The Libertarian Party of Oregon’s State Committee Meeting was held this weekend with the party nominating Wes Wagner, a 33-year-old IT professional, for the Governor’s race. However, the press about the party seems to mostly involve bickering over bylaws.
Wagner is also vice chairman of the Libertarian Party, and he’s in the middle of yet another internal battle over control of the party. Factional fights are a way of life for the Libertarian Party as members have argued over everything from drug legalization to party finances.
The latest dispute involves the state’s new fusion voting law, which allows candidates to list the nominations of up to three parties next to their name on the ballot.
The Washington County Libertarian Party cross-nominated two Republican state House candidates, Shawn Lindsay and Katie Eyre Brewer. State party leaders, including Wagner, objected, saying that party bylaws prohibited nominating anyone who isn’t a member of the Libertarian Party.
Richard Burke, a former executive director of the state party, now heads the Washington County party. And he said the nominations were legal because Lindsay and Brewer were chosen by write-in votes. He’s got a complicated reason for why it is okay involving how you interpret Roberts Rules of Orders, but it’s not worth going into here.
Suffice it to say that the state party, meeting in Salem, kicked the matter on to the party’s Judicial Committee.
Wagner was also the State Chair of the Libertarian Party of Oregon in 2007-2008. Additionally, in 2006 he sued the party for not living up to its fiduciary responsibilities.
Trent: “Dr. Phillies,
I believe you also vote for the lesser of evils. No one ever agrees with you 100%–unless they are a total lemmings. You are always voting for the “least evil” of choices, also known as the “most good”.”
This is only true if you believe there’s only one policy proposal per issue that’s good, and everything else is evil. Therefore, if someone doesn’t agree with you 100% and you believe your ideas are good, then that person must be advocating some evil.
But some would say that just because someone doesn’t agree with you 100%, it doesn’t mean that person is advocating evil. That person may still be proposing good policies, but not as good as yours are (in your view). In that case, you wouldn’t be choosing evil by voting for him or her. Or that person may be proposing some ideas that aren’t good, yet those ideas don’t meet your standard of “evil.” In that case again, you wouldn’t be choosing evil by voting for him or her.
It’s in the cases of candidates who DO advocate some policies that you believe are evil and yet you vote for them anyway that you’re actually choosing the lesser of two evils, IMO. Whether you should do that or not is a separate question. But as per the above, I don’t think voting at all means you’re necessarily doing so.
#16 – yes voters weigh a number of factors, but votes are counted, not weighed. Obama’s votes counted, he won, and he didn’t have to parse the votes and say “Wow, I got a lot of anti-Bush votes that really don’t agree with my agenda.”
Nope, a vote for Obama – or any pol – is a vote to green light his campaign promises.
gp: Supporting the lesser of two evils is still evil.
me: Problem with that bumpersticker is that the number can be ANY number and the statement still works…lesser of three, four, five…doesn’t matter.
Dualistic “good” and “evil” just don’t work in politics, or anywhere else that I can see. Politics and life generally is about balancing conflicting considerations. I voted for Barr in 08 because I agreed with him on most issues and to help build the LP. I could not have voted for McCain as he seemed too unstable to be anywhere near the football. I could not vote for Obama as he fundamentally does not seem to appreciate liberty.
Votes are ultimately symbolic acts that weigh a number of symbols and choose one symbol over another.
You’re welcome. Glad I could bring a new perspective.
T_ You are always voting for the “least evil” of choices, also known as the “most good”.
me_ thats an interesting point Trent , never thought if it quite like that..thanks:)
I vote for the best candidate according to my issues and ideals. It does not matter what label is beside his or her name. Altho I do know that the Libertarians are the one and only 21st Century Peace Party —— Thomas Knappster and George Phillies told me so ………..
I vote for the best candidate according to my issues and ideals. It does not matter what label is beside his or her name.
Dr. Phillies,
I believe you also vote for the lesser of evils. No one ever agrees with you 100%–unless they are a total lemmings. You are always voting for the “least evil” of choices, also known as the “most good”.
unless there is a D or an R that has shown exceptional differences from most of their parties and stands out as libertarian leaning , I NEVER VOTE FOR THEM. I have voted Green , IAP just as a protest vote to give another 3rd party a boost but of course never ever when an L is running , never. In NV we have NOTA on our ballots:)
Also, the question was about party organizations nominating or endorsing people, not about what you do in the privacy of the ballot box.
In most places and elections, you get a write in vote and can vote for some libertarian for each office.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still evil.
It depends, sir, whether you are a fascist torture advocate of the right, and support Republicans, or a fascist torture advocate of the left, and support Democrats. When you do either, you are lending your endorsement to the Democratic-Republican war crimes in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, the Phillipines, the Yemen, and other parts of the world.
George Phillies has been quoted as saying: “It seems to me that supporting a registered Republican or Democrat would be unacceptable. It should be, anyhow”
Is this yet another example of George’s old ‘foot in mouth’ disease rearing it’s ugly head again?
What are thousands of Libertarians supposed to do in races where no Libertarian is running, pretend it doesn’t matter? Pretend it isn’t really happenng? Write in “none of the above”, knowing it won’t be counted or considered?.
GMAB!
Dave Terry
It seems to me that supporting a registered Republican or Democrat would be unacceptable. It should be, anyhow.
George
My state is Ohio and we have registration by party. You can only register into a party by voting in their primary.
Interesting question. Does your state have party registration? Half of the American people live in places where there is no registration by party (not counting, when last I read about it, the state that does not have a voter registration system in the familiar sense.)
Are Nonpartisan elections ok?
National Party Bylaws deals with this question:
Article 6, Section 4 unambiguously provides *No affiliate party shall endorse any candidate who is a member of another party for public office in any partisan election.*
Nominating someone for office is as solid an endorsement as you can get.
We had this issue come up recently in Massachusetts. A very pleasant Republican appeared at a local group looking for the endorsement and support of the local Libertarian organization. We had a nice chat, but in Massachusetts we do not support Republicans — except to return them to their loving families via early political retirements.
That’s any minor party convention. Also, bickering about the platform.