covered well. That’s good. Council, county boards, school boards, mayors. That’s where we’re doing a lot. Not worried about statewide. We’ve shown we can do it but you need more people to support it. In some states like Florida they’re even of limited value due to the focus on initiatives and local appointives. But USLP seems to be building its farm team. Some states are doing well in relation to population e.g. Wisconsin, VT. Texas seems to be getting results in difficult circumstances. All good.

    In sum, until we see the appointed, we have no real idea how the USLP is doing (except maybe listing D & R’s as elected Libertarians), and the USLP has no idea what its appointives are doing. Or even if they’re still hanging around. Which means it still doesn’t know what its doing, perhaps? Oh, boy.

    Get those appointed up and a form, please, pronto. Maybe define the standards a bit. Maybe two lists. A certificate of appreciation with the form might costs nothing. It doesn’t matter for a large party with a lot of momentum. It does for a start-up. IMHO.

  5. Scott Lieberman

    Ralph Swanson:

    Wow. I never expected our little elected officials list to elicit an 11 paragraph response!

    You make some good points, and I am sure LPHQ will take them under advisement.

    I do have to comment on the Appointed Officials idea…

    I think you say you live in Florida. This is a segment from the current LP of Florida web page:

    **********************************
    Current Florida Libertarian Office Holders

    ALACHUA
    Environmental Protection Advisory Committee, Toby OLVERA
    Gainesville Board of Adjustment, Steven A. REID, M.D., Chairman

    BREVARD
    Melbourne Building and Construction Advisory Committee, Bill LOSAPIO
    Sebastian Inlet Tax District, Jim CULBERSON

    BROWARD
    Cooper City, City Commissioner, John Sims
    Fort Lauderdale Board of Adjustment, Michael FERBER

    CHARLOTTE
    Soil and Water Conservation District, Robert WATERHO– USE (2006-2010)

    DADE
    West Kendall Area Municipal Advisory Committee, Jeffrey C. WANDER

    DUVAL
    Elections Task Force, Doug KLIPPEL

    HILLSBOROUGH
    Northdale Special Tax District Board, Joseph BOURDEAU
    Tampa Code Enforcement Board, A. J. BRENT

    ***********************************

    Notice it says “Libertarian Office Holders.”

    For maybe six years or so, the National LP used to publish a list that had both appointed and elected office holders mixed together. I note that while the current National LP list does let you find out if someone is in partisan or non-partisan office by clicking on the name, the current Florida list does not even distinguish between elected and appointed officials.

    I have nothing against Libertarians in appointed public office: I used to be one myself.

    However, after many years of being associated with these lists, I can assure you: it is too much work for LPHQ to maintain an *accurate* list of appointed Libertarians on its web site.

    However, as an individual member of the LP National Committee, I strongly encourage state affiliates to post a list of their appointed officials on their web sites. Mr. Swanson – if you are in Florida, you might want to have your web master break your current list into two lists – one with elected officials, and the other with the appointed officials.

    Regarding the partisan vs non-partisan: LPHQ is not trying to hide anything. They put the partisan vs. non-partisan overall numbers at the top of the list. I am guessing they did not want to make the main web page too “busy” by cluttering it with too much information. As I said, the partisan or non-partisan info is one click away for each office holder.

    Again, thank you for your comments – constructive feedback is always helpful.

  6. paulie Post author

    However, after many years of being associated with these lists, I can assure you: it is too much work for LPHQ to maintain an *accurate* list of appointed Libertarians on its web site.

    Could they farm it out to volunteers?

  7. Eric Dondero

    I agree completely with Ralph. Removing the Appointed offices is kind of stupid. Makes zero sense.

    It’s been a tradition going way back to the late 1970s when the List was first conceived to include the Appointed offices.

    BTW, I’ve got very old issues of LP News in my garage with some of the original Elected Libertarian lists. The first one, I believe had 48.

    Do you know who the first elected Libertarian was?

    Murray Feldstein, Flaggstaff, AZ City Council

  8. Eric Dondero

    One other thing, and I told Wes Benedict about this, there is Nobody listed in Montana. I know for a fact, that a Libertarian sits on the Phillipsburg City Council, and numerous other Libertarians are elected in the State.

  9. Scott Lieberman

    As I said in an earlier comment, I encourage State Libertarian Parties to post their appointed officials on their state LP’s web sites.

    Someone suggested that maybe the LSLA can maintain a consolidated list of Libertarians in appointed office, and keep the list on the LSLA web site. That way, LPHQ staff won’t have anything to do with it, and they won’t be responsible for the accuracy of that list.

    I agree that Wes Benedict might want to post what criteria he used to determine if someone belongs on the list of Elected Libertarians. It is not as obvious as you might think, since some states have partisan voter registration, and some just keep a list of what party’s primary you voted in, etc.

    For example, I don’t think Dan Halloran is an elected Libertarian, unless someone can provide evidence that says he is. For example, if his voter registration is Libertarian.

    He got the ballot line of the Libertarian Party because NY State permits fusion, but his “party of record” seems to be Republican:

    http://elections.nytimes.com/2009/results/city-council.html

    Queens
    100% reporting District 19

    Winner: Daniel Halloran III

    Daniel Halloran III Rep. 13,694 52.5%
    Kevin Kim Dem. 12,380 47.5

  10. Scott Lieberman

    “paulie // Jan 3, 2010 at 12:19 pm

    Why is appointed list so much harder to maintain than elected? Is it because there are more of them?”

    ****************************************

    Yes to your second question.

    Another reason is that elected officials are only slightly difficult to verify by using the Internet. Trying to verify Appointed Officials on the Internet is not going to work most of the time.

    Again: no one is stopping the LSLA from keeping a consolidated list of Libertarians in Appointed Office on the LSLA web site…

  11. Eric Dondero

    Scott, Dan is most certainly an elected Libertarian. In fact, he’s currently the highest elected Libertarian serving in the entire United States. This is quite an impressive feat for the Libertarian Party, and every Libertarian ought to be super proud, bragging about it even.

    Could imagine how utterly stupid it would be to remove his name from the List? Not only would it hurt the LP pr wise, it would be an insult to Dan, who would be less likely to run on the Libertarian Party line next time around.

  12. Rachel H

    MG@6 “So if I was Supreme Court Justice or US President (technically appointed by the Electoral College) I’m removed.”

    Not all Supreme Court Justices are appointed. We have a (known) libertarian Supreme . . . often the lone wolf on civil liberties cases.

  13. Richard Winger

    I’m glad Dan Halloran wanted the New York Libertarian cross-endorsement, but he doesn’t belong on a list of elected Libertarians any more than President Herbert Hoover belongs on a list of people who were elected Prohibition Party members. In 1928 the California Prohibition Party cross-endorsed Herbert Hoover for president, and Hoover received votes on the Republican line and the Prohibition line, but no one would then put Hoover on a list of Prohibition Party victories. Hoover and Halloran are both registered Republicans elected mostly with votes on the “Republican” line on the ballot.

  14. Thomas L. Knapp

    I agree with Mr. Dondero on the issue of fusion candidates.

    If a candidate:

    a) Appears on the Libertarian ballot line (in a partisan election in a fusion state); OR

    b) Is nominated or endorsed by an LP affiliate (in a non-partisan race and/or a race in a non-fusion state); AND

    c) Wins the election;

    He or she should be treated, in every way possible, as a Libertarian officeholder by the LP.

  15. Steven R Linnabary

    Do you know who the first elected Libertarian was?

    Murray Feldstein, Flaggstaff, AZ City Council

    Wrong.

    The first elected “Libertarian” was a woman elected to Circleville, OH city council in 1973. This, along with Kay Harroff’s strong US Senate campaign in 1974 led many to believe that Ohio was a “hotbed” of libertarianism.

    But Eric also reminds us that in the early 80’s when Honey Lanham first tried to compile a list of elected Libertarians, she quickly came up with about 50 names.

    She stopped when she found that maintaining the list was a full time job and most Libertarians don’t like to toot their own horn. She also found that everytime a list was compiled, other elected Libertarians would come out of the woodwork! Most didn’t know we were trying to compile a list, others didn’t think it was important.

    More important, she found that a lot of elected officials didn’t even know we existed, but considered themselves “libertarian” or “Constitutionalist” or even “anarchist”. These were usually people perpetually on the losing side of 6-1 votes in council chambers.

    About ten years ago here in Ohio, we stumbled upon one of these, Nick Hogan, a Gahanna City Councilman. He had already served over 15 years on council, and yet we knew nothing about him (nor he of us), even though he was in the Capitol City metro area. He joined the party when we found him and he became our 2000 Congressional candidate.

    Last year I was talking to a longtime Libertarian activist about this topic. He mentioned that he has served as a appointed zoning board official for several years. He wasn’t aware of a list until I was bragging about my daughter being appointed to the Columbus Youth Commission (and being the youngest Libertarian officeholder in the country).

    The bottom line is that there are a LOT of elected and appointed Libertarians out there, and these people are certainly a source of pride when we can point to them as a good example of our role models.

    But to expect LPHQ to maintain the list is not a productive use of their time. It would be a full time job just on the state level to keep up with whether somebody still served on the “Southside Street Beautification Board” after they moved across town.

    PEACE

  16. Eric Dondero

    Others who’ve maintained the list over the years:

    Paul Jacob (1985)
    Sharon Freeman & Terry von Mitchell (1986)
    Eric Dondero Rittberg (1987/88)

  17. Eric Dondero

    You might be right about that Ohio lady. But Feldstein was the first big win for the LP, I believe in 1977. He’s on the front page of one of the old issues of LP News.

  18. Eric Dondero

    Winger, question for you. Don’t you think politically speaking, it’d be utterly stupid to remove Dan Halloran? I mean, if I was an elected New York City Councilman, and some small party whose line I appeared on, took me off their list, I’d be rather offended. How can that possibly be good for public relations for the Libertarian Party?

    What if the LP needs something in the City of NY and they need to go to Halloran? Do you think he’d be more inclined to help them knowing that they don’t consider him to be an elected Libertarian?

  19. Eric Dondero

    I could be slightly wrong on this, but I believe New York is not the only State that allows fusion. Delaware and Rhode Island do, as well, and I believe 1 other state?

    If Halloran is given the boot, than it would only be consistent to tell candidates in those other three states in future elections that they shouldn’t list their name on the LP line, cause the LP will not consider them to be “real Libertarians.”

    Tyler Nixon in Delaware comes to mind.

  20. Ross Levin

    Vermont and Idaho do, too. And possibly Connecticut. I think there are like 8 or so states that allow it, although New York obviously uses it the most. South Carolina might have it, too, iirc. Richard Winger would be the person to ask about this.

  21. Danny S

    Multiple states have fusion, but they also have different rules for fusion at the same time. Like in South Carolina, fusion is practically nonexistant because it is risky for minor party candidates.

  22. George Phillies

    NH does not currently have fusion, I am told.

    MA has a mechanism permitting fusion if the second party is a major party with a primary, but the mechanism is so involved that it is almost unknown for this to happen.

  23. Dan Halloran

    I have been a dues paying member of the Libertarian Party nationally, and at the local level over the past few years. I am currently the chair of the Liberty Caucus of the Republican Party in New York State and on its National Board, and am most certainly a “libertarian”.

    New York does not provide a Libertarian Party designation because of the lack of statewide enrollment numbers- that’s simply a Board of Elections reality. I am grateful that I was able to run as cross-endorsed candidate- and I had the burden of collection over 2700 signatures to gain a “libertarian line” in my district because the party does not have ballot status- and I helped put us their this year.

    I will continue to keep a right-libertarian perspective in policy and legislation- because that is what I was elected to do.

    I now represent over 140,000 people in NYC and do not intend to stop being libertarian because someone here doesn’t think I am “libertarian” enough.

    In Liberty,

    Dan-O

  24. Ralph Swanson

    @7 Scott, thanks. You’re one of my favorites for keeping the ‘focus on getting in office’ banner high. I did report on all our Florida appointeds. The response was to remove them.

    Florida LP notes a sampling and includes people national might not, and made a decision to defer downward to affiliates. The Florida Liberty keeps the list which will be updated soon, and by agreement is reportuing entity for Florida. The exact procedure is that Region Reps on LNC are supposed to collect and turn the info in the Political Director, which may be part of the problem. Had I not been phoned, you would not have heard from me. There are plenty of other states that won’t bother. US LP institutional Alzheimer’s is aso a problem.

    I know keeping a list is a pain, and I think when we reach a certain number national can stop doing it except for checks every few years (but see my note at the end). I think my message is stop surprising people in office, get what you have of appointed back up, and having a form so people can self-report is a smart move. One value of a list is it gets people out of the woodwork to self report IMHO.

    I also think both a tight list (defined however national wants) and a loose list ( all our chillun’) or even an historical list (looks impressive and inspires newcomers) make sense.

    The LIO list is for our rating of LP’s, and we’re pretty ecumenical in our definitions. We do that every 4-5 years and don’t keep names, just raw numbers, and include people who’ve stopped talking to the USLP. But on the bright side USLP clearly underreports.

    The main trend I think I’m seeing is people are coming out of the woodwork and getting in office no matter what the LP does, though setting goals helps. Which is good!

    But one key thing about a list is the need to know what these folks are doing. You’re not a team if you don’t know the players. You can’t tell people about the good we’re doing if you’re not aware. And it helps rate how national is doing. There are 300+ million people in the US. We know a determined affiliate can get at least 30+ Libs in office. So that’s 10,000 potential right there and MIA from us just doing consistently what we’re doing. Say only 10% of those are elected. That’s 850 MIA. Listing what we have is the first step to confronting that (and again, hurrah to you and Wes for rolling up your sleeves).

    @13 Crickenberger told me that there were no problems in keeping track of both. That reflects my experience. The web helps. Phone calls are what’s key. My experience last year is most state chairs had no clue who was where, but often knew who did. Having a list people will send the names. No list, they won’t. Take it down after they badgered you 7 times and you promised you wouldn’t, they sure won’t.

    @14 County Mud Boards outrank city councils? And as far as appointed, aren’t you on a draft board, Eric, a Federal appointment?

    @18 MG at 16 was the first partisan elected US Libertarian in 1972 on a zoning board in NY which he conceived and was created as a unique election with a Libertarian line so he could PO the authorities, abolish the board and prevent some sort of zoning takeover by an adjoining town, which took 5 minutes. His father was the independent on the board but also a Libertarian but deferred the honor to his son because he took the oath first, and I believe there was Democrat who was also in the Libertarian mix. He’s also served on a mess of appointive boards. MG cheerfully recognizes this was a bit of a stunt, but I sure thought it was great at the time. I asked him about it and he said more or less “I believe it fair to say I was the first LIO Libertarian so and among the first who supported the USLP, I just don’t want to be the last.” Stunts to PO the state aside, the first regular election was I think that person in Ohio, but wasn’t there someone in Michigan in late 1972? I think the AZ one was the next partisan though.

    How old is your daughter when she was appointed to the advisory board? I may have a surprise for you.

    At 83 I’m probably the oldest Libertarian in public office. (An honor I’d gladly give up!)

    @24 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fusion

    BTW:

    http://www.gp.org/elections/Green-Mayors/index.shtml

    http://www.gp.org/elections.shtml

    There’s the competition.

  25. paulie Post author

    @14 County Mud Boards outrank city councils?

    I think Eric meant in terms of how many constituents. Halloran mentioned he has 140,000.

  26. Thomas L. Knapp

    I see no reason why a job like keeping these kinds of lists is something we should dump on LPHQ — or, if we’re going to do so, why we should bitch about how they define it and how they get it done.

    It can be done at another level with activist elbow grease, so why shouldn’t it be?

    The Libertarian State Leadership Alliance seems like the ideal group to create a database from which a current list can be generated, and get the 50 state affiliates to appoint designated updaters who can keep the data current. Then LPHQ could link to (or even offer to host!) the list.

    If not LSLA, presumably some other group either exists or could be formed for the purpose of getting it done, keeping it current, and making it available.

    We can’t — and shouldn’t — expect LPHQ to do everything that it might be nice to see done.

  27. Eric Dondero

    You all see that! Precisely what I was talking about.

    New York City Councilman Dan Halloran, took time out of his busy day, to write a post here at a small blog, about this little controvsery, all because Richard Winger, and my friend Scott Lieberman suggested that he wasn’t a “real libertarian,” cause he ran on two party ticket labels.

    You guys. Get some political smarts PLEASE!!!

    You probably didn’t piss Dan off, but you most certainly irked him a bit.

    DAN HALLORAN IS A MEMBER OF THE NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL.

    Richard Winger is not elected to dog catcher. Scott Lieberman is a medical doctor, but as far as I know, isn’t elected to anything either.

    I happen to be a 20-year Federal Appointee to the Selective Service Board – Houston Region. (Tom Knapp is, as well, for St. Louis)

    As someone who holds public office, I’m pulling rank here over Winger and Lieberman. Stop being so goddamned puritanical! You’re fucking things up for the rest of us, who want Real Live Victories for Libertarians to public office.

  28. Chris Edes

    States that allow fusion provide additional opportunities. We would be foolish not to take advantage of them.

    This year, I ran in the Democratic primary. Most of my primary supporters voted Libertarian in the general election, many for the first time. I had more than twice as much publicity and face time with voters. In terms of both total votes and percent share, it was our most successful campaign ever in Western NY.

    While I’m enrolled as a Democrat (the LP being unrecognized in NY) I’m thoroughly Libertarian in every regard. You would have a hard time finding someone in NY who disagrees. At least, no one raised the question when I was unanimously elected State Chair. I have dedicated my life to the cause of Liberty.

    Suppose I had won the primary? I would almost certainly have been elected to office, and with mostly Democratic votes. Would I be disqualified from consideration as an elected Libertarian, because I took advantage of an opportunity? Criteria which produce this result are not good criteria.

    Let’s leave the judgement to our local affiliates. If they consider a candidate worthy of the Libertarian mark, we should let their judgment stand absent evidence otherwise.

    Dan Halloran is a thoughtful and principled libertarian who appeared on the ballot on the Libertarian line, and was elected to office. That should be enough.

    for Liberty,

    Chris Edes
    State Chair – LPNY

  29. Thomas Simmons

    I hae no doubt that this thread has more to do with personalities and traditional rivalries than anything else. Eric Dondero is a lightning rod, and for good reasons: he openly identifies as being a Republican, and while attempting to wear a ‘liberatarian’ label on his blog, he has been no friend of libertarians on social issues: he is one of those who wishes libertarians would just shut up and behave as a tolerated but useful subset of the Conserative/Constitutionalist wing of the GOP. The semantic gymnnastics he has used to oppose Marriage Equality and support the Police State are laughable for someone calling themselves ‘libertarian.’ It is natural that The national LP HQ would be suspicious when he promotes a Registered Republican as a Libertarian office-holder.

    Having said that, the LP reaction may be akin to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The first rule of politics is that ALL POLITICS IS LOCAL.

    The uniqueness of the New York System, with its different legal criteria for gaining recognized ballot status, vs. the ability to enroll in that party, combined with its closed primary system, makes for a unique approach to practical politics. It is not unusual for one candidate in NY to have three or even four party endorsements.

    National would be best served by allowing the *state* Libertarian Parties to decide who is or is not a Libertarian, based on local knowledge and practice.

    Thom Simmons
    Libertarian Gubernatorial Candidate – 2010
    New Hampshire

  30. Scott Lieberman

    “Dan Halloran // Jan 3, 2010 at 11:19 pm

    I have been a dues paying member of the Libertarian Party nationally, and at the local level over the past few years. I am currently the chair of the Liberty Caucus of the Republican Party in New York State and on its National Board, and am most certainly a “libertarian”.

    I will continue to keep a right-libertarian perspective in policy and legislation- because that is what I was elected to do.
    I now represent over 140,000 people in NYC and do not intend to stop being libertarian because someone here doesn’t think I am “libertarian” enough.”
    ———————————————————-

    “Dan Halloran is a thoughtful and principled libertarian who appeared on the ballot on the Libertarian line, and was elected to office. That should be enough.
    Chris Edes
    State Chair – LPNY”

    I am glad that “someone” called up Mr. Halloran himself, and the Chair of the LP of NY, and convinced them to get up from their beds after midnight just so they could post a comment on Independent Political Report!

    First of all, NO ONE who has posted a comment above has said that Mr. Halloran was not “libertarian enough” to be on the list of Elected Libertarians. It is unfortunate that some people who have posted in this thread would try to get you to think that this list of Elected Libertarians is a judgment by the LNC or LPHQ staff of the libertarian purity of a given Elected Official. It definitely isn’t. We have thousands of libertarians nationwide who are more than eager to do that for us 🙂

    *****************************************

    “New York does not provide a Libertarian Party designation because of the lack of statewide enrollment numbers- that’s simply a Board of Elections reality. I am grateful that I was able to run as cross-endorsed candidate- and I had the burden of collection over 2700 signatures to gain a “libertarian line” in my district because the party does not have ballot status- and I helped put us their this year.
    Dan Halloran”

    “While I’m enrolled as a Democrat (the LP being unrecognized in NY) I’m thoroughly Libertarian in every regard. You would have a hard time finding someone in NY who disagrees. At least, no one raised the question when I was unanimously elected State Chair.
    Chris Edes
    State Chair – LPNY”

    Hmmm. I don’t have the 2008 Registration Totals, but according to the Nov. 2006 Voter Registration totals, there are 1061 people in NY State who are registered to vote as Libertarians! So, contrary to what Mr. Halloran and Mr. Edes have said, you CAN register to vote as Libertarian in NY State.
    What I think these fine gentlemen are pointing out is that there is no “check-off” box on the NY State voter registration form to register “Libertarian”. Fair enough, but if that is what you are saying, then please say that.

    “Let’s leave the judgement to our local affiliates. If they consider a candidate worthy of the Libertarian mark, we should let their judgment stand absent evidence otherwise.
    Dan Halloran is a thoughtful and principled libertarian who appeared on the ballot on the Libertarian line, and was elected to office. That should be enough.
    Chris Edes
    State Chair – LPNY”

    If state or county Libertarian Parties want to put people like Dan Halloran on their list of Elected Libertarians, then the National Libertarian Party is not going to come in and tell them they can’t do that.

    However, I would like the national media and all LP members nationwide to look at the list of Elected Libertarians on the http://www.LP.org web site as a well-respected, ACCURATE list of Elected Libertarians. To do that, the list needs to use well documented, OBJECTIVE criteria as to whether or not someone is an Elected Libertarian. These criteria need to be the same for all 50 states. Now, a problem with that is that different states have different election laws. Some states have voter registration by primary, some don’t. Some states have fusion, some don’t.

    I will send this comment to the National LP Executive Director, and perhaps he will come up with published, OBJECTIVE criteria for inclusion on the National LP’s list of Elected Libertarians. Unfortunately, those criteria could easily be a full page in length, due to those differences in election laws amongst the 50 states.

    This little exchange further demonstrates what happens when the National Libertarian Party does anything: the chances are very high that somebody, somewhere, is not going to like what the National Party does!

    Again, I thank Mr. Halloran and Mr. Edes for their dedication to libertarian political activism.

    BTW – I apologize if the formatting of this comment is a little weird – I have not totally mastered getting MS Word to cooperate with the comment formatting section of the IPR web site’s software.

  31. Thomas Simmons

    I think you need to improve your research. A simple Google search taking me to the NYS Board of Elections provided enrollment figures as of November 2009. Such a search reveals that there is now a seperate accounting for ‘active’ and ‘inactive’ enrollment, as well as some local county options that apparently prohibit enrollment in some parties on a county basis (you will note that there are ZERO Libertarians in Nassau County, a virtual impossibility in a county of 3 million if enrollment in the LP was possible).

    You are correct that an objective standard is necessary: accept the local state chair’s endorsement of that state’s list.

  32. Scott Lieberman

    “Thomas Simmons // Jan 4, 2010 at 9:43 am

    I think you need to improve your research. A simple Google search taking me to the NYS Board of Elections provided enrollment figures as of November 2009. Such a search reveals that there is now a seperate accounting for ‘active’ and ‘inactive’ enrollment, as well as some local county options that apparently prohibit enrollment in some parties on a county basis (you will note that there are ZERO Libertarians in Nassau County, a virtual impossibility in a county of 3 million if enrollment in the LP was possible).
    You are correct that an objective standard is necessary: accept the local state chair’s endorsement of that state’s list.”

    *****************************************

    Here is the chart that Mr. Simmons refers to…

    http://www.elections.state.ny.us/NYSBOE/enrollment/county/county_nov09.pdf

    In that chart, there are only 4 counties in NY State that report zero registered Libertarians. It is much more likely that this is due to either the fact that there really are zero registered Libertarians in that county, or, in the case of Nassau County, a particular Registrar of Voters made a mistake, or left out the Libertarian Party registrants on purpose.

    More relevant: the County that City Council Member Halloran is elected from has 21 voters registered as Libertarian. Yet he is registered to vote as Republican.

    Again – this is not a slam against any particular elected official. I am just making it clear that we need to have UNIFORM, objective rules for the National Libertarian Party’s list of Elected Libertarians.

  33. Brian Holtz

    Some elected offices have a lot of constituents but relatively little authority. A more useful way to rank non-judicial office is by budget authority. For example, the pro-rated budget authority of the LPCA’s top elected Libertarians is $37M (John Inks, Mountain View City Council) and $24M (Tom Tryon, Calaveras County Supervisor). For the LPTX, the corresponding figure is $2M (Ruben Perez, San Antonio River Authority). On my local water board, my score is $0.7M.

    Tom Halloran’s share of New York City’s budget is about $1B — 30 times bigger than LPCA’s top office-holder, and 500 times bigger than LPTX’s top office-holder.

    While it’s nice to know which election winners call the LP their preferred party, a better measure of our success would include all election winners that publicly accepted LP endorsement.

    At this stage, it’s more important for the LP to mobilize like-minded voters than it is to get libertarian office-holders to caucus as Libertarians.

  34. Thomas L. Knapp

    I don’t think that anyone was attempting to grade Mr. Halloran ideologically as “libertarian” or “not libertarian.”

    In a two-party system with various ballot access and voter registration barriers, it’s legitimate to discuss how we identify partisan Libertarian officeholders.

    We acknowledge LP members who win non-partisan elections as “Libertarian officeholders,” and I agree that we should.

    I believe we should also recognize fusion partisan candidates who run on the LP ballot line, and one or more other ballot lines, and win, as “Libertarian officeholders.”

    Finally, I believe we should recognize LP members who are endorsed by LP affiliates as “Libertarian officeholders” when they win partisan elections in which the Libertarian ballot line was either just plain legally unavailable, or walled off behind some absurdly high barrier.

    Dan Halloran is clearly a “Libertarian officeholder.” He’s an LP member, and not only did he appear on the LP ballot line in his run for office, he put that line on the ballot when he didn’t have to.

    He already had his name on the ballot via the GOP.

    He already had his name on the ballot via the Conservative Party.

    He already had his name on the ballot via the Independence Party.

    He could have coasted to victory on those three lines. He could have put all his money and effort into getting votes on those three lines, but he went out of his way and collected 2,700 signatures just to make sure that his name appeared next to our party’s name on the ballot.

  35. Ralph Swanson

    One last thought and I’m gone…in Lee County, Fl they also highlight people who are partial supporters e.g. people of other parties who say it’s OK to highlight them on the LP website. Interesting stuff:

    http://leelibertarians.homestead.com/

    Lee also has quite a few LP’ers in office relative to population, so it’s not like they’re begging.

    Scott, you and Wes keep punchin’!

  36. Chris Edes

    Scott,

    Some counties in NY do not allow new enrollment as Libertarian. There is a legal history, but basically a court found the state has no mechanism to un-enroll someone. Therefore, Queens has 21 enrolled Libertarians but many more who the Board of Elections will not enroll. This is a problem with the NYC BoE, which controls all five counties comprising NYC.

    Other counties, such as my own county of Monroe, DO allow enrollment as Libertarian. However, as I was saying, we are not a recognized party and, other than to run up the numbers, there is no purpose in enrolling Libertarian. Since almost half our state’s population lives in counties which refuse to enroll Libertarians, running up the numbers is not a useful goal. We do plan to challenge the NYC Board of Elections at an opportune time.

    Chris Edes

  37. Thomas Simmons

    Which only supports what I wrote earlier: ALL POLITICS IS LOCAL. *Nothing* substitutes for local knowledge.

    It is not acceptable for the national office of a political party to cavalierly write off “zero enrollments” in a 3-million-strong county as a “Registrar’s mistake.”

    *No One* has knowledge like the locals do, and therefore, the LOCAL affiliates should make the determination as to who is or is not a Libertarian office-holder – not a national office operating under limited information.

  38. Bruce Cohen

    @33 Thomas Simmons:
    “… he has been no friend of libertarians on social issues…”

    About Dondero. It’s true he’s a lightning rod and doesn’t have good table manners.

    On the other hand, there is nothing I have ever heard him say about social issues that’s anything less than Libertarian.

    I challenge anyone to come up with a position or statement by Eric the Dero that’s ‘unlibertarian.’

  39. Bruce Cohen

    The Libertarian Party of California for years listed a Huntington Beach elected official as ‘ours’ on the website, even though he had changed parties to be Republican.

    I think this is an example of where some flexibility could be granted, with maybe an
    asterisk by the name needed.

    The man was elected when he was still a registered Libertarian, and he did have a LPCA Membership at the time.

    Too bad one of our well known Californians freaked the guy out so he left the party.

    Anyway, I’m all for including as many people as possible in our lists.

    Ron Paul could be on the most complete list, that would include small l libertarians like Glenn Beck and Tucker Carlson.

    Be inclusive, people!

  40. paulie Post author

    I challenge anyone to come up with a position or statement by Eric the Dero that?s ?unlibertarian.?

    Hard to know where to begin. Let’s see…how about his support for the “usapatriot” act? Or try this

    https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/07/libertarians-reach-out-to-gay-lesbian-democrats-picketing-dnc-fundraiser/#comment-75582

    Eric Dondero // Jul 1, 2009 at 7:24 pm

    Problem is, 99% of these LGBTers are affirmative action/special rights supporters. What happens when they learn that we Libertarians don?t wish to treat them any more specially than anyone else?

    Better for Libertarians to reach out to religious folk, like the churches, who are being forced by government to perform Gay Marriage ceremonies, all over New England and other regions of the country. That?s a principled Libertarian stance, and one we can gain genuine adherents on.

    Say what!?

  41. Thomas Simmons

    @ Paulie: you responded before I did. I concur 100%.

    @ Brian: there’s a difference between being wrong on facts and being a rhetorical schill for the religious right. I sincerely doubt Eric was merely mistaken….

  42. Don Lake .......... More

    LibertarianGirl // Jan 9, 2010:

    “forcing churches to perform gay marriages …..”

    ahahhaahahaaa !

    people whom only want to have the same, NOT SPECIAL, rights as other primates, hominids, mammals, humans. SAME not SPECIAL!

    ahahhaahahaaa !

    I’d forgotten how ridiculously funny Dumbo, whom I have TRIED to talk with years ago, could be. Hey what ever happened to his endorsement, appointment that was to come from the Bishop of Roma ??????

    Pure entertainment, as the Democans and the Republicrats continue to snicker, and as the ‘Loyal Opposition’ continues to be an asterisk of an asterisk!

  43. Libervention Price Club

    “To measure how unlibertarian Dondero is, just have him take this purity test: http://marketliberal.org/test/. I doubt he’d score much worse than Ron Paul.”

    Dunno, he might do worse on other “purity tests.” Yours is not the only one out there.

    Part of the problem is that Dondero thinks that anyone who is antiwar is not a libertarian, and that anyone who is prowar – whether they are libertarian or not in any way shape or form – deserves to be supported.

    Thus, Giuliani become a “libertarian Republican,” and Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney become “libertarian enough” to support in his primaries. Ultimately Dondero voted for McCain, after doing everything he could to steer the Libertarian Party towards a Barr-Root ticket and saying it was the best ticket we ever had.

    Even Joe Lieberman is worthy of Dondero’s support, precisely because he is pro-war – Dondero says “true libertarians” support pro-war candidates even if they have a “whole host” of bad views on social and economic issues, as he admits Joe Lieberman does.

    His love of big military spending and an aggressive foreign policy backed with tax money and US troops trumps whatever small government views he has.

    The rest of his views can be emphasized, de-emphasized or changed any time as it suits him.

    For example – one minute he is pro-gay rights, and claims protecting his gay friends is one of the reasons why he wants to crusade against the jihadists, the next he thinks we should not do outreach to the LGBT community and individuals, but should instead target outreach at religious conservatives because they falsely fear that government will force their churches to perform gay marriages if gay marriage is made legal. Which is of course ridiculous.

  44. Brian Holtz

    No, both Paul and Dondero would do better on the WSPQ and on the quiz in David Boaz’s book Libertarianism: A Primer.

    Being wrong about who counts as a libertarian doesn’t make one unlibertarian. Hell, being wrong about who counts as a libertarian is very nearly one of the defining characteristics of being a libertarian. 🙂

    Advocating outreach to religious conservatives does not contradict support for gay rights.

    As shocking as it may seem, a libertarian can be wrong without being any less libertarian for it. When you say Dondero is “unlibertarian” for saying X, what I hear is: “I disagree with X but I’m too lazy to explain why”.

  45. Libervention Price Club

    No, both Paul and Dondero would do better on the WSPQ and on the quiz in David Boaz’s book Libertarianism: A Primer.

    Try Caplan’s test, or Ivan Eland’s “peace, prosperity and liberty scale” from Recarving Rushmore if it could be applied to the type of decision either would make if he had the power to do so.

    Advocating outreach to religious conservatives does not contradict support for gay rights.

    Absolutely correct.

    You can try both, and find some of each who are willing to coexist to work together to minimize government coercion.

    However, reaching out to religious conservatives by peddling lies about churches being forced to marry gay couples is not a “principled libertarian stance,” it’s the worst sort of dirty politics of the conservative-authoritarian borderline, stepping well into the zone of demagoguery.

    Furthermore, Mr. Dondero says libertarians (as he defines them) should not reach out LGBTers. he cites some poll I haven’t seen that 99% of them are “special rights” supporters, or maybe he just made up that figure.

    Of course, he says nothing about what percentage of religious conservatives who want to keep gay marriage illegal because of the absurd delusion that the government will force their churches to perform gay weddings are “special rights” supporters. In practice, I suppose you can say all of them, since their actual policy position is to maintain a special right for straight couples only.

    As shocking as it may seem, a libertarian can be wrong without being any less libertarian for it.

    That’s far from shocking.

    But, again, the issue is not whether or not Dondero holds small government positions on many issues; he certainly does. It’s just that his big government views on some select issues are more important to him than all his small government views on all other issues put together.

    To my knowledge that is not true of Ron Paul.

  46. Libervention Debate Club

    You didn’t identify a single “big government view” of Dondero’s.

    Not everything one believes has to be either an “unlibertarian” belief or a “principled libertarian” belief. That’s a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_excluded_middle.

    The Club suspects that you want to call Dondero’s misguided outreach ideas “unlibertarian” because you disagree with his liberventionism. If you want to claim that liberventionism disqualifies one from being considered a libertarian, then have the courage to say so.

    If instead you disagree with Dondero, and say that one can be a principled libertarian regardless of one’s position on libervention, then join the Club.

  47. Libervention Price Club

    I’ve identified several big government views of Dondero’s: support for the “usapatriot act,” and in general, big government when it comes to military spending and foreign policy.

    The most important thing here is not even that he holds these views, it’s that he considers this THE most important set of issues, period, and is willing to support any candidate who agrees with him on this set of issues – even Joe Lieberman, who he correctly says is wrong on a whole host of social and economic issues, but should be supported by “true libertarians” precisely because he is pro-war.

    I understand that you have deemed military spending and foreign policy to be irrelevant to libertarianism? Even so, support for big government when it comes to military spending, foreign policy, and domestic surveillance in the name of the “war on terror” is nevertheless support for big government, and is a big government view in one sphere of policy.

    When one considers supporting big government in that sphere to be so important that it trumps all small government positions of a candidate put together, as Mr. Dondero does (as exemplified by his argument as to why “true libertarians” should support Joe Lieberman), one becomes functionally an enemy of liberty.

    While Ron Paul does hold some big government views, for instance on immigration and abortion, he does not say that he would support any pro-life, anti-immigration candidate no matter what their views on other issues – see the difference?

    Not everything one believes has to be either an “unlibertarian” belief or a “principled libertarian” belief.

    It was Mr. Dondero, quoted above, who says that reaching out to religious conservatives who oppose gay marriage by scaring them with fables about government forcing their churches to perform gay marriages constitutes “principled libertarianism.”

    The Club suspects that you want to call Dondero’s misguided outreach ideas “unlibertarian” because you disagree with his liberventionism. If you want to claim that liberventionism disqualifies one from being considered a libertarian, then have the courage to say so.

    I don’t think liberventionism disqualifies one from being considered a libertarian. You and Starchild are both libertarians, for example.

    I do think it is a mistaken philosophy based on excessive trust of the US government to serve as the world’s police force (what you term the clean hands argument, but which I look at more as imperial hubris), and because it downplays the costs and risks of libervention (including secondary, tertiary, etc) and focuses solely on the benefits.

    I do believe it is a big government view. Any policy area where you believe the government should be big is by definition a big government view.

    However, I favor a broad interpretation of libertarianism, as you do.

    Ron Paul can still be a libertarian despite holding some big government views on social policy, and you can still be a libertarian despite holding some big government views on military spending/foreign policy.

    However, if Ron Paul were to say that he supports, say, Tancredo or Huckabee because Tancredo or Huckabee is the most pro-life, anti-immigration candidate, that “true libertarians” can’t be for open immigration policies or pro-choice on abortion, and that “true libertarians” should support any such candidates as Tancredo or Huckabee precisely due to their big government views on abortion and immigration, despite whatever other views they hold, that would be more like the functional equivalent of statements Mr. Dondero has made.

    At that point, if Ron Paul were to say such things – which he does not – I would not count him as a libertarian.

    There’s a big difference between holding liberventionist views and letting them trump every small government view you hold. To my knowledge, you and other liberventionists, other than Dondero, do not do that.

  48. Libervention Debate Club

    Yes, rabidly liberventionist libertarians are bad judges of the best means to get to the libertarian end of banishing fraud and initiated force from human relationships.

    And rabidly anti-war libertarians are bad judges of means, too.

    Witness Justin Raimondo’s support for Obama because the trillion-dollar war is “bankrupting” us. (Can Justin say “Obama surge”? Or “Obamacare”? Can Justin count to fifty trillion — the size of the unfunded liability of the nanny state?) Witness Tom Knapp voting for the Green nominee over the LP nominee. Witness Paulie Sipos and Thomas Cannoli loudly declaring every other week that antiwar is their litmus test. The Club could go on and on.

    Yeah, yeah, Price Club will ignore the literal budget figures and actuarial calculations, and quote lefty fantasy numbers that e.g. don’t count Social Security as part of the welfare state because it’s funded by payroll “contributions” that are named after it. Been there, refuted that. And yeah, yeah, Knapp will name-call Barr a “dixiecrat” and pretend that Barr favors government distribution of pornography when Knapp knows that’s not really true. Whatever. The point here is that being wrong about the recommended means — whether Lieberman or Obama or McKinney or even Barr — does not imply that one no longer counts as supporting the libertarian end.

    The Club is not saying that libertarian ends justify any proposed means as libertarian. Nor is the Club saying that foreign policy is irrelevant to libertarianism. The Club is just saying that libertarian ends don’t dictate some particular means as the only libertarian path — and that disagreement over such means is not a good reason to label one as not supporting the libertarian ends.

    If you disagree with someone’s judgment that their advocated means will achieve their stated libertarian ends, then stand up and make that case. Don’t cop out and label the person as “unlibertarian” just because they think they see a different path toward freedom than the one you think you see. Don’t smear somebody as “an enemy of liberty” when they say they share our goal of banishing fraud and initiated force from human relationships. Do you really think you have so many allies advocating that goal that you can afford to excommunicate some who seek it? Do you really think that there are so few people clamoring for “peace” that you should support those who on net oppose liberty? That’s as mistaken as Dondero thinking there are so few people clamoring for security that he should support those who on net oppose liberty.

    If you and Dondero still (wrongly) think that intervention should be the most important — or even a top-ten — issue in determining whether one falls in the libertarian quadrant of Nolan space, then feel free to jointly complain to The Advocates and have them fix their quiz.

    Good luck with that. 🙂

  49. ANO NYMUS

    What is a more fraudulent failure to disclose material information: not telling the statist Conservatives he is a pagan or not telling the pagan Libertarians he is a statist on zoning.

  50. paulie Post author

    Witness Paulie Sipos and Thomas Cannoli loudly declaring every other week that antiwar is their litmus test.

    I have? When was the last time, and where?

  51. Libervention Debate Club

    You’ve said several times that when you evaluate a politician’s positions, foreign policy trumps personal liberty, and personal liberty trumps economic liberty. You usually make some analogy comparing libervention to rape, and sometimes spice it up with a strawman about “endless war”.

    Is it not the case that you’d support a 100/0 antiwar socialist over a 100/100 liberventionist?

  52. Bruce Cohen

    In Paulie’s defense, he has openly stated he does not support a litums test against Libertarians who don’t hold his views on Foreign Policy.

    I feel Paulie is an ‘inculsivist’, and a big tent Libertarian with what it takes to make a difference.

    There is no call to mix his name or character with Thomas ‘fuzzy’ Sipos.

    Paulie in his least sober moment makes more sense than Thomas in his most lucid.

  53. Michael Seebeck

    Bruce @33: See this: https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/01/quantifying-the-libertarian-vote/#comment-153614

    and my replies at https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/01/quantifying-the-libertarian-vote/comment-page-1/#comment-153628 and https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/01/quantifying-the-libertarian-vote/comment-page-1/#comment-153629

    You can’t be socially tolerant if you can’t respect one’s religious beliefs. Objecting to one’s actions is entirely different, and every religion has those who commit atrocities in the name of that religion. Dondero mixes up belief and action from that belief, as do most conservatives, and that’s why he’s not even close. He also makes the classic kindergarten mistake of spoiling the bushel over a couple of bad apples in his arguments. Most of us recognize that here and as a result, take him as seriously as Milnes and Trotskyite, meaning not at all.

  54. paulie Post author

    You’ve said several times that when you evaluate a politician’s positions, foreign policy trumps personal liberty, and personal liberty trumps economic liberty.

    Yes, but none of those by itself constitutes a litmus test.

    Is it not the case that you’d support a 100/0 antiwar socialist over a 100/100 liberventionist?

    I see foreign policy as a missing third dimension, so would that be
    100/100/0 vs 0/100/100, meaning they would be about equal in “points?”

    However, I don’t think most “liberventionists” would score zero on my hypothetical third dimension. For example, I don’t think you or Starchild would, or even Cohen. Dondero might.

    Also, there would be many other factors: what offices are X and Y competing for? What issues does each emphasize? etc…

Leave a Reply

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