From my Livejournal page.
A lot of people are dissatisfied with the Republican Party and are thus inclined to vote for a third party, be in Libertarian, Conservative, Constitutionalist, or what have you. I presume (since I don’t really hang out much with folk at that end of the political spectrum) that there is a similar dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party thus votes going to “Green” and “Socialist” parties.
I can understand the dissatisfaction. Believe me. I share it. My own politics fall somewhere in the Conservative to Libertarian range. And yes, I have been known to vote third party myself from time to time—usually as a “protest vote” when the actual outcome of the election was not really in question. When the outcome is in question I almost always vote Republican for several reasons.
Reason one: Some people say there is “no difference” between the two parties. Now, I will agree that they are far more alike than they are different, but the differences are there. In the recent Health Care vote not one Republican voted for it. That’s a difference. What percentage of Republicans voted for far-left judge Sotomayer for Supreme Court Justice compared with the percentage of Democrats? Another difference. Some Republicans did vote for her but, on the whole, Republican Senators were less likely to vote for her than Democrats were. Also, take a look at just one issue from the recent Presidential election—gun control. McCain was no friend to gun owners, that much is clear. Nevertheless, the voting record has him voting in favor of gun owners’ rights twice as often as Obama. Another difference. His record on judicial appointments also had him supporting more conservative judges where Obama did not. Another difference.
Thus, despite their similarities there are very real differences between the two parties and the candidates they field. Thus, if the choice really were between only a Democrat and a Republican then it really does make a difference. Both may be bad, but one is far worse than the other. If you have to choose between a broken leg and a sucking chest wound (with “neither” not being an option) then I, for one, would pick the broken leg every time.
Reason two: It has been said, “What have Republicans actually done to increase liberty” with the implied answer of “nothing.” There is quite a bit of truth to that. At most they’ve simply been a bit slower about the erosion of liberty than have the Democrats. However, the counter question is: “what have Libertarians/Conservatives/Constitutionalists/Whatever actually done to increase liberty?” The answer there is equally nothing. Now, the counter-counter argument is that Libertarians haven’t been elected in large enough numbers to do accomplish anything. Which brings us to….
Reason three: Most people vote Democrat or Republican and the ones who vote otherwise tend to be very fragmented—some this candidate/party, some that candidate/party. That’s not going to change any time soon. Any third-party candidate, to be successful, has to draw enough voters from one or the other (or both) parties to win in the general election. Therein lies the problem. If Leo Libertarian cannot get enough Republican votes to beat Ronnie Rino in the Republican primary (if your state uses primary elections to determine the party candidate) and thus run as a Republican, how in the world can you expect him to get those votes in the general election? You’re competing for the same voters in both cases. There’s a reason why very few “third party” candidates are elected in the larger Federal elections. (Smaller, local, elections can be a somewhat different beast.) If Leo Libertarian really could draw in more votes than Ronnie Rino, then go ahead and have him beat Ronnie in the Primary and run with an “R” after his name in the General. If nothing else, that would give him more backing to go against Donald Democrat in that General.
These are the main reasons that I believe that, in general, supporters of third party candidates such as the Libertarian party, while well meaning, are mistaken and in many cases, doing more harm than good to the cause of liberty. Yes, they may keep Ronnie Rino out of office but not by putting Leo Libertarian in instead. Nope, they just ensure that Donald Democrat gets the office instead. It’s like giving someone with a headache (Republican politicians) and a bleeding ulcer (Democrat politicians) aspirin (conservative-libertarian third party candidates). It may help with the headache but at the cost of making the bleeding ulcer worse.
The floor is open.
A lot of people are dissatisfied with the Republican Party and are thus inclined to vote for a third party, be in Libertarian, Conservative, Constitutionalist, or what have you. I presume (since I don’t really hang out much with folk at that end of the political spectrum) that there is a similar dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party thus votes going to “Green” and “Socialist” parties.
I can understand the dissatisfaction. Believe me. I share it. My own politics fall somewhere in the Conservative to Libertarian range. And yes, I have been known to vote third party myself from time to time—usually as a “protest vote” when the actual outcome of the election was not really in question. When the outcome is in question I almost always vote Republican for several reasons.
Reason one: Some people say there is “no difference” between the two parties. Now, I will agree that they are far more alike than they are different, but the differences are there. In the recent Health Care vote not one Republican voted for it. That’s a difference. What percentage of Republicans voted for far-left judge Sotomayer for Supreme Court Justice compared with the percentage of Democrats? Another difference. Some Republicans did vote for her but, on the whole, Republican Senators were less likely to vote for her than Democrats were. Also, take a look at just one issue from the recent Presidential election—gun control. McCain was no friend to gun owners, that much is clear. Nevertheless, the voting record has him voting in favor of gun owners’ rights twice as often as Obama. Another difference. His record on judicial appointments also had him supporting more conservative judges where Obama did not. Another difference.
Thus, despite their similarities there are very real differences between the two parties and the candidates they field. Thus, if the choice really were between only a Democrat and a Republican then it really does make a difference. Both may be bad, but one is far worse than the other. If you have to choose between a broken leg and a sucking chest wound (with “neither” not being an option) then I, for one, would pick the broken leg every time.
Reason two: It has been said, “What have Republicans actually done to increase liberty” with the implied answer of “nothing.” There is quite a bit of truth to that. At most they’ve simply been a bit slower about the erosion of liberty than have the Democrats. However, the counter question is: “what have Libertarians/Conservatives/Constitutionalists/Whatever actually done to increase liberty?” The answer there is equally nothing. Now, the counter-counter argument is that Libertarians haven’t been elected in large enough numbers to do accomplish anything. Which brings us to….
Reason three: Most people vote Democrat or Republican and the ones who vote otherwise tend to be very fragmented—some this candidate/party, some that candidate/party. That’s not going to change any time soon. Any third-party candidate, to be successful, has to draw enough voters from one or the other (or both) parties to win in the general election. Therein lies the problem. If Leo Libertarian cannot get enough Republican votes to beat Ronnie Rino in the Republican primary (if your state uses primary elections to determine the party candidate) and thus run as a Republican, how in the world can you expect him to get those votes in the general election? You’re competing for the same voters in both cases. There’s a reason why very few “third party” candidates are elected in the larger Federal elections. (Smaller, local, elections can be a somewhat different beast.) If Leo Libertarian really could draw in more votes than Ronnie Rino, then go ahead and have him beat Ronnie in the Primary and run with an “R” after his name in the General. If nothing else, that would give him more backing to go against Donald Democrat in that General.
These are the main reasons that I believe that, in general, supporters of third party candidates such as the Libertarian party, while well meaning, are mistaken and in many cases, doing more harm than good to the cause of liberty. Yes, they may keep Ronnie Rino out of office but not by putting Leo Libertarian in instead. Nope, they just ensure that Donald Democrat gets the office instead. It’s like giving someone with a headache (Republican politicians) and a bleeding ulcer (Democrat politicians) aspirin (conservative-libertarian third party candidates). It may help with the headache but at the cost of making the bleeding ulcer worse.
The floor is open.
