Dear friends and supporters:
I hope everyone is enjoying your Thanksgiving. This year, I am thankful for your support, advice, and help since I launched this committee. I am thankful for all the feedback I received, positive and negative, and for the activity this page saw. I am thankful for the volunteers who came forward to support this work.
I am also thankful that so many of us are committed to working for a free society, and for a better Libertarian Party.
That said, I have reached a decision regarding this campaign. I am saddened to report that I will not become a candidate and seek the Libertarian Party’s nomination.
This decision was not reached lightly. Since launching this committee, I have had many serious discussions with various leaders in this party. In the last 2 weeks, I have spent hours each day on the phone with people I respect. In the end, this decision is mine and I take full ownership. I am sorry for the time you have invested; I did want to take any more of your time now that I have made this decision.
This decision was not based on specific criticisms or negative feedback; in fact, the feedback I received was largely positive from a wide variety of party members. It is based on my estimation of the success of both the nomination campaign and the general campaign.
I have decided that I wish to focus my attention on growing this party, building stronger organizations, placing more Libertarians into office, and building a stronger, more financially responsible Libertarian Party. I emphasized that my Presidential campaign would be used for this purpose. Through the exploratory process I decided that a Presidential run is not the best way I can work at this, nor is it the best way I can benefit this party.
I will be focusing on my work as state chair, as an LNC member, as a member of several LNC committees, and, most of all, as an elected official. I will be working for a party that, without abandoning its principles, runs candidates successfully for elected office and moves public policy in a libertarian direction by winning elections.
I will be working, through the LNC, for a party that is run in a serious manner. This means one that behaves responsibility with donor funds, one that takes its own rules seriously, and one that focuses its efforts on the goal of a party – running candidates for public office, and winning those races. I will work hard to ensure that we do this without abandoning our principles – that we are placing people into office who will work tirelessly to move policy in a freedom direction, not people who will abandon their principles once elected.
I will also work with those elected officials who desire advice to ensure that our public officials not only remain committed to freedom principles, but also know how to be effective in their elected office. It is not enough for our candidates to believe in freedom; they must learn also to govern in a manner that makes strides towards a happier, more prosperous, and freer society. Governing require more than beliefs; it requires action. I will work with the LNC to offer classes and group discussions on this topic. I already maintain a mailing list, together with Dr. Lieberman, for elected officials to share their experience and knowledge.
I have also decided that I will be endorsing a specific candidate as I exit the race. I am endorsing Tom Knapp’s NOTA campaign. NOTA is our strongest candidate – I say this considering the success we have attained with our most credible candidates in the past, our financial status, and our lack of a strong network of elected officials.
I am endorsing NOTA because I would like this party to focus its attention on electing local candidates – 90% of a person’s interaction with government is with local government, and a strong network of local officials is a party’s most important asset.
Running NOTA means not having a single standard-bearer for the moment other than our strong, principled Chair. It means not having a candidate who endorses policies requiring bakers to bake cakes for all potential customer. It means not running a pot-company owning former Republican. It means not expending precious resources paying off debt from a Republican campaign, or collecting donations on the promise of tv ads but paying 50% of those donations to a campaign manager. It means not worrying if one of our candidates will go defend Baby Doc in court, will endorse the prosecution of Chelsea Manning, or will refer to the police as our noble defenders in blue.
That said, while I am endorsing NOTA, I will respect the decision of the delegates and will work to support the campaign of any nominee, in keeping with the bylaws requiring the LNC to do so.
Thank you for your work for freedom. Please continue to work with me for freedom and for a stronger party.
You could try looking up limp biscuit, but then, from your position, looking up might sting a bit.
Hell, I thought you were talking about a limp Italian pastry called a passoli. I must admit I’ve never tried one. Have you ever shared one with Pauli?.
Dave, it seems you don’t know what a limp biscuit is, based on your responses. Or maybe you’re just feigning ignorance. Anyway, it isn’t on or anywhere near my lips. But as for what comes next…should I bother trying to explain? …Never mind, it’ll go (all) over your head anyway.
This may not be NOTA2016 dot org but it is a remarkably similar campaign. http://www.nobodyforpresident.org/
Mr. Martini,You’re the one who isn’t paying attention! I tried to warn you. If that biscuit on your lips ISN’T “limp”, what comes next, MIGHT surprise you. But on the other hand, perhaps you really enjoy “bisque”
@Paulie. Good points about Nic. He has many good years ahead of him, may well launch a bid for lower office before he considers a national race, and I’m not as familiar with his personal situation.
But as to his resume, I’d contend that a “mere” public defender and experience criminal lawyer is still probably closer to being credible for a Presidential nominee than any of the others I listed, except perhaps Miron and Munger with their top-tier academic positions at major universities (economics at Harvard and polisci at Duke, respectively). Running an officeholder is always preferable in the abstract, of course. It might be popular to bash the idea, but I do think being an ex-Gov. and all that goes with that is still a major argument in favor of re-nominating GJ.
But just comparing the candidates I mentioned, I think Sarwark can make a stronger case for his job experience being more useful and credible in a nominee than Wyllie (radio show host), Phillies (physics professor at a small university), Sarvis (software developer), Katz (local planning board member), or Wrights (semi-professional party activist). It certainly seems more on-point than Browne (motivational author), Badnarik (itinerant lecturer), Ruwart (pharmaceutical researcher), or Kubby (marijuana activist). Not that there’s anything wrong with any of those occupations, or that they say anything negative about the candidate, but if we’re going to talk credentials that are at least within spitting distance of credibility and relevance for a potential President, Sarwark would be towards the top of the list of potentials who have not held major office.
Pay attention Dave, you’re the limp biscuit, and there’s nothing for me to spit out. You, on the other hand… and, on the other other hand…. and….
Hey Martin, if your biscuit ISN”T limp, SPIT IT OUT!
DT’s da limp biscuit!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39UGXB1AdX0
joe juror wrote; “It’s kind of like saying more time needs to be spent on masturbation”
Isn’t THAT what this entire string has been about?
I think it’s time for Knapp to switch thumbs!.
If I am not mistaken, NOTA does get a small ration of speaking time in the formal nominating process.
I personally see no reason why a “representative” of NOTA should be in the candidate debate. Not only are there problems with designating the “representative,” as you point out, but the whole point of NOTA is “better no candidate than THESE candidates.”
And in fact if it did come down to a representative for NOTA in the debate, I have two opinions:
1) It won’t be me. Period.
2) It should not be someone whose case for NOTA is “I don’t think we should get in that other party’s way.” It should be someone making the LP’s case for NOTA, not the GOP’s case for LP NOTA. It is not the function of the Libertarian National Convention to entertain other parties’ wishes.
But, to repeat my prediction: By the time of the 2016 Libertarian National Convention, there will be no “NOTA because Rand Paul is the GOP nominee” delegates, because Rand Paul has about as much chance of getting the 2016 GOP presidential nomination as does the corpse of Harold Stassen.
Paulie,
I am aware other people could still run (hopefully Phillies). My statement is based on the current crop of candidates.
I thought of one potential snag. Since there’s only one NOTA option on a LP ballot, say I am a state LP organizer of a state convention debate between candidates seeking the presidential nomination (this could actually happen, so the question is not necessarily just theoretical). Suppose then I have Joshua Katz or Tom Knapp who would like to stand in for NOTA and some Rand Paul fan there who would like to use that as his reason to push NOTA. They both want to represent NOTA in the debate. Who gets to decide who gets to speak for NOTA and how? And even if we were to let them both in the debate, which seems to me to be excessive since we have only one NOTA option for people to vote for, just as each biped candidate only gets to have him or herself or one stand-in on that stage, NOTA should not get more than one either – what if it’s, say, six different NOTA advocates all of whom want to push NOTA for different reasons and all of whom want a place on the debate stage?
…Except for the whole “Tom Knapp’s NOTA” campaign. Just endorsing “NOTA” is enough. That means “Nobody,” negatively including “Any NOTA Associated With Tom Knapp” is acceptable. “Nobody” doesn’t need a brand. It doesn’t need to be advertised. It is an option whose value is inherently obvious. It means “You are all assholes, and none of you should have any access to any political power.” That means they’re not strategically acceptable, philosophically acceptable, or qualified. That means “None Of The Above.” Simple. Nothing against Tom Knapp, but NOTA doesn’t need any personalities or egos associated with it.
It’s kind of like saying more time needs to be spent on masturbation. That may well be true, and the result might be better than voting. …But all you really need to do is just not inquire too closely about what people are doing behind closed doors, and that problem will take care of itself. George Carlin had millions of fans, and I’m sure some of them are going to be following his lead this cumming election day.
So, endorse “NOTA” not “Joe-Blow-who-lacks-the-popularity-to-gain-a-significant-following’s-NOTA-plan.” This name is not a name. The instant NOTA has a name associated with it, instead of a few malcontent advocates for the obvious concept, it’s not even NOTA anymore. It’s “Joe Blow’s NOTA” or “Look at me, I’m a real anarchist!”
Yeah, we get it.
Good to see another libertarian who’s not delusional!
I’m sure Mary Ruwart has. Not sure about Kubby, but he probably has. As a Kubby stand-in, I can say have read a fair bit of their work, but since I was a stand-in that doesn’t count. Phillies has probably read some, although he clearly doesn’t agree with a lot of it. Dunno about any of the others.
Sounds like a softer version of soviet Marxism – the dictatorship of the proletariat, then the stateless workers’ paradise. We know how that really works out, of course.
That must have been DT, since I read everyone else’s comments in this thread (I don’t read his as a matter of principle and recommend the same policy to others). While the idea of DT storming off from the LP in a huff if NOTA wins does make me marginally more pro-NOTA, it would take more than that to bring me over to your side on this. But, I must admit, it’s tempting 🙂
None, so it would most likely be one or both of those (if the nomination is not really in play, probably just the LNC; if it is, possibly both).
Either could be good, but Adrian might be more likely to be interested in 2016. I think Nick will most likely run for chair again if anything.
It depends on how heavily. If they manage to run a serious effort and bring several hundred locals, massively expand the size of their delegation by getting thousand of them signed up as dues paying national members, and/or stack a few hundred into other state delegations, that would be a whole different level of packing than what normally happens.
I suspect it won’t be nearly that huge unless they are smart enough to hire me to make it happen 🙂
I have a hard time believing you would agree with him more than with Johnson. Gravel BTW also support the “fairtax” as well as conventionally modern American leftist views on most economic issues (roughly speaking).
But, despite that, you do make some pretty good points in Gravel’s favor. However, somewhat later in the thread you also mention talking to Gravel in Connecticut. Coincidentally, I talked to him there also, and he seemed to think he was the only candidate for the nomination who wanted to legalize more than only marijuana. You might hope he would have known better.
Nick has a lot of potential, but as far as any kind of national race I think that it would probably be further into the future than the timeframe you are talking about here. I could be wrong. He’s a more effective than average chair, at least so far, and may want to run for that again – and may well win if he does. His kids are very young, and he keep having more. Is he going to want to put up with the travel schedule of a presidential campaign and is his family going to be OK with it? He just took over his family business, so he may need to be on hand to run that for the next few years. He does have the rhetorical skills, but his resume does not yet show what the general public would consider presidential-level executive or political experience. I think he may well be able to parlay his contacts and name recognition among LP supporters around the country plus his family business serving the public into the kind of money that could make for a serious run for legislature or (less likely) Congress. If he should happen to win, it would boost him for presidential consideration for sure – we haven’t elected a legislator in many years, and never elected a congressman under our own label. It doesn’t mean he necessarily could not run if that doesn’t happen, though.
Good thoughts in the rest of your post as well.
Unless they pick up on it because it serves a propaganda purpose.
I don’t expect the Katz/Knapp efforts for NOTA to prevail – unless they comingle with a larger NOTA effort from the Rand Paul camp. As for whoever else, it will depend on who those persons will be and what kind of campaign they run. The strongest contenders may well actually emerge very close to national convention time, or even AT the national convention, as has happened several times in the past.
That depends on just how strong NOTA is. If it’s 5% of the vote that will be a lot different than if it’s 45% – and certainly a lot different than if it’s 55%.
There’s hopes and then there’s hopes. Ron Paul’s hopes were finished long before the 2008 and 2012 nominations, or did not realistically exist, but both times there were plenty of foolish hardcore Ron Paulers who insisted anyone who pointed this out was a shill for the establishment and that he was really going to win the R nomination and the presidency – facts be damned. Some doubled down and insisted post-nomination – both times – that he had a real shot to win as a write-in. I expect the same pre-nom phenom for mini-Paul, not so much the write-in thing though since unlike his dad he will actively campaign for the Republican ticket whether he is on it or not. And I fully expect them to try to crash the LP, at the convention and afterwards – the only question being how hard they will try, how many people they can recruit to help them and to what extent they will succeed.
You have a point there.
There are certain to be other candidates to emerge between now and the convention in a year and a half.
I don’t expect Rand Paul to have any interest in seeking or accepting an LP nomination. I also don’t think his chances are very good at the Republican nomination, though better than his father’s ever were. VP may be a real possibility for him, and P an outside shot. I don’t expect it to be up in the air by the time the LP convenes. But I do expect a bunch of Rand Paul fanbois to insist irrationally that he has a real chance at the R nomination all the way through the R convention even if he doesn’t, as was the case with his dad both times. And I expect them to be more numerous this time since Rand Paul will in general have a stronger P nom campaign than either of the elder Paul’s (08 or 12). So, I would not be surprised if they organize behind NOTA on the LP side so we don’t “spoil” the election for them in the general.
Please forgive me for diverting from the original content of this thread in order to take issue with what Chuck Moulton wrote in a reply regarding what he ascribes as one of Josh Katz’s stances – quoting Chuck:
“I’ve seen him deviate from sound economics and libertarian principles just as much as Johnson, such as opposing sweatshops despite the overwhelming literature they improve the lives of workers.”
to which I will note:
there is NO “libertarian” argument FOR “sweatshops” IF one accepts the very commonly held definition of that word to mean not factories or manufacturing facilities in general – but instead to be a subset that has a few further defining features – which when analyzed I would say are generally the following:
“sweatshop”: a factory or manufacturing facility which has unsafe conditions (such as exposure of the workers to toxins, or to repetitive motions to the point of high likelihood of permanent physical damage, or in facilities which have great potential to gravely endanger the workers lives via collapse, faulty machinery, or fire – in which the workers have been coerced or compelled to accept working in these conditions via
FORCE INSTITUTED BY THE STATE –
examples of this force including violently removing people off of their traditionally held or worked properties in order to create situations where they can not support themselves so that they are then coerced into entering urban work forces where they inflate the labor pool massively reducing leverage of workers in negotiation with employers (in fact in a great number of nations with a significant presence of “sweatshops” there has been a previous approximately 150 years via colonialism first and corruption second of this exact type of state instituted violence)
and then next: denial of freedom of association, denial of freedom of speech, denial of representation in government, denial of freedom from search, denial of due process – ALL in order to make sure that the workers do not have ability to negotiate better working conditions with the employer.
SO – IF a “libertarian” is in fact against force instituted by the State (and I truly hope that anyone who calls themselves a libertarian has this as a very basic principle) – and IF one accepts the very commonly held definition noted above regarding how a “sweatshop” has some very specific features which differentiate it from “factories” or “manufacturers” in general – then I’d say there is no reason a libertarian should be defending them.
Best regards,
Steve Berson
So failing to run in one particular race makes us, not only stupid, but also not “true libertarians.” How odd. The usual complaint I hear is that true libertarians don’t run for office, or don’t win office, or whatever. I don’t agree with that one, obviously, and certainly can understand almost every argument made here, but the idea that deciding not to run in a race is somehow ‘untrue libertarian’ just boggles my mind.
I agree, and said before, that Gravel is not a libertarian, certainly not as its understood in modern America. It would be nice if we had libertarians who had done as much for freedom as Mike Gravel has, wouldn’t it? We have lots and lots who talk a lot more about freedom than he does (although, at the debate in CT, he was the only candidate who told me they had read Mises and Rothbard, for what it’s worth – and we had an interesting conversation afterwards in which he said he agreed with Rothbard, but favored wealth redistribution because of all the government policies, past and present, consolidating wealth, and that he thought government was the only way to reverse that – and would favor free markets once it was fixed. I don’t agree, but it was a nice conversation.) And actually, we do have libertarians who have done lots – Snowden seems to be a libertarian, and his actions seem on par with Gravel’s vis a vis the Pentagon Papers…now we just need a libertarian who killed the draft.
“Further, I would go so far as to say that IF NOTA even comes close to being nominated for the office of President, I will walk away from this party and spend the balance of my days as a TRUE libertarian”
Wow. That bonus offer is truly humbling and compelling. The thought of you leaving the party and becoming a libertarian might even bring Paulie over to the NOTA cause!
Andy wrote: “All of this talk of running NOTA for President is counterproductive. Not running a candidate for President, or have people run, and change their names to None Of The Above, is not going to grow the Libertarian Party or movement in this country”
Perfectly stated Andy. I just can’t believe all of the wasted time & effort going into this string. If I were a outsider considering joining the L.P OR the Libertarian movement: this circuitous non-
sense would completely turn me away.
Further, I would go so far as to say that IF NOTA even comes close to being nominated for the office of President, I will walk away from this party and spend the balance of my days as a TRUE libertarian. I have no doubt that that hundreds of members will do the same.
I like what I saw from Adrian Wyllie’s campaign in Florida and I would gladly welcome him into the race for the LP’s Presidential nomination for 2016.
How about nominating actual libertarians to run for office as Libertarian Party candidates, instead of nominating non-libertarian opportunists who are just using the party for ballot access, like Barr did and like Gravel tried to do?
Gravel is no Libertarian, but I would have taken a Gravel/Barr or Barr/Gravel ticket over what we actually got.
What interest would the Wyllie folks have in stuffing the convention, if not him seeking the nomination or an internal office? In any event I’d take Sarwark over Wyllie any day. And the convention is always “packed” by the host state, thats pretty unavoidable.
Mike Gravel is not a libertarian. He would not have been a good Presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party for that reason.
I would like to see Sarwak as a Presidential candidate, however since the rumor down in FL is that Wyllie-Snitker crew are going to pack the Convention in Orlando, and Sarwak offended one of the dear leaders, I doubt that would happen.
Above, a comment mentioned the candidates who sought the 2008 nomination and ultimately lost to Barr. I was recently listening to the news and there was speculation about whether Mark Udall would read the unredacted torture report into the Congressional record. It made me wistful for the time we almost ran a candidate with the courage and the honor to defy the White House, the security apparatus, and his own party to read important documents into the record.
Plumb-line libertarian? Of course not. I differ with him on many issues, maybe less issues than I differ with Johnson, maybe more, I haven’t really compared – but I suspect that if I didn’t just count but also attached priority and weights to issues, Gravel would come out ahead. He certainly wasn’t what you’d call an American-style libertarian.
However, it seems to me (this is one of my unstated reasons for ending my campaign) that you become a leader in the freedom movement more generally, but in this party specifically also – or at least you should – by what you do, not what you say. I’m uninterested in candidates being able to recite the catechism with purity and radicalness on their breath – well, no, I’m interested, but it’s not sufficient. I’m interested in what you can actually do for freedom – and I don’t mean get on Fox. I mean standing up in the Senate to read the Pentagon Papers, filibustering the draft, that kind of thing. On a lesser scale, standing up and stopping a big corporation from muscling a small, locally-owned business out of town through putting up regulatory hurdles – a much, much lesser scale, obviously, but that kind of thing.
The above had nothing to do with the Presidential nomination, just a thought I had.
I think there would be strong pressure for the Congress to elect the winner of the national popular vote in that scenario, particularly if the difference is substantial between 2nd and 3rd. Electing a President who got ~35% of the vote would go over a lot better than one who not only lost to NOTA, but also lost to his major-party opponent. In such a constitutional crisis, that might be strong enough to override simple partisan assumptions about who Reps and Senators would vote for.
“”The Congress that would vote, would be the newly elected Congress, not the one that was in power during the election. So, presuming NOTA got 270 EVs; then I seriously doubt either the GOP or Dems would have a majority in the House. They would likely work out some kind of compromise to elect one of the major party candidates as Prez in the House, and the VP would be from the other major party selected by the Senate””
That is premised on a third party, presumably ours, running a slate of candidates for enough seats and winning enough seats to prevent the other two parties combined from controlling a majority of state delegations in the House. Which I don’t think is very likely, even if it’s a very strong turnout for third parties and independents, and either way was outside the premise of the scenario. They would elect the Republican for President and Democrat for Vice President, or vice versa, or maybe elect the “2nd” place slate to keep Pres/VP unified as intended. Assuming the EC results are L-NOTA 1st, R 2nd, D 3rd, then Congress will be mandated to decide between the D and R candidates. They can’t go outside those who got EC votes to elect somebody totally new, and there whole point of the exercise is that there is no single Libertarian (or whatever third party) candidate to be elected.
It’s a wildly impossible scenario, but amusing to think how the legalities would be worked out. End result though: either a Democrat or Republican in the Oval Office.
I’ve said before, that if Johnson (or Gray) don’t run in ’16, or looking forward to 2020, that I might start an effort to draft Sarwark, and I mean it. I think that he is a seriously impressive orator who understands rhetoric, and that’s a skill whose value can’t be understated.
And any number of figures in the party would make good nominees, in the absence of another celebrity/billionaire/high-officeholder. I think Sarvis, Overby, and Munger are all good possibilities. I disagree with them on some things, but I could support both Phillies or Katz in the general. Wyllie might be somewhat divisive in some quarters, but I feel he could run a good and strong campaign. Jeffrey Miron hasn’t been involved with the LP per se, but has been closely involved with the Johnson campaigns and is a solid libertarian with high academic credentials. By 2020, Ed Snowden would be old enough for a VP nomination, if that still has support.
And to state the obvious, I have no idea if any these people are or would be interested in accepting, aside from Nicolas who politely deferred citing his current role. But I also stand by re-nominating Johnson as superior to to any of these other options. If anything, somebody should make an attempt for the VP nomination against Gray. I like Judge Gray, but he does veer further from the party line, and in any event would be a lot more likely to possible lose to another candidate. At the same time, I could also still support Gray for the Presidential nomination if Johnson didn’t run, though he has said he’s not interested.
What I’m not interested in, is the assemblage of delusional vanity campaigns that are inevitably attracted to major minor-party nominations. Those who are neither particularly accurate representations of our party’s message, nor effective and viable campaigners. I do not think those campaigns serve any purpose, even “making the eventual nominee better.” They make the serious matter of nominating what is still, after all, supposed to be a potential President of the United States, the most powerful person and highest elected office on the face of planet, into a farce. And it’s not good for the party if we’re not perceived to not take the matter seriously.
Andy – one thing that you miss in your hypothetical
“Or they are counted as votes for an invalid candidacy, in which case the arcane 18th century procedure for electing a President by the House and VP by the Senate from the top two/three candidates from the EC kicks in. Meaning whichever major-party nominees control that process (presumably the GOP at this point, particularly with the one-state-one-vote rule in the House).”
The Congress that would vote, would be the newly elected Congress, not the one that was in power during the election. So, presuming NOTA got 270 EVs; then I seriously doubt either the GOP or Dems would have a majority in the House. They would likely work out some kind of compromise to elect one of the major party candidates as Prez in the House, and the VP would be from the other major party selected by the Senate
To the degree that anybody in the outside world pays attention to the breakdown of delegate votes for the nomination, which is effectively nil.
I agree with all of that, Andy. But there’s nothing wrong with discussing how we would do it, if we did, even if we won’t and shouldn’t.
Paulie is right, the main organized push for NOTA will be from Rand Paul supporters, unless his hopes at the GOP nomination are already finished by that point. I think more likely is that his campaign will be limping along in its final stages at the time of the LNC, which will weaken and defuse support for what was already a pretty far-fetched scenario. Though if it appears or is already certain that Rand won’t be the GOP nominee, there may be an effort to draft him for the Libertarian nomination, though I don’t see that going anywhere either and of course Rand himself wouldn’t go along with it. The Rand-ites who do try to show up at the convention will probably not get a very friendly reception.
It is kind of telling that the debate thus far is mainly centered around Johnson vs. NOTA, and not Johnson vs. whoever else. Maybe that will change if somebody else tosses their hat into the ring, but it’s not that hard to win an election if nobody is your opponent. If the strongest opponent to Gary Johnson is in fact NOTA on the first ballot, that won’t exactly reflect as negatively on Johnson as some seem to think. Most people look at that and say “Johnson’s win was so guaranteed he attracted no serious opponent” not “the party can’t get behind the nominee.”
All of this talk of running NOTA for President is counterproductive. Not running a candidate for President, or have people run, and change their names to None Of The Above, is not going to grow the Libertarian Party or movement in this country.
The highest percent of the population who pays attention to politics at all in this country, follows what is going on in the Presidential race. Running a candidate for President is the best opportunity that the Libertarian Party has to reach people. I’ve been at this since 1996, and I’ve spoken to both big “L” and small “l” libertarians all over this country, and one question that I frequently ask is, “How did you get involved in the party (or movement)?” The most frequent answer I get is because of a Presidential campaign. Sometimes people may say because of a candidate for Governor, or a candidate for US Senate, or sometimes it may be because of a book or an article that they read, or a website that they visited, or because of a video that they saw. Sometimes it may be because of a friend or family member, or because of a chance meeting with somebody who was already a Libertarian/libertarian.
I do not recall ever meeting anyone who told me that they became a Libertarian/libertarian because of some candidate who ran for some low level political office. Presidential campaigns are the number one recruitment opportunity that we’ve got as a political party. It would be pure foolishness to not take advantage of this.
The focus ought to be on nominating the best candidate for President that we can find. I would like to see somebody who is a pretty hardcore libertarian, and who is good at presenting the message in a persuasive manner. I’d also like to see a candidate who pushes some outside-of-electoral politics solutions such as jury nullification, alternative currencies, home schooling, etc…, as a part of their campaign. The reality of the situation that we are in is that we do not have a realistic chance of electing anyone President, and neither does anyone else who is not an establishment Democrat or Republican, but even so, Presidential campaigns are an excellent opportunity to get a message out to a lot of people who would not hear it otherwise, and I believe that we could be far more effective as a political party if in addition to educating the public about libertarian philosophy/ideas, our candidates also gave people solutions that they can implement in their lives that do not rely on electoral politics that would help move the country toward more individual liberty.
I’m generally skeptical and opposed to contested Libertarian primaries/nominations at the lower level too, when they can be avoided (which isn’t always possible). There are plenty of offices with no Libertarian candidate to go around.
I think there is a strong case to be made, that most of the also-ran candidates for past nominations, could have (and in other years some of them did) run high-performing campaigns for state or congressional office. If we have an wide-open field nomination campaign, such as in ’08, that’s at least two or three candidates who could have been running 5%+ campaigns for governor, senator, representative, and state legislature. Not huge when we’re talking about hundreds of Libertarian candidates, but it’s not nothing and could make a difference in some states. That’s not necessarily an argument against multiple viable nomination campaigns, but it is a cost that needs to be considered by individual candidates considering where their efforts will have the most impact.
I appreciate, and don’t disagree, with the point that we need credible candidates other than GJ, and that a competitive process will make the eventual nominee better. That is actually one of the things I like about Johnson, he’s open to criticism and learning, willing to go to Libertarian conventions and events like PorcFest to answer the tough questions from the base. And I want *all* of the candidates for the nomination to be credible, viable voices who would represent the party well, not just if they win the nomination but in their pre-convention campaign as well. Anybody willing to run a very difficult campaign to raise legitimate issues, with as you note the knowledge that they will almost certainly lose at the convention, is deserving of respect. I certainly didn’t mean to deny that when I questioned the logic of Joshua’s campaign.
There is a point though, at which efforts to contest the Presidential nomination do take away from efforts to both build the general election campaign and down-ticket races. If there is any point in the process in which the NOTA folks are right about that, it’s the pre-nomination campaign, not the general election. Internal party time and effort that could go to recruiting and fielding a stronger down-ticket slate during the crucial months for that process, is often spent on the Presidential candidates seeking the nomination when there is an actively, seriously disputed nomination among multiple viable candidates.
If, for whatever reason Johnson doesn’t run again (and I hear you on the possibility), then I think we’ll see many different candidates step forward because the calculus is very different if you have an actual shot at being the nominee. Some of the candidates who have backed off rather than run against Johnson would come forward. I don’t think that most of the other so-far declared candidates, with the possible exception of Mr. Katz, would move up to the status of actual potential nominee though.
AC – I’m thinking we’d need two different candidates, differentiated by a number or something, at the convention – NOTA_HumanNamedNOTA and NOTA_TheActualNOTAMentionedInTheConventionRules. If the first one won, we’d be running an actual candidate, albeit one with an unusual name. If the second won, we’d have no candidate.
I also think your second hypothetical is more likely – I expect such an election to be tossed to the House.
If the US worked like the LP, of course, electing NOTA President would just mean holding a new election – just as our laws don’t allow Chair to be vacant just because NOTA wins. Alas, the way to eliminate the Presidency is Constitutional amendment, not voting for nobody – and just an effort is doomed – plus I’m not sure eliminating the Presidency as a first step is such a great idea, to be honest.
Hypothetically, let’s say a slate of non-campaigning NOTA candidates wins 270 EVs across the country. Those electors meet in December in their state capitols, and vote for “nobody” for President and “nobody” for Vice-President. So then one of two things happens: either those are ruled to be non-votes, and the winner is declared to be the candidate with a majority of the rump electoral college. Or they are counted as votes for an invalid candidacy, in which case the arcane 18th century procedure for electing a President by the House and VP by the Senate from the top two/three candidates from the EC kicks in. Meaning whichever major-party nominees control that process (presumably the GOP at this point, particularly with the one-state-one-vote rule in the House). And if that process fails to produce a President or VP by inauguration day, then the Speaker of the House takes over, followed by the whole list of officials in the order of succession.
The point being, the United States can’t actually *not* elect a President, any more than the Libertarian Party can actually *not* elect a LNC chair. No matter what distortions and contortions with state election laws you pull, the Presidency will not go vacant.
In fact, it would probably be done best with multiple candidates in different states, so that you don’t have a single candidate even as the stand-in.
If we were going to do that though, then the non-candidate should refrain from making any public appearances whatsoever. Appearing in costume, articulating a platform, etc. defeats the purpose of having no candidate as an option.
I don’t think it’s a good idea, but it’s an interesting thought experiment.
The ballot access question is interesting. I don’t support NOTA, but I can imagine one scenario where the LP actually places NOTA on the ballot. Anybody who’s watched elections has seen goofball candidates who legally changed their name to appear on the ballot, as “Pro-Life” or whatever. If we find one (or more) party members willing to change their name to None of the Above, we could maybe attempt to put them on the ballot. It probably wouldn’t work in some states, but it would work in most I think. In general rules prohibiting misleading ballot labels, don’t and can’t apply to the candidate’s actual name.
Of course, we’re not really then running no candidate at the point, we’re running the man/woman now known as NOTA who is pledging to resign or do nothing or something similar if elected. I don’t know if that complies with an actual NOTA nomination at the convention, and it would be criticized as misleading. Still, attempting to do this would make a much stronger argument for NOTA to those in the party worried about the implications of meeting vote tests in different states. Such a campaign would probably even get more votes in the states where it makes the ballot, but would be on the ballot in a lot less than 50 states.
Joshua — I was thinking more along the lines of adopting NOTA or Anonymous as a middle name, just enough to let a candidate be readily identified with the campaign when listed on the ballot. My guess is that being listed *solely* as “NOTA” or “Anonymous” would not be legal in most places, if any. Even getting listed with that as a middle name could be a challenge in some places, although the late James “Libertarian” Burns managed it in Nevada, and I think others have done similar things in other places.
Starchild, I already did a lot of my campaigning in a Guy Fawkes mask last time around – and I think your suggestion gets at a lot of the reasons to support NOTA, but not all of them – and not the main ones I worry about, so I will sadly decline to legally change my name to NOTA and run on that basis. If someone did that and won, I’d be happy to support them – just as, like I said before, I’ll support whoever the nominee is anyway – well, I suppose there are exceptions to that…but hopefully we won’t test those limits.
Naturally, the candidate’s supporters would be encouraged to wear Guy Fawkes masks too, the idea being that the candidate would be simply a vehicle for the message, a reflection of the public’s desire for freedom, without a personal agenda.
It could in some senses be seen as carrying Gary Johnson’s 2012 “The People’s President” theme a step further.
Remember, there are a lot of people in the LP with access to hallucinogens, and as a result probably would support Rand Paul.
Although, given the choice between (assuming Darryl Perry is eliminated and Moulton doesn’t run) only Johnson and NOTA, NOTA would get my vote. Johnson is no Harry Browne, and doesn’t deserve the honor of being the second person to be nominated twice in a row.
I can imagine — without the assistance of any powerful hallucinogens, lol Tom! — an LP presidential campaign such as I describe above having significant appeal to young people, and attracting a lot of media attention, visibility, and support.
Joe,
I could see Rand making a viable GOP run, too. But in order to see that I’d have to be under the influence of a powerful hallucinogen. Unfortunately, I am not connected down here in Florida, so I have to live in the real world.
Like several others here, I’m sorry Joshua Katz has decided not to seek the LP’s presidential nomination, but can’t join him in supporting NOTA.
I wish that the Libertarian Party nominating NOTA for president could actually result in getting None Of The Above listed as a presidential choice on state ballots. If the laws allowed that, I would support the party nominating NOTA. But until such time as this may exist as an option, I have to agree with the reasons that Paulie, Richard Winger, and others have laid out for why it does not make much sense.
What could make sense however, hypothetically, is if we were to nominate an actual presidential ticket consisting of a presidential candidate willing (and legally able) to run as a sort of stand-in for NOTA, with NOTA explicitly nominated for VP.
Here’s how I envision this might work:
• The candidate would legally change his or her name to include the phrase “None of the Above” or “Anonymous”.
• The campaign would run on a generic pro-freedom platform, either drafted by the party (perhaps the LP platform plus whatever additional topical planks the LP delegates or LNC chose to add), or determined by votes of supporters (with the proviso that it could not include anything anti-libertarian or contrary to the party’s platform)
• The LP party apparatus would actively seek to achieve ballot status for the NOTA candidate, and otherwise give support as it has for previous LP presidential tickets
• The presidential candidate would make all of his/her public appearances and conduct all interviews and debate appearances while wearing a Guy Fawkes mask
Perhaps, since he wishes to support NOTA, Joshua Katz might even entertain the idea of running on such a basis? 🙂
“By the time of that convention, Paul will no longer be inthe running for the GOP’s nomination and will probably have made it clear that he’s not interested in the LP’s nomination either.”
I would disagree with that statement. You are assuming Rand Paul either won’t run for or won’t win the GOP nomination (I highly doubt he would consider running for or even accepting the LP nom). 2016 is probably going to be a bizarre political year for both major parties. The GOP doesn’t really have a clear frontrunner, with the likes of Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, Chris Christie, Ben Carson, and Ted Cruz alternating every other week as supposed favorites in the polls. I could see Rand making a viable GOP run, possibly winning the nomination with some establishment type like Jeb Bush or Bobby Jindal as his VP. So, Rand-supporters in the LP could push for NOTA to “help” his chances of winning the election, because in some bizarre world they view Johnson as an actual threat.
“It’s just that I expect a high likelihood of a strong NOTA campaign anyway, with the biggest push coming for it from crossover Republicans for Rand Paul.”
I don’t expect any noticeable Rand Paul influence at the LP national convention. By the time of that convention, Paul will no longer be inthe running for the GOP’s nomination and will probably have made it clear that he’s not interested in the LP’s nomination either.
Yes, I do agree with that. It’s just that I expect a high likelihood of a strong NOTA campaign anyway, with the biggest push coming for it from crossover Republicans for Rand Paul. But as a general matter I certainly agree that our candidates need to have that hurdle to keep them sharp, and that it should be more than just theoretical.
That’s a good point. I don’t have a ready reason not to agree, other than situational concern arising from the Rand Paul situation. But as a matter of principle, I think you are correct. If I play any role or influence in organizing candidate debates I am in favor of allowing a NOTA spokesperson to participate, unless someone gives me a reason I haven’t thought of not to be.
Thanks; that was what I meant.
Joshua, I would be very happy if I could motivate you and other Connecticut LP activists to ask the legislature to amend the ballot access laws, to provide that a group that got 1% for any statewide race is then ballot-qualified for all the statewide races for the next two elections. Because we got 1.66% for US Senate in 2012, a bill like this, if passed, would put us on the ballot automatically in Connecticut in 2016 for president. As it is we will be on automatically for US Senate, since there was no US Senate race in Ct. in 2014.
If you think, it’s hopeless to ask, then we have defeated ourselves. We have had excellent luck asking state legislatures to improve vote tests. And I think the Working Families Party of Ct. might help your lobbying efforts. They are also on automatically for US Senate in 2016 but they are not on automatically for president.
This has worked in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts (via an initiative), Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio (although not good enough it is still better than it was), Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, during the last 40 years. Bill Redpath in Virginia is already working on getting a bill introduced in Virginia to ease the def. of “party”. We should all be working on this, if we live in states where the LP isn’t now on the ballot automatically. Contact me at 415-922-9779 or [email protected] for more specific help. This is the time to do this, before the state legislators finish deciding what bills they will introduce.
Paulie – can we agree, if nothing else, to the following: You said that having more candidates keeps the eventual nominee on their toes and is better for our eventual nominee. Can we agree that a strong NOTA campaign also requires the candidate to explain why running them is better than running no one, and that, without such a campaign, there’s no reason for candidates to even try to make this case?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not supporting NOTA for this purpose, but wouldn’t it make sense with your other statements for you to want people campaigning for NOTA? After all, I’ve maintained that we’re the party that speaks for those who cannot be heard, and NOTA lacks a mouth.
By my reading of the bylaws and convention rules, you have it right, NOTA for an external office is different than NOTA for an internal office. However, it’s not quite right that “NOTA it is” since we can’t actually place NOTA on the ballot, at least in most states, so it just means no candidate.
I don’t exactly remember why I think that Steve Kubby moved, but his Facebook page has recent comments about St Croix, Virgin Islands. Perhaps he just visited or has a seasonal home there.
That’s only one of several forms of evidence we have discussed here.
BTW, I would have preferred to elect Mark Hinkle again but I understand why Nick and some others liked NOTA in that race. The way the balloting for Chair works is different than the way we elect presidential nominees though, unless I misunderstand. If NOTA beats all existing contenders for chair we get new living human nominations from the floor (as we in fact did). And if none are coming, we have a vice chair, and then an order of succession of LNC members to act as acting chair, and a vacancy-filling process by the LNC on the LNC. Whereas, if my understanding is correct, if NOTA actually wins for the presidential nomination, NOTA it is. The floor is not reopened to more nominations, the VP nominee does not move up, and there is no equivalent of an LNC to elect its own chair (or in this case presidential candidate). Do I have that wrong?
“Jill Pyeatt November 29, 2014 at 3:32 pm
for example. I would far prefer to support a candidate than NOTA, and I think NOTA should be a last resort.”
The current Chair of the Libertarian Natl. Committee, and several hundred 2012 delegates, apparently thought Rutherford AND Hinkle were worse than NOTA. I supported Rutherford and thought him very qualified to serve as LNC Chair, but I still thought that Hinkle was not so bad a choice as to warrant choosing NOTA over Mr. Hinkle and Mr. Rutherford.
I am sure that everyone reading these comments can point to several individuals who were brought in to the Libertarian Party as a result of a Libertarian Presidential campaign. However, anecdotal evidence is not necessarily factually correct in terms of overall cost-benefit analysis.
The fewer races we abstain from the better, but abstaining from the presidential race is more damaging than abstaining from any other race on any ballot.
God point, which I also think I made earlier (I don’t feel like checking right now).
True, and that’s part of why many candidates wait to start their campaigns closer to nomination time.
They might. It’s also possible they could win, or lose to someone else or that as you said earlier Johnson may not even end up running.
You may be right.
Exactly. I also don’t know with absolute certainty that Gary will run. If he does run, I don’t know with absolute certainty that he will win the nomination. I don’t think he will lose the nomination to a non-celebrity, non-superwealthy party activist, but it could happen. And it’s possible some other bigger name or wealthier candidate could decide to run. But I agree that it may seem daunting with the likelihood that he will probably run for the nomination and probably win it.
What I would say to potential candidates for the nomination is that winning the nomination should be the least important part of the campaign. It could be the eventual end result, but the process has many side benefits within the party just as it does for our candidate in the general election (which I concede we are highly unlikely to win). Those side benefits include becoming better known in the party, pushing ideas within the internal ideological debate, pushing ideas to the public at large through campaigning to the general public before the nomination, getting more “pull” with the campaign and the next LNC on various fine points of ideology and organizational matters, promoting a book or something of that nature, getting more audience for a TV/radio/internet show or site, building a larger database of supporters for a future run for local or state office or congress, and things of that nature.
Whether any of those are worth the money and time involved is a very legitimate question that only the prospective candidates can answer, but I hope there will be some for whom the answer will be yes and that we can have some good lively competition for the nomination that makes whoever ends up getting it – hopefully a living human – a better candidate in the general election.
Katz commented “If abstaining from one race demeans our principles are raison d’etre, what of the hundreds of races in which we don’t have candidates?”
Quite a point.
All of this is true of local races as well. There are many ways to take on too much work and burn out at any level in politics. The more people we put through the LP grinder the more burn out or walk away for any number of reasons, and at the same time, the more we find that stick with it.
Good for him if true. I haven’t seen the news. Got a link?
It means he hasn’t ruled it out, but won’t encourage the rumors/draft efforts at least until Rand Paul is eliminated from contention in the Republican primary, and then we’ll see what happens. I don’t expect he will run even then but it’s not impossible.
PLAS (or is it PLAN-SS now?) is not a party. He is supposedly seeking the nomination of both the Libertarian and Green parties, with him as a green/progressive getting the top spot and …Christine Smith…? getting the VP nod, not in qualifying a new party for the ballot. Not sure what the nazis will get out of the deal since there are only two spots on the ticket; maybe some cabinet positions, federal court appointments, or Secret Service (SS) jobs? Perhaps they’ll get to run the FEMA camps, the NSA and/or the Social Security (SS) Administration? I’m pretty sure they already run the TSA, so I’m sure that will not change. I think the real plum for them may be control of the Border Patrol and BATFE, though.
Also, from the first mention of Mr. Katz running for office, he has been compared to Johnson. It appears many people are already assuming GJ will be our candidate. I believe running in 2016 is currently Jonhnson’s intention, but many things could prevent that from happening. It’s crucial that there are are candidates to consider.
Seriously, though, a tremendous amount of time and money would be required to seek our nomination. Someone who did that at this time will do that with an expectation that he or she will lose to Gary Johnson. It will take an exceptional individual who would be willing to do that. Mr. Katz is indeeed an exceptional individual, but obviously believes (among other things) that there are better uses of his time and at this time I agree with him. Having said that, I am sorry he won’t be running this time.
I know of no way to minimize any potential candidate’s likelihood of losing to Johnson. I do like Gary, but there a few issues that bother me. As Paulie says, he needs competition for many reasons, among them keeping Gary on his toes on our issues, for example. I would far prefer to support a candidate than NOTA, and I think NOTA should be a last resort.
Organic chemistry is actually one of the few things I find less rewarding than playing around on the internet…
One note – in addition to attracting activists, Presidential campaigns, in my experience, have ways of also driving them away. One reason we don’t retain activists who come in from campaigns is the sheer amount of work and burnout involved. If someone comes to me and wants to be a part of what we’re doing, and I tell them we need to get 100 signatures in their town and do they want to contribute 30, that’s one thing. If I tell them we need to get 11,000 signatures in the state and do they want to contribute 30…some walk away, others really dig into it and then disappear because they took too much on and now are tired and/or aggravated.
That leaves aside the people who come in specifically for the candidate and then leave, and those who were attracted by a candidate and then leave because that candidate does something they don’t like.
Please don’t let me keep you from it. Whatever you decide is worth responding to, if anything, will still be here when you get back, and others can reply to it (or not) in the meantime.
Fair enough. In that particular instance I was responding to Knapp, although I only quoted part of what he said.
That might be true if we had a fixed amount of resources, but we don’t.
Because of many factors that have nothing to do with the presidential campaigns, ranging from party infighting and burnout to natural libertarian personality aversion to politics to generally poor organization and lack of training. The idea here seem to be that if we try something different it will necessarily have to be better, and doesn’t take into account the parallels with other parties and other evidence I have presented throughout this thread as to why we should expect that this particular kind of different will actually be worse, not better.
But, please show me the national political parties (I am not counting single state parties, or parties with the same name in different states that have no relation to each other or umbrella organization) now or in the past that have had more local wins all over the country but not run presidential candidates. For that matter please show me ones that are even as successful at it as we are at present.
It’s true that Libertarian presidential campaigns have not yet gathered as many activists who have stuck with the party through thick and thin and been as active as we would have liked, or that enough of the ones we did get have been willing to run for or even just apply for local elected or appointed positions. But it doesn’t mean there would be more of them if we stopped running presidential campaigns and I have been presenting evidence for why I believe there would be less.
The opposite conclusion comes from a sense of entitlement that I don’t see supported by any evidence other than citing a wish list and asking why we still haven’t received the goodies in the mail after they have been on our website for years.
I think we all agree that this is a good thing and that we should do more of it.
It’s not that we need a political party to lobby and agitate, it’s just that it adds a unique tool to do so which no other type of lobby or pressure group can employ and likewise adds a unique way to reach people that no other educational effort can use. And, it so happens that it also happens to help make us a relatively more viable party at the local electoral level. Still far from being nearly as viable as we would like, but more viable than we would be otherwise. In no way do I believe that other ways to lobby and agitate should be foregone and I am involved with some of them myself, both now and in the past.
I’ve been caught up in holiday activities and haven’t even had a chance to check in here, so a few of my comments are from earlier in the thread. Some thoughts;
1. Someone mentioned Kubby. I believe he has moved out of the country, finally.
2. Judge Napolitiano was listed on that Politics 1 article as a potential candidate. Has he ever expressed interest in being the LP candidate? He didn’t hesitate when I asked him whether he was interested in running for office (which was not party-specific) and said “Probably not”, although there was that word “probably”.
3. Robert Milnes keeps talking about his hybrid party, PLAS. Is it proper to call him a potential LP candidate?
Paulie – it’s less that you’re repeating yourself, and more that my response to two unique points from you would be the same. Imagine two alkenes producing the same alkane via hydrogenation with a metal catalyst. (Or don’t, that just happens to be what I should be doing at the moment.)
Fair enough. I was responding to a particular point Knapp made, IE that a strong NOTA campaign would have sent a message to crossover candidates to be more strongly ideologically libertarian and/or to the party to run the more long standing activist type of candidate, e.g. a Ruwart or Wrights rather than a Barr or Johnson. And that’s not to say *I* equate Johnson with Barr, just that Knapp does.
I’d like to build a viable, winning party. However, I have fallback positions for ways that the party can be useful even if or while we fall short of that goal, and am making the case that to the extent that we become a viable, winning party, generally in lower level races, running other races upticket that we are less viable in helps that become more likely and more prevalent and ceasing to do so makes it less likely and less prevalent. I also think it has other benefits in the areas of education and political pressure, but it doesn’t mean that I think that it’s the only or best way to achieve education or political pressure – Scott Lieberman, yourself and others are quite correct that other movement and single issue organizations can do all those things better. Nor do I think that education and political pressure are more important than viable local campaigns (and if it were possible, viable higher level campaigns).
I do think that running less-viable higher level campaigns does present unique opportunities for education (ie reaching numerous people that will never pay attention to anything put out by a libertarian think tank, magazine, book author, etc) and political pressure (yes, other groups that are not the LP can lobby and put pressure on politicians, but only the LP can put pressure using the unique leverage points of swinging close general election races and challenging otherwise unchallenged incumbents in the general election while taking advantage of the advertising provided by a party ballot label to build an identity and an organization between and across campaigns) and helps lower level campaigns become more numerous and more viable than they would be otherwise.
Which of those is most important to you isn’t the point. They are all important to me, and I see them as all working together hand in hand – or conversely, not working as well in all of these areas when higher level, less viable races are foregone in an imagined trade-off that does not materialize and is based on incorrect premises.
Thanks. I am just responding to points various people are making. I sure I must be repeating myself to some degree but it’s hard to remember what I have said already and what I haven’t at all times. While I certainly welcome whatever responses you want to make, I hope I am not creating the impression that I feel you are under any obligation to answer everything I say, especially if I am in fact repeating myself on things you already responded to earlier.
I missed being in combat while I was in the Army. No, I actually have a clear memory of the person’s “concession” speech at the 2008 NatCon.
Paulie, it’s not about purism vs. non-purism for most of us – not just NOTA, but the rest of the fights in the party also. For me at least, it’s about whether to use a party as a vehicle for education/lobbying, or a political party that runs and elects candidates to office. Now, even among those who think the latter is primary, there are cases for and against NOTA, certainly – and cases for and against various degrees of purity/radicalness/catechism/whatever. You’re presenting a case against NOTA that, if not coming from the side of building a viable, winning party, at least takes that into account. You think not running a Presidential candidate would prevent us from having a viable, winning party, and destroy what we have built so far. I hear you. I’ve already said why I think it’s less absolute than you make it out to be, but I respect your opinion here. I think we’re in a position where we need to move away from conventional wisdom. I’m not going to repeat everything I’ve said.
That aside, thanks for your kind words about my candidacy.
PTSD?
11/29 @ 11:47AM Sorry, but I seem to be unable to think about this topic.
Which will translate into “Libertarians are losers, and even they know you shouldn’t waste your vote on their presidential tickets because it’s too important to stop the Democrats” type of BS.
Also, what makes you think it would only be used against relatively less purist candidates? Once we start getting strong NOTA campaigns based on the premise that no candidate at all would be better than a crossover, the other side will respond in kind by waging NOTA campaigns because in their mind no candidate at all would be better than a purist “nobody.” Take that and add the crossover types who are queasy about the idea that we may “cost the Republicans the presidential elections” which is “just too important” and then further add the faction that fantasize that all those resources will go to other LP campaigns. Voila, you now have a winning formula, except that it’s actually a losing formula for the party. Because tailspin. But then recriminations and the bickering that accompany increasingly unsuccessful organizations (remember all the verbal viciousness in the BTP?) and people walking away will have a momentum of its own and it will be much harder to recover from than a lot of people here seem to be able to imagine. It’s not just an experiment that you can try and then say oh that didn’t worked as we hoped; it will have very lasting effects.
That’s exactly what I meant further above by tailspin. All of those declines will feed off each other and create a snowball or “circle the drain” effect that will exert its own gravitational pull to wreck what is left of the party.
It’s absolutely a negative sum game. Not only will they get less money but there will be fewer of them; they’ll do worse collectively and on average individually, and the fish will rot from the head down and circle the drain.
I don’t believe so. Plenty of studies that show that votes accrue both upticket and downticket. Tons of anecdotal evidence presented in this thread and in Harry Browe’s article I linked somewhere above. I have anecdotal evidence of experienced fundraisers and many long term donors. And we have the evidence of what happened to other parties that stopped running presidential candidates. We know what will happen. Not with absolute certainty but very, very close.
I hadn’t, and haven’t, endorsed any candidates, but I agree. There were a lot of things that I liked about the idea of a Katz candidacy and it’s too bad it wasn’t explored more thoroughly.
Another excellent point. The headlines will be that the Libertarians closed up shop and realized we are Republicans after all. Who’ll want to give us money, run for local office, help an LP campaign or be active with the party after that?
In 1960 the Socialist Party announced that, for the first time in its existence, it would not run a presidential candidate. It did run candidates for Congress and state office that year. Nevertheless, the national press made the announcement into a big story, saying this is proof that socialism had failed to gain adherents. A party’s presidential campaign is its public face.
Dave Terry – I agree with everything you said until the last line.
NOTA is to abstain from one race. If abstaining from one race demeans our principles are raison d’etre, what of the hundreds of races in which we don’t have candidates?
It is, in a sense, easy to say “do everything.” It’s harder to actually do everything. What is maximal participation in the electoral process? Why is maximal participation defined as running a candidate in one particular race – a race in which no candidate from this party has broken 2%, and a race which is the most rigged game available?
Knapp wrote: “NOTA is always a candidate in LP presidential balloting, and there are generally a few people supporting NOTA.”
I have always equated “NOTA” with “agnosticism”, (i.e. moral and intellectual cowardice). If the question is; “Does an ‘extra-natural’ or ‘supernatural’ entity that effects or controls events in our
life exist”; the answer is IMPERATIVE!
Therefore; IF our intention is to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”, and do so politically, rather than militarily, it THEN it becomes imperative that we participate to the absolute maximum in the “electoral” process. We MUST promote, not ONLY the principles
of Libertarianism, but the most articulate and consistent candidates for elective office.
“NOTA” is to abstain from the political process. It demeans our principles and ‘raison d’etre’.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=5os4NFeKFFs
Sorry, Smith.
Tom – agreed. Simple example – I chaperoned, when I was a teacher, a philanthropy-tourism trip to Mexico. Each student paid $1,200, including airfare. It was obvious to me that the money, particularly the $800 for airfare, would do more good being donated and used to hire Mexicans to do the work the students did. However, that option doesn’t really exist, because people do philanthropy tourism because they want to – they are not likely to spend that money as a straight donation, even if they spend it on the trip.
So, it’s a judgment call as to the likely outcome. Will fundraising fall more or less than the average amount spent by national on Presidential ballot access in particular? What percentage of volunteers who would work on the Presidential campaign will now work on other campaigns – not 100%, not 0% – and, of course, what percentage one thinks would be good. What I mean is – if 100 people came out in one state and got 1%, through their efforts, for a Presidential campaign, suppose all of them volunteered for local races. How many races would they win? Now, if we suppose that, say, half show up – how many races now? How many local races is one 1% finish worth? Well, clearly that depends on the state and the vote test involved. Dr. Lieberman above suggests that 2 offices is sufficient. We can reasonably differ in the reasonable trade-offs here. I think there’s good reasons on both sides of the trade-off debate.
George – is what’s her name Christie Johnson?
I want to thank Mr. Winger for the list he compiled above. It would be pointless for me, or anyone, to praise his work and knowledge on ballot access.
I took a look at that list to see what it would take to accomplish ballot access in the states listed via the Presidential route.
In total, I found 11 states where, being generous based on past performance, it would be reasonable to reach the Presidential vote test. This includes some where ballot access is likely to be gained/retained by other means, but excludes states where meeting the vote test does not remove the petitioning requirement.
Of those, 4 were listed by Mr. Winger as Presidential being the only way, so those states would be clearly harmed, ballot-access-wise, by not running a candidate. In another 2 states, it appears likely that the Presidential vote test would be the best way to get/retain access. So 6 states appear likely to be harmed, but in the last 2, it’s less clear than in the other 4.
Those last 2, by the way, are based on the assumption that the Presidential candidate will receive the highest vote count in the state, and that the votes cast for President in aggregate will be the highest number in the state. The last assumption is rather unassailable, but some may differ with the first assumption, given the arguments presented above that Presidential campaigns help down-ticket because some voters are afraid to ‘waste their vote’ for President. If this assumption were challenged, I’d need to revise the idea that the Presidential campaign is the best vehicle in those states.
As an early Katz supporter, I think it might have been advantageous for him to have explored the Presidential run a bit more thoroughly first.
Perhaps you could poll 2008 and 2012 delegates: You actually had the following choices. If you knew then what you know now, for whom would you have voted? Can Root beat NOTA? Can Barr beat NOTA, Ruwart, Root, Gravel, Phillies, Kubby, Finan or what’s-her-name, let alone Kip Lee or the descendant of Julius Caesar?
I’m going to play devil’s advocate on the “presidential race” versus “concentrating on lower level races” thing here.
LP campaign dollars are not automagically transferable.
That is, just because $1 million is not donated to a presidential campaign, it doesn’t mean that that $1 million WILL be donated to campaigns for state legislature, city council and so forth.
It may even be a negative sum game. Those lower-level campaigns may get some of their support BECA– USE people notice the LP due to its presidential campaign. So it’s not just that they don’t get MORE money because so much is going to a Libertarian for President. Not having a Libertarian for President may result in them getting less money than they are now.
But of course, the only way to find out is to try it and see what happens.
Doing so has risks beyond the one-shot test, though. Supposing that it is a negative sum game for lower level campaigns, the effect could last beyond one presidential cycle. That is, skipping out on a presidential campaign in 2016 could still have a negative fundraising/volunteer/resources effect years later, even if the LP takes the presidential cudgel back up in 2020.
Obviously I am not saying this to discourage support for NOTA. But neither do I want to minimize the opposition case against NOTA when and where that case is not implausible.
For me, NOTA is less a case of “we should not run a presidential candidate” than a case of “we will get better options if NOTA becomes a real contender — that is, if it is clear to presidential candidates that they can’t win by just being passable versus other candidates, that they have to pass a genuine ‘are you really better than no candidate at all?’ test.”
Look at the last two presidential nominations, for example. Yes, NOTA was on the ballot, but the contests really came down to Barr v. Ruwart and Johnson v. Wrights.
I love Mary and I love Lee and I’m glad they ran, but I think we’d have seen different pre-nomination campaigns, especially from the front-runners, if NOTA had polled in the 30% range.
I also think that the post-nomination coverage would have been different in that case, in a way that would have encouraged the LP to seek more libertarian candidates. “One third of Libertarian National Convention delegates thought that it would be better not to run a candidate than to run THAT candidate” would be the kind of coverage that would tend to convince us to get our shit together next time.
Hell has frozen over. I agree with Mr. Katz AND Mr. Knapp. I am very strongly leaning towards supporting not running a Libertarian Presidential Nominee in 2016.
By eliminating the distraction of a Presidential campaign, that makes it EASIER for the Libertarian Party to concentrate on 20 or 30 statewide races that have a decent chance of retaining ballot access in those states. If Presidential campaigns are SO good at attracting “activists”, why does the Libertarian Party only have 151 elected officials as of today? You would think that 11 previous Presidential campaigns would have attracted enough new LP members to have 10,000 or 100,000 elected officials by now. There are enough uncontested elections in this country that just by filing for them, thousands of Libertarians could have won those offices and gotten first-hand experience at being an elected official.
Mr. Katz chose to run as a Republican for his Planning Commission because it gave him a good chance of winning, but allowed him to keep his Libertarian voter registration. He won, and as he has detailed, he has increased the amount of liberty in his town by being the deciding vote on several land-use decisions. As a Rent Commissioner, I was able to educate the San Jose Advisory Commission on Rents about the disadvantages of Rent Control in the early 2000’s and probably kept them from recommending to our City Council that they should make the Rent Control ordinance more severe than it was.
The question that Mr. Katz asks, and none of you have been able to answer with facts, is why you need a political party to lobby and agitate. Pressure groups are able to do that without having to follow the myriad of federal, state, and local campaign laws. But for some reason, a lot of you seem to want to force the Libertarian Party to do the job of a pressure group.
Two, yes two Libertarians were elected to a City Council in Minnesota earlier this month:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLhXuX9ovro
IMO, those wins help the Libertarian Party in Hennepin County far more than yet another Presidential campaign could possibly help.
Scott Lieberman Region 4 Alternate, Libertarian National Committee
>I am not convinced that we can ever win this struggle for liberty that we are in by relying solely >on electoral politics.
Agreed. Electoral politics is, in my view, a branch of a larger tree. I just believe that other branches are better places to do things like education, and that the role of electoral politics is primarily what you refer to as damage control. A secondary role is a different sort of education – letting people see that their city doesn’t burn down when they elect a Libertarian to city council.
Paulie – thanks. I don’t think a Presidential campaign is a good place to hone the skills you mention – although working on someone else’s campaign is, and I plan to do that – first NOTA, then, if applicable, whoever the delegates choose at the convention.
Tom – thanks for your comments, and for the clarifications.
For obvious reasons, those of us supporting NOTA for 2016 welcome Mr. Katz’s decision and support. He is clearly a person possessed of political acumen, having won elective office versus multiple opponents, and he is also clearly possessed of a certain level of knowledge of internal LP politics as a state LP chair and LNC alternate. That, plus the fact that he actively explored a presidential run as a candidate says to me that his decision was not taken lightly or without reference to what he considers the important facts.
A couple of clarifications:
1) It is not “Tom Knapp’s” NOTA campaign. NOTA is always a candidate in LP presidential balloting, and there are generally a few people supporting NOTA. It’s not “my campaign” — I just happened to decide to try to bring a little more advance organization and publicity to an existing quadrennial campaign that’s been running steady for 40+ years.
2) There lots of reasons to support or oppose NOTA, just as there are lots of reasons to support or oppose any other candidate. Mr. Katz’s stated reasons reflect, in my experience, the reasons of a long-existing party faction that considers the presidential campaign a distraction — perhaps a necessary distraction, perhaps not — from other, more important (at least at this point) projects. It just so happens that I am not part of that faction and don’t necessarily agree with that faction’s premise … but like I said, there are lots of reasons to support or oppose NOTA.
I first heard about the Libertarian Party in 1972 when I was living in Virginia and an Electoral College member from Charlottesville voted for the Libertarian candidate for President. The next time I heard about the Libertarian Party was when Roger McBride, who was the Elector from Charlottesville, was the Libertarian Party candidates for President in 1976 and was on Good Morning America, a TV show. Later I saw a notice on a university bulletin board about the LP and sent for more information. And then Ed Clark, the Libertarian candidate for President in 1980 was the first Libertarian Party candidate I voted for and the only one I had the opportunity to vote for until 1988 when Ron Paul was the LP candidate for President. Based on my personal experience, if the LP had not run candidates for President I seriously doubt that I would have ever heard of or joined the Libertarian Party. I really believe we need to have a candidate for President in 2016. If we do not, we will become increasingly obscure and irrelevant. I also think we should run as many candidates for local office as we can, too. The synergy is effective.
“…I’d suggest instead having a mass advertising campaign and recruitment drive.”
You have about a year and a half before the LP convention to do that in CT and show us how it is done.
I’ll keep an open mind.
PEACE
“William Saturn
November 29, 2014 at 4:27 am
Robert Kuffel is an FEC-filed candidate for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination:”
I’ve never heard of him.
“paulie
November 29, 2014 at 4:13 am
In case anyone doesn’t know Gary is climbing the highest peak in Antarctica this winter. It’ll be his last of seven continents highest peaks.”
That’s cool that he does stuff like that, but I wish that he’d spend a little more time reading libertarian philosophy books and becoming better informed on the issues.
Robert Kuffel is an FEC-filed candidate for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination:
http://www.fec.gov/fecviewer/CandidateCommitteeDetail.do?candidateCommitteeId=P60005527&tabIndex=3
I am not convinced that we can ever win this struggle for liberty that we are in by relying solely on electoral politics. If anything, I think that those who think we can just run for office and “vote ourselves free” are delusional. However, on the flip side, I do not agree with those who say that those of us who value individual freedom should abandon electoral politics either.
There is value in libertarians running for office. Why? Because it is a good way to get the message out to a lot of people who would not hear it otherwise. Although, just hearing a message and being educated about the philosophy of freedom is not enough.
This is why I have long advocated that electoral politics be used as part of a multi-faceted plan of attack in the struggle for individual liberty. Libertarians who run for office ought to use their campaigns to promote ways to advance the cause of liberty which do not rely on libertarians being elected to office. I’m talking about promoting things like jury nullification of victimless “crimes,” the use of alternative currencies, tax avoidance, home schooling, stocking up on guns & ammo, creating libertarian communities (like the Free State Project, or better yet, like the Libertarian Zone concept I have promoted here ( https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/07/andy-jacobs-the-libertarian-zone/ )), or anything else people can think of which undermines the state and does not rely on libertarians to be elected to office to accomplish.
Libertarians should run for office for 3 reasons:
1) To educate the public about libertarianism (and to recruit members of the public that agree with us to join us in the cause), including about how to implement libertarian solutions without relying on libertarians being elected to office.
2) To do “damage control” whenever possible. Even though the election system in this country is corrupt, and the deck is stacked in favor of the major parties, libertarians can and do win sometimes, and this is a good thing, even though higher level offices are generally out of reach. Libertarian or libertarian leaning ballot questions win sometimes as well, and this is also a good thing.
3) To put pressure on the major parties to adopt libertarian reforms. This does not happen very often, and frankly, I think that most Democrats and Republicans will never truly embrace libertarian ideas, but every once in a while libertarian pressure can get the establishment parties to do something positive, or a libertarian lobbying effort can pay off.
In case anyone doesn’t know Gary is climbing the highest peak in Antarctica this winter. It’ll be his last of seven continents highest peaks. I didn’t mean that he could be killed or injured, but I thought of that later, and that could also happen. I meant he could get a revelation of some sort and decide to take his life in a different direction. And the rest of that sentence also said …or any time between now and some time well into 2016… and that could be any number of things, good or bad: business taking off, business tanking, getting married, breaking up, new opportunities, too much flak within the LP, some new big name/big money candidate dropping in the race, and many other possibilities. My point was that it’s not a good strategy relying on GJ16 to happen because it may or may not. We need backups and we need competition for the nomination, which will make GJ16 or whoever else wins a better candidate in the general election as a result. And I hope who wins will be a living, breathing biped.
“something could happen in Antarctica,”
???????????
NF
I think you are not being fair here. The LP doesn’t have very many state chairs, LNC members, or elected members in office. How many are all three at the same time? Joshua may well be the only one. He’s also an IPR regular, so that’s another reason we care.
On the LNC, Joshua has volunteered for a bunch of working subcommittees and has been very active in pushing his views and taking on work. He has been writing articles at LewRockwell.com for a while. I think he would have been a good candidate, would have made other candidates for the nomination better, and furthered some of his own skills and contacts and ideas for the party and helped local candidates around the country had he run. He would have had an additional platform to spread his ideological views more, many of which are very good and deserve the extra attention.
Unfortunately, he decided against it. I wish he had made a different decision but it’s his decision to make and I have to respect it even though I don’t like it.
Yeah, it’s probably too late for the LP. I have no idea. I rate the likelihood it will happen as low no matter what we do, although I don’t necessarily preclude the possibility.
I support GJ16 but I also support having other candidates for the nomination to make GJ16 better, and I don’t in any way preclude that one of them could be better than GJ16. Besides, GJ16 is not a done deal; something could happen in Antarctica, or any time between now and well into 2016, to make Gary decide not to run or suspend his race after it starts. I agree that either GJ16 or a Badnarik, Ruwart, Kubby etc type candidate would be better than NOTA.
Yet another of the many anecdotal pieces of evidence of this I have heard and seen countless times over the years.
Exactly!
Right again!
Exactly!
Can’t count how many other stories like this I have heard.
Darryl Perry, Kip Lee and Robert Milnes are the other announced candidates I have heard of. http://www.politics1.com/p2016.htm Also lists a Robert Kuffel (NJ) with no website, whom I never heard of. Not sure if they mean Milnes and somehow got his last name wrong? They also incorrectly list Joshua Katz as announced. Maybe exploratory committees count?
Yep!
Exactly. And that includes all the candidates who piggyback their ballot access off the presidential campaigns as well.
Yes, by ‘rise to prominence’ I meant going from obscure to major party, as the Republicans did, and some others – not getting elements of their platform adopted by other parties or passed into law. Sorry for being unclear.
Andy and I are both for that but you ignored the other parts of what he said about piggybacking other ballot access for other candidates off presidential, which I also mentioned earlier.
There will be many people who won’t listen or care, many donors who will keep their money, at least some volunteers who won’t spend their time and many media outlets that won’t give you the time of day unless it is in the context of a presidential campaign. Of course we can have other advertising and recruitment campaigns, and should, but the presidential campaign presents many unique opportunities in this regard. Oh, and incidentally, those other advertising and recruitment campaigns will also get less money, less support and less attention from the public if we stop running presidential candidates.
It’s too bad the wrong ones prevailed. I don’t expect you to change your mind, but I hope you do.
I think NOTA may actually win, but if it does, it will mostly be due to a hostile takeover by Rand Paulians. And I think it will be tremendously damaging if it does, for the reasons I am giving here.
We’ve had it many times before, including on IPR, and on countless fora long before IPR existed and to this day. The idea comes up every convention. It’s certainly not new.
George Phillies wrote: “: since we have never run NOTA it is not a proven way not to succeed.
George, you really have a penchant for the irrelevant.
We have never ran a ‘flat-earther’ either,so that also is not a PROVEN way not to succeed.
Mine are based on many conversations with the fundraisers and donors. I have seen empirical evidence too, since I study this as a major hobby and to some extent related to my living, but I don’t have it at my fingertips.
The Socialist Party existed for decades before it rose to prominence and forced changes in public policy, although they never did become a major party in the same sense as the Democrats and Republicans. The Prohibition Party also existed and ran candidates for 50 years before they got the 18th amendment passed.
How is it questionable? There’s lots and lots of room between “most people” and nobody. Our presidential candidates reach millions of people that no one else in the party reaches and no other libertarian movement organization reaches. The extent those people are inspired to vote for that candidate, or our other candidates, or pay attention to them next time they see or hear one, or read more about libertarian views, or join the LP, or become LP activists, donors and candidates themselves varies of course, and is clearly not “most people” but it is also not “nothing” and not questionable. In fact many of us here are only here due to LP presidential campaigns of the past; and others are here less directly but in part for that reason.
It depends on how you define “much,” but there’s plenty of anecdotal and at least some empirical evidence that they clearly do. While you may not see it, a significant chunk of the votes our downticket candidates get is because people see our presidential candidates on TV or other media, and even if they are afraid to vote for them in the presidential race they are less afraid to do so in “less important” races. Of course it isn’t most people, but we don’t get most of the downticket vote either so yes, it’s a big chunk of our downticket votes. If you haven’t, or even if you have, you should read, re-read, and re-read again http://harrybrowne.org/2000/WasItWorthIt.htm and then when you get a chance read the rest of http://harrybrowne.org/2000/toc.htm
>So I guess you actually *are* saying you want the LNC to stop spending money on ballot >access altogether?
No, and I’m not really sure how you get there from my calculation of how much the LNC spends on Presidential as opposed to non-Presidential ballot access. What I said was, we can tell approximately how much ballot access money in a Presidential year is spent on Presidential ballot access by checking how much is spent in a Presidential year, then subtracting from that the average spent in the previous 3 years. That would seem to give a good estimate as to how much the LNC, as opposed to the campaign, state parties, etc., spent on Presidential ballot access – as opposed to ballot access spending on other races. It’s a rough estimate because in many states, we can do the work together – in CT we printed the Presidential ticket (actually a stand-in) on all the petitions we used in the state, but even qualifying all of our Congressional, state legislative, and so on candidates would not add up to enough for President – or even close, in our case. In any case, the majority of those expenses would appear in the ‘average of past three years’ number, so this is mostly, if not entirely, corrected for, I think.
To be clear – no, I do not want the LNC to stop spending money on ballot access. Two areas I think are quite worth spending on are ballot access and legal offense. If we have a Presidential candidate, I’ll support spending on ballot access for that also. I may not agree on every single expense considered under this heading, but I certainly think helping attain ballot access is an important role for the LNC.
They have always been incredibly corrupt. This is nothing new. They still respond to pressure, now as in the past.
Doing away with them would be great but it’s far easier said than done, and becomes even harder if we stop running presidential candidates, for all the reasons I keep giving.
If our only choices are to influence them or to get nothing, I’ll take the first one.
If our choices are only pressuring them to make actual changes or selling out our positions to become a viable major party to supplant them, I’d take the first one. Of course we would all like to see us not sell out our positions and become a major party at the same time, but we are a long long way away from that and only move further by not running presidential candidates.
To either get them to change their policies or to become a major party ourselves we have to change public views to a large extent. There’s a whole movement for that, not just the party, but one of the most common ways people get into the larger libertarian movement is through the party – and most especially through our presidential campaigns. So we only put ourselves further from the goal, however we envision getting to that goal, by stopping running presidential candidates.
Dave – I guess in CT we don’t choose our chairmen based on their preference for Presidential candidate.
Regarding Rand – my more nuanced position is that I wish we could choose our candidate after the GOP chooses theirs, because I would have to say that, if Rand or some such gets the nomination, I see a great deal more value in us running a candidate in order to maintain ownership of the ‘brand’ in a sense. Rand being nominated would be a powerful reason for us to actually mount a Presidential campaign, in my opinion. I don’t think he’ll be nominated, though.
Which goes to my main point – trade-offs. Of course there are advantages to running a candidate – bringing in activists has been noted – and there are disadvantages. I’ve made a judgment, based on factors I’ve already listed, as to my view on how those balance out. I certainly don’t hold it against anyone else for disagreeing, but it sometimes seems that proponents of running a candidate don’t acknowledge the costs of doing so (at least not in their public statements) and instead act as if failing to nominate is equivalent to failing to take a free lunch.
I also don’t think not running a candidate is equivalent to centrally planning liberty. I don’t think any position on the nomination is equivalent to centrally planning liberty, just to clarify. I might not have a PhD in economics (okay, I definitely don’t) but I understand trade-offs. The question isn’t “are donations a fixed pie or not?” The question is predicting the costs and benefits of different courses of action, and application is, in my view, quite a bit more messy than theory. Which brings me to sweatshops.
I strongly agree that I’m far from perfect and make mistakes. Hell, I never even solved your pirate puzzle, even though I regularly teach a variant on it (in the variant I teach, you survive even with a tie vote and don’t need a majority.) This is not the place for a debate on sweatshops, but I think if we discussed the matter, or the other economic matters I expect you’re using sweatshops as a shorthand for, we’d probably continue to disagree, but you’d find that it’s a disagreement about thymology, not basic economic principles. More generally, sometimes we can just disagree, particularly when it comes to matters of applying theory to actual events. I certainly know the ‘classical’ view on sweatshops, and can recite it if called upon to do so. I think it’s fair to say that two Austro-libertarians of good will can disagree here due to the thymological questions involved. (I’m just assuming based on the GMU pedigree, I can be wrong about your school of thought – so maybe I should just broaden it to two libertarians can disagree without presuming one to be hopelessly ignorant.) Although I probably should write something longer on my economic views at some point – it doesn’t seem terribly pressing because my views aren’t too different from, say, Chartier, Long, Carson, Tucker, Richman, and the rest of the ALL gang. What I do want to do, I think, is finish a project I started a few years ago on history of thought that traces current political discourse back to the pre-Socratics. Since I’m an adjunct, I can always hope to be laid off so I’ll have more time for writing…
As to the LNC list, the complaint here is too broad for me to do much with it. Feel free to contact me off list to let me know what I’m doing wrong; I had been under the impression that I was contributing to the conversation there. Perhaps I’m wrong, I’m always open to being corrected. I’m even open to being proved wrong on sweatshops 🙂
Only some of it. There’s also the empirical data about ballot access, the anecdotal data about donor motives, the anecdotal data about why people join the LP (at any level) and decide to run for office as LP candidates, the anecdotal and empirical data about how votes accumulate both upticket and downticket, and so on.
Who, if anyone, said that here? I know that I didn’t.
So I guess you actually *are* saying you want the LNC to stop spending money on ballot access altogether?
Aside from the fact that many states piggyback all the rest of their ballot access off the presidential ballot access, it’s unbelievably wrong to assume the LNC would have this money to spend on anything else otherwise. Many people donate specifically to ballot access and would keep their money otherwise. In fact, even a good chunk of the non-restricted general fund comes in that way.
And many people would simply stop donating to the LNC – and for many of them the LP or its candidates at any level – if we stopped running presidential candidates.
Even using your definition, I believe Massachusetts is unique in that regard. I know of no other state where a higher prez vote total for us in 2016 in any sense makes future ballot access harder.
Thanks Richard.
I don’t want to pretend I am a leader in the LP, but I first remember hearing about the LP thanks to its presidential candidates in 1984 and 1988, and first inquired seriously into joining, attended my first meetings and started voting LP and calling myself a libertarian because I needed someone besides the pro-drug war triopoly to vote for in 1992.
Andy Jacobs joined thanks to seeing Harry Browne on CSPAN in 1996.
There are many many other examples.
Cholko, rather, not Chuck.
As always, Richard Winger hits the nail on the head. Throwing away ballot access in more than a dozen states would be hurting the very local party activists and candidates that NOTA’s backers supposedly plead for. The Presidential campaigns of the Libertarian Party can and has had a real impact on broader politics and the growth of the party, and anybody who tries to argue otherwise is ignoring the facts.
The other irony here, is that people are pushing NOTA in order to break the perception of the LP backing unacceptable Republicans. But the other major push for NOTA, and the way a NOTA decision will widely be reported, is as a de facto LP endorsement of Rand Paul as the GOP nominee.
I support Johnson 2016 all the way, unless and until we have an actually better candidate, which I don’t see as being very likely. But even if we nominate just another sincere party activist with zero political/campaign experience, that would be better than NOTA.
“””I’ve definitely seen some new activists and members come in through state and local campaigns. But, I’d say that a significant majority of the new members and activists I’ve come across found us through POTUS campaign. Further, of the ones that came in via lower level candidates, a good number of the candidates that attracted them were first introduced to the LP because of POTUS campaigns.”””
I would say that about 2/3rds of the new, active members and supporters we had in Wisconsin came from people who said “I voted for Gary Johnson (or Browne, etc.) and then looked into the rest of the party.” Chuck’s point here is absolutely correct.
Gee, so what? A guy nobody has ever heard of decides not to seek the LP nomination after all and then declares in favor of NOTA. I say again, so what?
It boggles my mind how many libertarians think you can centrally plan liberty. Paulie is entirely correct: not running a presidential candidate does not mean you get all the presidential donations and volunteers for local races; instead it means you get none of those donations for anything and probably hemmorage volunteers.
Johnson definitely has negatives (e.g., the Fair Tax, campaign debt, etc.), but Katz had negatives too. He has exhibited a total misunderstanding of political donations here. Elsewhere I’ve seen him deviate from sound economics and libertarian principles just as much as Johnson, such as opposing sweatshops despite the overwhelming literature they improve the lives of workers. On the LNC discuss list Katz is both verbose and prolific, giving his opinion on virtually every thread, but I have yet to see him add anything substantive to the conversation. I judge on quality of words, not quantity. I’ve been hoping to see more reason to vote for Katz than just “he’s not Gary Johnson”, but I haven’t seen it yet.
I hope we see more contenders for 2016 than just Johnson, not Johnson, and NOTA. Luckily it’s still early.
To echo Paulie’s point from above – there is not a fixed pie of resources available to Libertarian candidates. I don’t have a ton of empirical data to back this up, but common sense tells me that the more candidates we have, the more total resources will be expended on behalf of the LP and our candidates. When I ran for offices in 2009, I received donations from some family members and friends that (as far as I know) have not donated to any other Libertarian candidates. If I hand’t been in the race that year, that money would not have come anywhere near the LP. I’m quite sure this is the same for almost all candidates.
So, I am of the opinion that (with a very few exceptions for terrible candidates) we should run as many candidates as we can, for whatever offices we can. This definitely includes POTUS.
I first noticed that LP (I had heard of the party previously, but paid no attention at all) because of the 2000 Browne campaign. The next time I gave the party any thought (very, very little, but, more than zero) was in 2004, when I saw some signs for Badnarik around town. In 2007, I was following the Ron Paul POTUS campaign, learned that he has previously been the LP’s candidate for POTUS, and, to make a long story short, I connected the dots and ended up in the LP.
I’ve definitely seen some new activists and members come in through state and local campaigns. But, I’d say that a significant majority of the new members and activists I’ve come across found us through POTUS campaign. Further, of the ones that came in via lower level candidates, a good number of the candidates that attracted them were first introduced to the LP because of POTUS campaigns.
Curious: Has anyone announced? Maybe that Mensa guy only?
If JK is for NOTA and there is only one or no candidates, this would only be a comment on the one candidate, or none of the non-candidates, or something, yes?
” and little to know field”
Should read, “and little to no field…”
“Most people are more inspired to get listen to something that is political,”
Should read, “Most people are more inspired to get involved with or even listen to something that is political…..”
“Joshua Katz
November 28, 2014 at 5:43 PM
If we’re going to use the Presidential campaign as a mass advertising campaign, I’d suggest instead having a mass advertising campaign and recruitment drive.”
Most people are more inspired to get listen to something that is political, and get involved with it, if it is an actual campaign for a candidate or a ballot measure.
Richard Winger wrote: “Maybe in 2016 the Republican Party will also decide that its presidential nominee runs the risk of being imperfect, and the Republican Party national convention will then conclude that the Republican Party should not run anyone for President that year.
Very well stated. Perhaps the Libertarian Party should adopt the headless horseman as its logo
I am only sorry that the Libertarians in Connecticut did not vote for NOA for State Chairman.
”
Joshua Katz
November 28, 2014 at 5:43 pm
Andy – so long as you hire Libertarians or use volunteers.”
I’ve been saying that for years.
Even if you hire non-libertarian mercenaries to collect the signatures and little to know field outreach takes place during the signature gathering process (which is too often the case with the LP), there is still value in it as long as the petition drive succeeds, because at least the candidates will be on the ballot and can run campaigns as ballot qualified candidates.
“and to as”
Should read, “and to ask…”
Andy – so long as you hire Libertarians or use volunteers.
If we’re going to use the Presidential campaign as a mass advertising campaign, I’d suggest instead having a mass advertising campaign and recruitment drive. I understand why people want to use a campaign as one, but I think I’ve voiced why I don’t like the idea. Again, it’s far from my decision – I’m just stating my opinion and my endorsement.
“Joshua Katz
November 28, 2014 at 5:17 pm
To separate out Presidential ballot access costs, just subtract the average ballot access costs for the 3 years prior to a Presidential election.”
There are a lot of states where you can piggyback other candidates along with the candidate for President. Some states have petitions that just place the entire party on the ballot, and the party can then nominate as many candidates as there are offices to fill. Other states have petitions which have to have the names of the candidates on them, however, in some of these states you can add the names for other candidates for other offices on the same petition form as the candidate for President.
Even in the states where petition is just for the candidate for President, doing the petition drive gets more publicity for the party, and it gives the voters in said state or states the chance to vote for somebody for President who favors more freedom and less government.
Another important thing which conducting ballot access drives does, which is overlooked and underutilized by too many people in the Libertarian Party, is that it is an opportunity to bring a Libertarian message to thousands and thousands of people in one on one, in person conversations. This is an excellent opportunity to let people know about the Libertarian Party, and who the candidates are, and it is a good opportunity to hand out Libertarian outreach material (pamphlets, fliers, DVD’s, bumper stickers, etc…), and to as interested members of the public if they’d like to sign up to be on the Libertarian Party’s announcement list.
The Libertarian Party’s Presidential campaign should be thought of as a mass advertising campaign and recruitment effort for the Libertarian Party and movement.
Paulie – on a side note, the support that materialized was actually surprising, at least for the time frame. However, that support appearing also brought forward a lot of advice and arguments from people I respect and trust.
There was a significant Committee. Having run myself, I do on occasion get asked for advice on these matters. The most important single piece of advice is that the launch phase takes significant time before you can start recruiting volunteers and donors.
To separate out Presidential ballot access costs, just subtract the average ballot access costs for the 3 years prior to a Presidential election.
As for our past candidates, I certainly don’t think it’s valid to say that we must run a candidate in 2016 because not doing so is somehow insulting to past candidates. I have a tremendous amount of respect for most of our past candidates – less so those who went to Haiti to defend Baby Doc or left the party to support Romney, but most, even if I seriously question the positions they’ve taken or the way they handled campaign finances. I certainly respect the work and the sacrifice made by past candidates. None of that has any bearing on whether or not a 2016 campaign makes sense.
The empirical data you’re referencing is tied to the view that commits the party to influencing policy without winning. Yes, many parties have influenced policy either by acting as spoilers or by shaming candidates in other parties into adopting certain positions. You can even say the Populist Party influenced policy by cross-endorsing the Democrat and giving birth to the Progressive movement, to a certain degree. It should also be noted that most of those parties no longer exist, and that most, except the Socialist Party and the Populist Party, were single-issue. But I don’t deny that this is one way of impacting policy, I’m suggesting a different vision for the LP. I think our times may also be different – our 2 old parties are so corrupt that making any change is unlikely, and regardless, they need to be done away with, not kept in place while getting them to move over on a few issues. I’m suggesting a vision for the LP that involves winning elections and moving to a position of viability.
I was asked about other positions, but usually in the context of “how many elected Libertarians are in X office?” vs. “who was your candidate for X.” Obviously people know that there is only one President and he’s not Libertarian. I’d say those questions were about twice as common as Presidential questions. In any case, I find it questionable to say that our Presidential campaign is all about visibility and “spreading the message” when most people haven’t heard of our candidate – and I don’t think that’s just about forgetting after the election, either. I don’t see our Presidential candidate having much of a down-ticket impact since most haven’t heard of them.
You have predictions about donations. I have predictions too. I don’t see any empirical evidence for either. I think your predictions are over-blown. It’s possible I’m wrong; I’m not a psychic. But we’re already trying to buck history – any party that has risen to prominence, with one exception that I know of, did so after 1 or 2 election cycles. The Reform Party, for instance, did in fact virtually disappear after not running a candidate – but it also ran something along the lines of 4 candidates total. That’s not what I’m suggesting.
Regardless, you disagree. I get it. Just as you think having more candidates in the race will be helpful to the party, I think having NOTA represented at the convention will be helpful to the party, regardless of outcome. I think the discussion we’re having now is worth having, and wouldn’t be had without people endorsing NOTA.
To repeat what many readers will find a very familiar theme:
1) In Massachusetts, you have been able to run for office and register as a Libertarian for at least the past three decades. Vote totals have no direct legal effect on the previous sentence.
2) High vote totals in 2016 can, however, make it harder for people to run as Libertarians from then through 2018, by changing the signature validity rules.
2) No vote total for President in 2016 will have any direct legal effect on how we put a Presidential candidate on the ballot in Massachusetts in 2020. Whatever happens, the effects of the 2016 election on Massachusetts elections expire in 2018.
I am sure Paulie can come up with some other definition of “qualified” under which his statement is technically true,
I had never heard of the Libertarian Party until I turned on my radio in August 1972 and heard a news report about John Hospers. Many, many leaders of the LP have told me that they first got interested in the LP after learning about Ed Clark, or Harry Browne.
Correct.
Also correct.
Same here!
There were several people on it and others that lent their support in various ways. I suspect, however, that it was a very disappointing number of people/amount of support with the last election being barely over, thanksgiving/winter holiday season in our face and the presidential nomination a year and a half away.
“Joshua Katz
November 28, 2014 at 3:17 pm
Endorsements can change – but the viability of an electoral campaign is unlikely to.”
The primary purpose of the Libertarian Party candidate for President is to get the message out, and encourage more people to get involved in the Libertarian Party and movement.
I frequently ask people how they got involved in the Libertarian Party or movement, and the most common answer that I get is that it was because of a candidate, and it is usually a candidate for President. The two names that I hear the most when I ask this question are Ron Paul and Harry Browne.
William Saturn said: ” I am willing to bet that the people of Westbrook, Connecticut are more apt to associate the Libertarian Party with Gary Johnson than a Republican member of their local planning board.”
Most people have no idea who is on their local planning board. Heck, a lot of people do not even know that there is a local planning board.
“Why did it take an ‘exploratory committee’ to come to the opposite conclusion?”
Was anyone other than Joshua Katz on the “Exploratory Committee,” or was this a committee of one?
Exactly!
Some of whom, incidentally, will vote Libertarian downticket even if they are afraid of not voting for the “lesser evil” for president. Shouldn’t we thank these presidential candidates who give up so much of their lives and time (and sometimes, but not always, money) as well as opportunity costs, instead of deriding their efforts and imagining we would do better without them?
On that note, while Joshua spent far less time on his prospective run than those who actually see it through, thank you for the time and effort you did spend on at least considering the idea.
It’s proven by the actions of other parties that have gone that route after having previously run candidates for president. Why would it work any better for us?
Really. Literally most LP activists I know, including myself, got into the LP due to a presidential campaign. And the ones who did not still often did so in one way or another thanks to the efforts of other LP activists who did.
Actually it’s not nearly that bad, but I’ll concede that most people don’t remember the names of our last few prez candidates. But even if they don’t remember the names, they are far more likely to have heard of the LP and have at least some idea of what we are about than they would have been otherwise. And that’s not even getting into the ripple effects I have discussed elsewhere in this thread and other threads.
Naturally. You were running for a local office, you’re the candidate, and neither they nor you have all day, so of course they would ask about what you would do for them rather than about the presidential race. If they were talking to the presidential candidate they would ask him or her about that race. If a Democrat, Republican, or a candidate of the Monarchist Green Whig Party for sewer and water board came to their door or met them at a bar or cafe they wouldn’t be nearly as likely to ask them about their party’s candidate for president as about the office the person they are talking to is running for either.
I don’t. Saying we didn’t have one would tell many of those people that we aren’t even a real party at all, while others might just have been fishing for some reason to dismiss the idea of voting in a way that they weren’t used to, and the presidential race was a convenient excuse. If your answer had been zero that would have served their purposes just as well. The very fact that anyone at all asked you about the presidential race shows how powerful it is as an attention getter. Did anyone ask you how our candidates for legislature, congress, state office etc did? If so, how many, compared with the number that asked about the presidential race?
I wouldn’t make that assumption. I am, and I know a few other people are, but I don’t know about most people here.
I don’t understand what you mean. LNC spends very little on presidential runs, unless you mean ballot access, much of which also applies to other candidates besides president. If we had no presidential candidate many states would not get those out of state donations and would also fail to get their other candidates on the ballot. And that’s before you even get into all the people who would not donate to LNC at all, for anything, if we didn’t have a presidential candidate; we’d probably have to sell the office and fire most of the employees, and go into bankruptcy.
What level of donation are you assuming if there’s no presidential candidate? How many state parties won’t have any candidates on the ballot at all if there’s no funding from national, as there well may not be if there is no presidential candidate? How many will have to petition to regain access after the election, and how many will not have the means to do so because people have left the party or never came on board to begin with?
A lot of people, myself included, do so continuously.
Contrary to Paulie, since we have never run NOTA it is not a proven way not to succeed.
Katz,
You base your position on how you feel. Richard Winger bases his position on empirical data. I am much more inclined to believe the empirical data that a presidential candidate can affect public policy, and that a presidential candidate can increase the chances of candidates being elected to lower offices.
You are currently elected as a Republican. How many of your voters actually knew you were a member of the Libertarian Party? I am willing to bet that the people of Westbrook, Connecticut are more apt to associate the Libertarian Party with Gary Johnson than a Republican member of their local planning board.
Very few people actually pay attention to local offices. Local officials remain in the shadows, even in their own districts. Board meetings are usually attended by a few disgruntled local geriatrics. They are usually already set in their ways. On the other hand, many people pay attention to presidential politics. A presidential candidate can reach a wide audience. He can go on CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC to speak about the Libertarian Party. If he can communicate the party’s position in an effective and likable manner, then he can win some supporters or at least capture the interest of some with an open mind.
Why did it take an “exploratory committee” to come to the opposite conclusion?
I’ve answered most of the points raised above, so I’ll have to agree to disagree. However, I know I entered the LP before I knew who the Presidential candidate was at that point.
Regarding all the new supporters and publicity brought in through a Presidential campaign: really? I can walk around most towns (not my town obviously) and I’m guessing out of a random sampling, 99% won’t know the names of our last few Presidential candidates. When campaigning, very few asked about our Presidential candidate. Those who did mostly hadn’t heard of him. However, a few did ask how our Presidential candidate did. I think our credibility is helped more by not having one than by reaching for 1%.
Meanwhile, I’m sure most here are on the public LNC list. A few items have been posted about the budget. Then go back and look at the expenses for the last few Presidential campaigns (take the donations, subtract the average for the past 3 years and you have the donations brought in by the Presidential campaign, then subtract expenses and you’ll get a negative number, that will tell you how much it costs overall) and tell me how you plan to make this work.
If the delegates nominate a candidate, which they probably will, and I am on the next LNC, which I certainly hope to be, I will work as hard as I possibly can to make it work financially and to support the Presidential ticket. I will work hard on the budget, and on the EPCC, to figure out how to do this. I’m just giving my opinion that, at the moment, it is not a good course.
I think we need to take a hard look at where we are, after decades of work, and begin where we are, not where we ought to be.
Then more people would have read Rothbard, Browne, and any other libertarian author you can think of than ever have before. More people would join their local LP and run for local office. More people would have voted for downticket candidates than ever have in all the years we have run put together. Would Barr have said some embarrassing things and brought some non-libertarians into the LP if he was in the debates? Probably. But the good would have outdone the bad and every other candidate before or since has been better.
Your resources are yours, and mine are mine. You can certainly try to persuade people to donate to candidates for more winnable offices, but there’s no centrally planable or fixed amount of resources to distribute here.
Donors will each make that decision for themselves. Taking away one of their choices is most likely to mean that they will keep their money, not give it to other LP candidates. And, the pool of donors will be smaller as a result, in the short term but even more so in the long term.
We’re more likely to win more elections at the local level thanks to all the publicity and new party supporters brought in through the presidential campaigns at the national level. It all works together. I can certainly understand why people would be frustrated that we haven’t achieved more but that doesn’t translate into doing something else automatically being better, especially when we have the history of other parties that stopped running presidential candidates for comparison.
That’s great, but how did you first discover the LP? Many of us have done so due to its presidential campaigns. Would you have been in the LP without them? If yes, would you have still had enough votes to win if the party hadn’t been built, in part by our presidential campaigns, over the decades? What about other local elected Libertarians…would they all have been Libertarians and all been elected? I doubt that highly.
And running NOTA is a proven way to go in the exact opposite direction.
Another excellent point!
Excellent point!
Yeah…how about it? 2014 isn’t over yet so it’s a virtual certainty that we will get candidates we haven’t even considered yet announce for the nomination in 2015 and 2016. How do you know you won’t prefer them to NOTA before you even know who they will be and what they might bring to the table?
There are some, though.
Parties which stop running presidential candidates generally lose a lot of credibility and go into a tailspin, losing one of their biggest media microphones and recruiting tools (most likely the biggest). With that tool gone, local candidates suffer as well due to a lack of supporters coming in to take the place of the ones who burn out.
It’s not correct to believe that we have some set amount of resources to allocate to whatever races or level of races we want. The vast majority of LP donors are not about to starve or sleep on the streets if they make contributions to additional LP candidates, or increase the contributions they do give. Most people have time that they put into other hobbies that they could decide to reallocate to the LP if they felt it deserved it. It’s entirely possible, even likely, that thanks to our presidential candidates there are more libertarian candidates running at all levels and receiving more contributions from more different donors, both of money and of time, than we would have otherwise. Actually, I’d say it’s a virtual certainty. It’s not likely that all or most of the donations that go to our presidential candidates would go to local LP candidates instead; the vast majority would stay in the donor’s pockets.
While there are some candidates I wouldn’t back over NOTA (Milnes, Imperato, Finan, the blind guy in 2004 who lectured us from the stage about drugs and abortion, anyone talking about bestiality, etc), I’d be fine with Johnson, Moulton, Perry, or many other possible choices that haven’t presented themselves yet. Even Bob Barr was almost certainly better than NOTA, although he was significantly worse than Johnson, Badnarik or Browne, or other recent LP prez candidates before him; And certainly every LP potus candidate we had before or after him was better than NOTA.
Exactly.
That should go without saying!
I agree that we can survive most candidates – and can survive most candidates without most damage. Unfortunately, part of the reason our candidates do as much damage as we might imagine is a lack of visibility. If Barr were taken seriously enough, placed into debates, etc…
The question for me is the best use of resources. Just as I decided that seeking the nomination was not the best use of the time and effort I plan to expend in the liberty movement in the next 2 years, I want to determine the best use of LP resources and the most responsible use of donor money.
Agreed, and likewise.
Don’t I wish!
I haven’t decided who I support for the nomination, and once again might not until the convention happens, as was the case in ’12. While I’d be happy to support Darryl or Chuck in the general election, and haven’t ruled out supporting them for the nomination, I certainly don’t believe the party deserves to implode and NOTA is an absolute non-starter of epic proportions for me.
Joshua was here prior to the presidential talk, so hopefully he’ll stick around now that it’s over (at least for this round). I too look forward to hearing more in future years.
I would have liked to have seen him run, but I disagree that “he was clearly the only credible Presidential candidate at this point.” I do agree that “A Party that runs no candidate is highly likely to implode,” but I don’t see that happening unless Rand Paul supporters take over the LP national convention, which is not impossible. I don’t know how some people here define credible, but we’ve run a variety of types of presidential candidates over the years and survived them all, so I am fairly sure we’ll survive the next one too, whether it’s a replay or a different candidate. As for NOTA I do believe it would do great damage to the LP (spelled out in length in prior threads) but I am pretty optimistic that it won’t happen.
Endorsements can change – but the viability of an electoral campaign is unlikely to. And yes, parties have influenced policy without winning elections, I just happen to prefer the path of being a party that wins elections and thereby influences policy. Multiple businesses have opened in my town with me casting the deciding vote to allow it. Many homeowners have had their property rights protected due to votes I cast. I think this is useful – those businesses didn’t want to wait a few decades for the existence of the LP to be irritating enough to cause another party to toss some liberty crumbs.
I also don’t think that holding office will change the world overall. I think having libertarians holding office makes a different in the way people view freedom, though – they learn that cities don’t fall apart when they elect Libertarians.
I’m not satisfied to push a spoiler effect that gets some other party to enact some of our policies. I want us to be a real, viable party.
A good presidential showing does help a party gain or maintain qualified status (for all office). States in which the presidential vote counts for that are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, D.C., Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. In most of these states, other office also counts, or else parties stay on by having a certain number of registrations. But in Arkansas, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Virginia, and Washington, the only way we can be a qualified party immediately after the November 2016 election is over is by polling a certain vote for President. No other office counts in 2016 in those 12 states.
Throughout U.S. history, minor parties have influenced policy without winning elections. The Socialist Party never won a single statewide office in the U.S., but it had a big impact on policy. The Prohibition Party cost the Republican Party the presidency in both 1884 and 1916. In early 1917, the Republicans decided they were tired of losing elections because of the Prohibition Party, so they passed the prohibition amendment to the US Constitution, which had been sitting in Congress since 1875 but which had never made any headway.
How about wait and see who all of the candidates for the nomination are before endorsing NOTA?
I respect the arguments against NOTA. I am interested, though, in winning elections. I am not aware of a lot of states where a good Presidential showing carries access for local candidates, unlike gubernatorial races.
As I said, my goal is to lead the party to greater credibility and organizational strength. I have an opinion on how the Presidential election ties into that given our current strength . I recognize that others disagree. Ultimately it’s up to the delegates. I can only give my opinio , which I think I explained. I’m happy to clarify what I wrote, or to argue with the points raised by others, so long as I’m not repeating my points.
As for credibility, I’m more interested in influencing policy than whether or not we’re perceived as the largest third party. I don’t think our Presidential campaign contributes as much to our credibility as winning many local elections would. I would love for us to do everything, but resources are finite and I’m concerned with the best use of them. If we had more, we could do more. If we show more success, I think we’ll have more.
Josh–
While I respect your first decision (not to run and subject yourself to constant criticism from hundreds–or is it thousands–of critics you don’t even know), I disagree with the second one.
We just experienced disappointing results in the New York statewide races, and will be concentrating on local races for the next three years. Nevertheless, we would be foolish not to run a candidate for Governor in 2018 as that would immediately undermine our credibility as a political party.
The same is true for the LP at the National level. For several years now, the LP has justifiably claimed to be America’s largest third party. It is disingenuous to make such a claim and not to run a Presidential ticket. Most of the public, which is not Libertarian, will assume we no longer exist if we fail to run national candidates in 2016, and they would have good reason to do so.
Clearly Vermin Surpreme is the only credible candidate for President of the United States. For gosh sakes people he is offering free ponies! Free!! http://youtu.be/X_nEwAyoNgk
The GOP isn’t that stupid. I hope the LP isn’t, either.
Maybe in 2016 the Republican Party will also decide that its presidential nominee runs the risk of being imperfect, and the Republican Party national convention will then conclude that the Republican Party should not run anyone for President that year.
Sad to hear. Hopefully Perry, Moulton, or NOTA wins. Otherwise the party deserves to implode.
I’m sorry to read this as well. I have appreciated the opportunity to get to know you better, Joshua, and perhaps you may choose to run for President at some point in the future.
Katz’s decision is a great shame, because he was clearly the only credible Presidential candidate at this point. A Party that runs no candidate is highly likely to implode.