Jim Burns: Move LP national presidential nominating conventions back to year before election

Email from James Libertarian Burns:

Dear Paul,

216 words, 1 minute approximate reading time

The Libertarian Party is the most effective, efficient and economical

when we have our Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates

active and in the field.

Where are our Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates?

Well, we will not have them until May of next year.

It is too late for this election, but I suggest that we change the

rules and hold our Presidential nominating convention, as it once

was, the week (or part of the week) leading to and concluding with

Labor Day (September) the year before (odd numbered years) the

Presidential election starting in 2015.

This will not happen unless you and people of like mind take action.

If you disagree please let me know and why you disagree. If you agree

with me, I suggest that we inform the LP By-Laws committee of our opinion.

As a way to reach the LP By-Laws Committee, please go to:

http://www.lp.org/bylawssurvey at the bottom of the page in the

comment: (box) and e-mail the cut and paste of the following sentence:

Presidential nominating convention shall be held the week (or part

of the week) leading to and concluding with Labor Day (September)

the year before (odd numbered years) the Presidential election,

starting in 2015.

Best Wishes,

Jim Burns

http://www.jimburnsforpresident.com/joomla/

http://www.facebook.com/#!/profile.php?id=100000094450639

PO Box 1139

Beatty, NV 89003

541-261-4163

702-722-9494

19 thoughts on “Jim Burns: Move LP national presidential nominating conventions back to year before election

  1. Here's a radical idea

    what about states that have primaries for the LP?
    How would a primary be held, if national convention already picked a winner?
    Primaries in some states provide opportunity for registering voters to the party and subsequent mailing lists.

  2. Steven Wilson

    A senate of state chairs would be much more functional because each state and their problems would need to be addressed in order for each candidate to obtain the state chairs vote.

    Direct solution-based language.

  3. Barry Silverwater

    How about nominating a candidate at the previous presidential convention? That way, they get a full four years plus a couple of months to campaign, the convention can happen later in the news cycle, and candidates can take advantage of any opportunities presented by primaries.

  4. RedPhillips

    I like Jim Burns, but this is a bad idea. The masses are not thinking about the general election in Sep of the pre-election year, and activists are thinking about the major party nominations. A nominating convention in Sep would be a big non-event. Having the nomination in the same year as the two majors allows for the possibility of disaffected activists and candidates to jump ship to the third party of their choice – Libertarian, Green, Constitution, etc. The CP tried this one year for ballot access reasons and switched back because it didn’t work.

    What all the third parties need is for their nominations to mean something (not necessarily a potential to win initially but for the nomination to be a big credential) so that they attract several “big name” candidates who have a high profile nomination battle. But for the nominations to mean more the parties have to increase in size and influence and the two major parties have to start losing their grip. So it is a vicious cycle and we are back where we started. My point being, I guess, that there are no gimicky solutions.

  5. Thomas L. Knapp

    BS@6,

    Interesting idea, but problematic.

    No presidential candidate makes it for more than few months without stepping on his own crank and pissing off his fellow partisans.

    If the LP nominated four years in advance, there would almost certainly be a movement to elect an LNC at one of the two other conventions intervening between then and the elections that would withdraw the nomination. The LP would end up spending more effort arguing over whether they’d chosen the right nominee than on promoting that nominee.

    Red @7,

    The nominating conventions in the election years are also big non-events. Whether moving the nomination back to the previous fall would produce a net benefit is an open question, but it’s not a prima facie unreasonable claim.

  6. Darryl W. Perry

    The LP chose the Presidential nominee the year prior to the election until changing it after the 1992 election. To pretend “this (choosing the nominee during the election year) is how it’s always been done” is simply not true.

  7. Richard Winger

    Holding a national convention in the year before the election makes it legally impossible for the candidate to seek to qualify for primary season matching funds.

  8. Barry Silverwater

    @10 and probably @7 as well provide good reasons for moving it back to prior years.

  9. Darryl W. Perry

    Holding a national convention in the year before the election makes it legally impossible for the candidate to seek to qualify for primary season matching funds.
    And libertarians, normally, don’t seek or accept government campaign funding, for moral or ethical reasons.

  10. Richard Winger

    Yes, but Libertarian Parties currently or in the past have accepted state income tax check-off donations, in Alabama, Arizona, California, Idaho, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Utah. And in 1980 the Libertarian Party went to court and won, against a federal law that gave cheaper postal rates to the Dems and Reps than any other party. Libertarians have also gone to court, and won, against states that give the list of registered voters to the Dems and Reps, and not the Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Party has also gone to court, and won, to force states to let voters register “Libertarian”. All of these things cost the taxpayers a certain amount of money. Even having the Libertarian Party on the ballot and counting its votes costs the taxpayers money. The principle that Libertarians will never seek government services, if carried to a logical extension, would mean no Libertarian Party political activity.

  11. Thomas L. Knapp

    RW@13,

    “The principle that Libertarians will never seek government services, if carried to a logical extension, would mean no Libertarian Party political activity.”

    You say that like it’s a bad thing.

  12. Darryl W. Perry

    having the Libertarian Party on the ballot and counting its votes costs the taxpayers money.

    It doesn’t cost additional money – those ballots are being printed & counted, regardless of which candidate gets the vote. I guess one could argue that printing the LP nominee uses more ink – but the argument could also be made that printing more than one name, uses more ink.

    My point in #12 was that LP Presidential candidates aren’t likely to accept matching funds for moral/ethical reasons – so moving the nominating convention back a year wouldn’t have much impact in that regard.

  13. Richard Winger

    It costs the taxpayers money to valid Libertarian Party petitions. It costs the taxpayers money to send lists of registered voters to the Libertarian Party. It costs a lot of money for states to hold Libertarian Party primaries, and 25 states have at one time or another held Libertarian Party primaries (Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming). Some of these states even paid money to have the party elect party officers in taxpayer-funded primaries. And every time we sue over an unfair election law, and win, the taxpayers pay attorneys fees to our attorneys. When we aren’t on the ballot but the government counts write-ins for our candidates, that costs money. Printing and mailing statements of what the LP stands for, in government voter handbooks, costs lots of money. When we file campaign finance statements with governments, it costs the government money to process and audit them.

  14. George Phillies

    @15

    In Massachusetts, when there is a Libertarian primary, there are Libertarian ballots, printed separately from the Democratic and Republican ballots.

  15. Steven Wilson

    @RW 16

    If libertarians believe in the market device, then every game player must take their place.

    As a tax payer (customer) the service I am paying for is inherent to the game itself. I am not paying for the right to read the constitution, but rather the application of the procedures stated within.

    Ballot access is a tax on voting.

    And as there are criteria to be a citizen, then their should be criteria to be a voter or public servant (totoal votes per region per calendar rotation).

    Imagine if I was in a restaurant and paid for a meal someone else had ordered for me.

    I need food in order to survive, but the means to that end have procedure and rules in this game.

    Could I have eaten somewhere else? No
    Could I not eat and still survive? No

    Play the game like everyone else. Freedom is defined by the rules we play by within a social contract.

  16. Darryl W. Perry

    I oppose any government-funded primary; however, I otherwise support all “privilege” (free voter lists, discounted postage & same path to ballot access) given to the major parties being extending to ALL political parties!

Leave a Reply

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