What’s the deal with this? Not a single network is reporting any results at all for Harry Browne, even though at least two of them are showing results for Hagelin, a nutbar who isn’t gathering 1/10 of the votes Browne is getting.
In fact, Browne is tracking very close to Buchanan, despite the fact that Buchanan had millions of dollars in federal funds and is a nationally-known figure.
So why no coverage at all? Even CNN’s web site doesn’t give aggregate totals for Browne, although they list Hagelin, Nader, and Buchanan.
A few elections ago I think the Libertarians got close to 3-4% of the vote, which is about what Nader will get this time. Yet they got ZERO coverage.
Yep, it sucks. Not really a debate. It’s stupid. Nader also isn’t getting nearly the coverage he should. NYTimes refuses to review his ads, even though they review the much more boring ones from Bore. I feel for ya little buddy.
My opinion…well, the libertarians have been around… they’re not new news.
Nader, while not new, is the first time there’s been a real run in the presidency for the Greens.
It would take looooong odds for the libertarians to take any real political power… America just doesn’t quite know what to do with extremes of any sort.
I almost voted Browne today… decided not to. I’m not even sure why, as my state was a lock for the person who took it.
My local news reported the Browne vote for president – at least, they showed them on the screen, though they didn’t mention him (or Hagelin or Buchanan even).
Yippee! Carla Howell got 13% in the Massachusetts Senate race. The Republican candidate only got 14%. Of course, Kennedy remains in office after almost 40 years by a huge majority, so the overall result was pretty bad. But at least it’s something.
What are the laws there regarding ballot access? For example, in Illinois, if the candidate of a party gets 5% of the vote, that party gets automatic ballot access in the next election (so they don’t have to go out and get 25,000 signatures per person they want on the ballot, for example).
A few years ago, a Libertarian candidate got over 5% for a really minor office (trustee of the University of Illinois, or something like that) and the GOP and Dems did everything they could to screw them anyway. First, they changed the law so those positions became appointed instead of elected. Then they “interpreted” the law to mean that only certain Libertarians could automatically be put on the ballot.
I think everyone needs 10,000 signatures. There was a big scandal because the Republican candidate was short 16 contested signatures at one point, but he sued and got in. The Libertarians had already secured their place. I swear, the Mass. Republican Party is a complete joke. The 6% vote for Nader still left Gore over 20 points ahead of Bush.
I am so happy to know that the LP is fairly well represented here (probably better than in the general populace). But I am so angered that the LP has been around longer than Nader’s and Buchanon’s bids (et al), and been on the ballot in all 50 states for the last 20 years… so why are we constantly ignored?
The front page of my local paper showed 3 faces a few days ago: Gore, W, and Nader. A few elections ago, Perot got all the press, with Forbes right behind. In a weekly paper in town, an article displayed 4 faces, Gore, W, Nader and Buchanon. I even read op-ed articles that talk about 3rd parties with no reference to LP whatsoever, even one that had been written by an admitted LP supporter (this was during Bush/Clinton/Perot era, sorry can’t remember the writer’s name). John Stewart on the Comedy Central’s Daily Show a few nights back had guest Phil Donahue coming out pushing for Nader, and when Stewart asked “Why the Green Party and not, say, Reform, [then added in silly references to other 3rd parties]”, but gave no hint of awareness about the LP.
And now, as Mr. Mod points out, we won’t hear a peep about the LP thanks to nature of this race.
Is it that we simply have no celebrity status? Do we need a big name to market the LP, to make people at least take notice?
There was a House race in Virginia’s 10th Congressional district in which the only candidates were incumbent Republican Frank Wolf, Libertarian Brian Brown (incorrectly listed by the Associated Press as “Independent”) and independent Marc Rossi. Wolf received 85% of the votes. It’s as if the fact that there was no Democrat on the ticket confused voters so much that they couldn’t dare vote for what must be the fringe loonies.
Arguably, Buchanan might have gotten more votes if people knew less about him. He definitely would have gotten fewer votes in Florida if they had better ballot design.
he simple fact of the matter, and I know I will get some angry responses, is that the Libertarian theory as it now stands is utterly irresponsible as a political philosophy. While it sounds good to say “everyone should be free to do as they choose, so long as they don’t infringe upon the equal freedom of others,” in practice society is not a collection of free agents, nor are individuals the only forces acting in society. In our increasingly coporate-capitalist system, a strong federal government is the people’s last hope for protection from total corporate domination. It must be a positive force in society, and that involves regulation, taxation, foreign policy, and all the onther things Libertarians believe should be done away with. Of course, even this is in jeopardy now, as coporations gain more control of the governmental process through campaign contributions and PACs. Still, the government is at least still partially responsive to the will of the people, while corporations are always ONLY responsive to the bottom line. I think many people would like to see a change in the system, but the way to do this at this juncture is not by shrinkning the powers of the government.
The biggest problem I see with the Libertarian way of thinking is that they treat the Constitution as though it was some sacred document written on stone tablets by the finger of God. I just do not believe this to be true. If it needs changing then change it. They would also hand most control back over to the states. That would be fine I’d think in most instances but can you say “Jim Crow” boys and girls! The states cannot always be trusted to look out for the rights of ALL the people. I’d also like to know how Harry thinks he’s going to get away with some of the things he’s proposed. Sounds nice when you say some of it but just seems like an impossibility to implement. So yeah, I think an awful lot of Americans think the Libertarian party is full of fruitcakes. I choose to think of them as “idealists”.
So, in order to better protect our rights, we just need more government? The more government we have, the more rights we have? There are states where Jim Crow laws could get enacted in this day and age? (I don’t know the South much, so I have no idea if this could happen there, actually)
This isn’t thread to talk about the Libertarian platform - there are plenty of other threads to do that in. Anyway, if your argument is that the Libertarians don’t get covered because they are loonies, please explain why John Hagelin got so much coverage, despite the fact that his platform states that ‘yogic flying’ and directed meditation can solve the nation’s problems.
What I find more interesting today is that the Libertarians simply cannot get coverage. A small example: The reform party is now referred to by party name on the ballot (“RF”, at least as shown on all the major network websites), but Libertarians are just lumped in with all the other independants as ‘I’, despite having a very strong party structure that has put the presidential candidate on more ballots than any of the other third parties.
Look at all the coverage Nader has gotten throughout this campaign, even though everyone knew that a GOOD result would be perhaps 5% of the vote. Libertarians have come close to that before, without a mention.
And it’s now looking possible that Harry Browne will pass Pat Buchanan in the popular vote. That should be news. Why isn’t it?
I would say last nights election is a perfect example of how many states would lean if free to do so. Nearly all of the Southern states voted Bush. Doesn’t anyone find this interesting. When I first came to this board there were a few discussions about Southerners being uneducated (ignorant), bigoted, backward, self righteous etc, and so on. So all of these ignorant Southerners voted for a party whos constituants would…put prayer back in schools, send Gays back into the closet, kill every black criminal they can get their hands on, abolish a woman’s right to choose, hand over control of the government to the oil industry, the pharmacetical companies, and tobacco interests, and leave our old, very young and poorest citizens out in the cold…need I continue? Then you want to know why in this day and age the government needs to monitor what the states are doing? Peddle it elsewhere.
That simply made no sense. Perhaps if you stop foaming at the mouth with irrational hatred and unfounded fears, and posted rationally, you’d be able to point out what the hell any of that has to do with limited government or the Libertarian Party.