North Carolina Libertarians ‘Bloody But Unbowed’

Liberty Point:

Libertarian candidates consider election defeats a learning experience, prepare for the next election.

Although the results of the 2010 election were a disappointment for North Carolina’s Libertarian candidates because they were not elected, several consider it a very good learning experience and preparation for future campaigns.

Dr. Mike Beitler, Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate, said that the goal of his campaign was to let voters know there is an alternative to the “bloated, outdated two-party system.”

“The establishment parties will continue to drive our country off the cliff until the American people wake up to the reality that both establishment parties will continue to serve their lobbyist corporate masters to the detriment of the American people,” he said.

T.J. Rohr was the first-ever Libertarian candidate for district attorney. He ran in district 25 which covers Burke, Caldwell and Catawba Counties.

“Although I am disappointed that I was not elected, I am honored and humbled by the support I did receive,” he said. “I am also proud that so many people were open to the issues I raised in this election: focusing on serious crimes involving theft, violence, and fraud, and de-emphasizing non-violent drug offenses, while repudiating illegal and unconstitutional traffic checkpoints and the death penalty.”

Stephen Burr said that he hoped the victorious Republicans in the Union County commissioner’s race would work with the current board members to find solutions to the problems the county faces.

“Union County taxpayers are on the hook for $900 million in bond payments and interest over the next quarter century, with a looming budget crisis that will be brought on by not adequately planning for the coming plunge in property tax revenues, “ he said. Burr intends to remain active in the county and won’t rule out another run for the commission or other office in 2012.

Stephanie Watson, candidate for N.C. Senate District 16, noted that 2010 was the year the state Libertarian Party “turned our principles into action.”

“Our party’s candidates stepped forward, many running very active campaigns across the state with the hope of being elected.” she said. “It has been an honor to share this adventure with them. I’ve learned a lot as a first-time candidate that I hope to take with me into 2012, both for my own run and for our party’s race for governor.”

“Third party candidates are often thought to divide the vote of a major party, but this was clearly not an issue,” said Lon Cecil, who ran for U.S. House District 12. “As discussed in several forums with Congressman Watt, we have many economic and job problems that Congress will have to quickly address in the 112th session. It is only 24 months until the next elections”

In the still-to-be-decided 2nd Congressional District race, Tom Rose got more votes than the margin between incumbent Democrat Bob Etheridge and Republican Renee Elmers. The unofficial returns have the margin at 1,646 and Rose received 3,463 votes. Rose doesn’t speculate about whether his candidacy helped or hurt either, because he said he received support from both Democrats and Republicans.

“I’ve had Republicans, including one General Assembly candidate, tell me that they have voted for me, and have had Democrats and Republicans fed up with their parties making phone calls for me.”

“I do know that I convinced many Democrats to vote for me because they were upset with Etheridge but would not vote for the Republicans,” Rose said. “As amazing as it may seem, most of those who said this were over 60.”

Nationwide, the Libertarian Party extended its record of fielding more candidates than any other third party, more than 800 candidates. More than one million Americans voted for a Libertarian candidate for U.S. House and 15 of those candidates got more than five percent of the vote in a three-way race, a significant increase over past elections. That represents more than one percent of the vote total, more than any third party has earned since Henry Wallace’s Progressives in 1948.

Two U.S. Senate candidates received better than four percent of the vote in a three-way race, including party co-founder David Nolan who ran in Arizona against 2008 Republican presidential candidate John McCain.

12 thoughts on “North Carolina Libertarians ‘Bloody But Unbowed’

  1. Robert Milnes

    Roosevelt 1912 Progressives 27%
    LaFollette 1924Progressives
    Wallace 1948Progressives
    The progressives can form a national party but can’t get enough votes to win.
    The LP can form a national party but can’t get enough votes to win. The Libertarian Vote/Cato Institute 13%.
    27 +13=40.
    RonPaul 2008 gets @The Libertarian Vote + $35 million.
    How many more learning experiences do you need?

  2. Single Winner Districts = Neanderthal Attractor

    Robert Milnes is correct, a plurality of as little as 33.33% plus two votes, will beat the two major parties if they split the difference down the middle at 33.33% each minus one each.

    In fact, that’s exactly what the Frees are doing in 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014.

    Join the Frees,
    opposite gender #1!

    2011
    http://www.usparliament.org/ss11-6.htm

    2012
    http://www.usparliament.org

    2013
    http://www.usparliament.org/ss11-1.htm
    2014
    California State “Coalition of Seven plus One”

    http://usparliament.org/drafts/electionAD_10-11-02.html

  3. Michael H. Wilson

    Great to see the North Carolina crew taking a positive approach to this.

    Way to go guys!

  4. wolfefan

    Hi paulie – time for that dedicated PLAS thread. 4 comments, only one of them on topic. Milnes with the added bonus of the Frees.

    Ditto Michael H. Wilson – kudos to the NC party!

  5. Catholic Trotskyist

    No, the UnHoly Alliance of Real Idea Makers (myself, Ogle, Milnes, Lake), must be free to continue propegating our great ideas under all threads.

  6. paulie Post author

    Wolfefan,

    We had a vote on that recently…it went 2-0 for Milnes. We may or may not revisit the issue at some point in the future, but it seems too soon to do so now.

  7. wolfefan

    Thanks, paulie – I’m used to being in the minority. 🙂 Since the thread hasn’t taken off on-topic, can anyone explain what’s going on with these Frees? I’ve visited the website and clicked through to a few different pages but have no idea what is going on. It appears that someone has randomly chosen names and declared them part of a parliament, either with or without their consent. Certainly misleading to someone who stumbles upon the site. There also seems to be no plan to get from here to there. Who specifically are the candidates that the Frees support that have publicly pledged to seek to implement their Parliamentary idea?

  8. Single Winner Districts = Neanderthal Attractor

    Wolfefan, thanks for your interest.

    North Carolina is among the states covered by The USA Parliament, Inc.’s activities.

    The USA Parliament, Inc, is a voter registration drive, using federal voter registration forms on paper ballots.

    The rules are implemented by the ruling coalition, and provide the guidelines.
    See;
    http://www.usparliament.org/rules.htm

    If you know of any person who wishes to have their name be on of off one of the four 100-member elected parliaments, or any of the eight incomplete subsidiary 12 super-state parliaments, please contact us and the web page designer(s) will attend to the matter as quickly as possible.

    Currently the focus is on 2011 and the Central California Mini-state Parliament, ss11-6, a group of twelve counties in California. I’m the primary mover, trying to get the members (MMPs-members of mini-state parliament) to elect a more active executive.

    Several of their current executives have become unavailable, due to various reasons, but they support our moving forward towards “the bunker”, or the two party system.

    I’ve been having some good luck, just got two new prime minister prospects to agree to allow me to elect their names. Cool people who want to work together as a team, based on votes cast as proof.

    Markham Robinson [American Independent] and Nathan Johnson [American Independent].

    What’s really bogging us down, is often the nominees are out of touch and too difficult to contact. Some people are like yourself, who don’t know how to act.

    We welcome your name, and again, thank you for your interest. We use a ballot where names get ranked with consecutive order, beginning with the number one.

    –James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]
    MMP in 2011 (MMP=member of mini-state parliament)

    PS Paulie is trying to learn what we are about, he will not be able to answer many of your questions. I’d address them to me, my contact information is on the contact page on The USA Parliament, Inc.

    We are under fire, as though on Normandy Beach, where 2500 “soldiers” die every day. Like a comedy of errors, we are not able to get past those in the bunker, our numbers are being rapidly diminished, so please hustle and work fast.

    Join the Frees,
    opposite gender #1!

    “Why do you THINK they called it Google?”

  9. paulie Post author

    Since the thread hasn’t taken off on-topic, can anyone explain what’s going on with these Frees?

    As best I can tell, some kind of role-playing game thingamajiggy. Or, it may be a plan to actually change real world government which does not have much support.

    Some people may have allowed their names to be used (I specifically disallowed my name to be used, so if it pops up, let me know) or failed to respond, which I think may have been interpreted as allowing their names to be used – I’m not sure. However, it’s pretty clear that the vast majority of those are not actively involved in any way. Perhaps they just didn’t bother to ask that their names be removed.

  10. paulie Post author

    Were you using multiple proposals, and ranking the choices with numbers beginning with the number 1?

    There was only one proposal, so there was nothing to rank.

Leave a Reply

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