Libertarians and reality

[_JS]

What we really need is a system of government that gives fair representation to all parties who meet a decent threshold. I'd wager that UP feels as I do that he has no real (or very little - he has Ron Paul and I have Bernie Sanders I suppose) representation in Washington DC. It is difficult to feel a part of a representative republic when the parties that hold your views are marginalized by the constructs of the system.

If we had a party list, or other such system, then we could have the 32% Republicans and 38% Democrats and the rest of the 30% of the electorate could vote between those two parties or the remainder of the other parties. The House and Senate would be divided by a specific allocation formula and then coalitions would have to form to elect a president. This would force the major parties to deal with Libertarians and Socialists as well as other parties.

Moreover, it would get rid of two monstrosities of our current system: the lame duck, and endless campaigning. 

[Universe Prince]

In my opinion they need a canadate with star power and great speaking ability , intellect would be helpfull too.

Notice that third partys have captured govenorships , but usually these were well known people in their own right.

What they need is to raise money. They have personable and intelligent candidates. I'll put Wayne Allen Root against anyone else for speaking skills and charisma. What the Libertarian Party doesn't have is money. To make a strong run for public office they need to raise money and spend it. Ross Perot got a huge chunk of the popular vote, relatively speaking, by spending oodles and oodles of cash, not by being particularly charismatic or well known. When the Libertarian Party gets serious about raising money, and then seriously combats through advertising the ideas of the Democrats and the Republicans, then and only then will they mount a significant campaign on the national level.

[richpo64]

>>Of course there is. But the point here is not the skill of the Libertarian Party to sabotage itself.<<

I seriously considered Bob Barr until I heard him repeatedly refer to our troops in Iraq as "occupiers."

Sorry Bob. You blew it.

[Plane]

What we really need is a system of government that gives fair representation to all parties who meet a decent threshold. I'd wager that UP feels as I do that he has no real (or very little - he has Ron Paul and I have Bernie Sanders I suppose) representation in Washington DC. It is difficult to feel a part of a representative republic when the parties that hold your views are marginalized by the constructs of the system.

If we had a party list, or other such system, then we could have the 32% Republicans and 38% Democrats and the rest of the 30% of the electorate could vote between those two parties or the remainder of the other parties. The House and Senate would be divided by a specific allocation formula and then coalitions would have to form to elect a president. This would force the major parties to deal with Libertarians and Socialists as well as other parties.

Moreover, it would get rid of two monstrosities of our current system: the lame duck, and endless campaigning. 

I prefer haveing the Partys independant of government.

If the partys there were competeing to take over the government , were depending on the government for their financeing the incestuous nature of this interdependance would pull the partys together under the existing governments prioritys , they need to bite that hand , not depend on it for feeding.

I know that on this point I seem to agree more with BHO than JSM but there it is , that really is how I see it , the government is already too much garunteeing its perpetuation with influence on the existing partys. In some respects this is an obsticle to newer partys.

[Universe Prince]

What we really need is a system of government that gives fair representation to all parties who meet a decent threshold. I'd wager that UP feels as I do that he has no real (or very little - he has Ron Paul and I have Bernie Sanders I suppose) representation in Washington DC. It is difficult to feel a part of a representative republic when the parties that hold your views are marginalized by the constructs of the system.

Ain't that the truth. But some people would argue that the Libertarian Party (and the Socialist Party, or whatever they call themselves these days) don't meet a reasonable threshold already.

If we had a party list, or other such system, then we could have the 32% Republicans and 38% Democrats and the rest of the 30% of the electorate could vote between those two parties or the remainder of the other parties. The House and Senate would be divided by a specific allocation formula and then coalitions would have to form to elect a president. This would force the major parties to deal with Libertarians and Socialists as well as other parties.

Moreover, it would get rid of two monstrosities of our current system: the lame duck, and endless campaigning.

Are you arguing for a multi-party system such as exists in the U.K.?

[_JS]

That is an interesting point Plane, but I don't recall ever saying that parties would be dependent upon government financing. 

[Plane]

That is an interesting point Plane, but I don't recall ever saying that parties would be dependent upon government financing. 

How elese would the government produce a proportional election?

[_JS]

Ain't that the truth. But some people would argue that the Libertarian Party (and the Socialist Party, or whatever they call themselves these days) don't meet a reasonable threshold already.

True, but how many voters choose to vote for the Democrat or Republican because they feel a third-party vote is "wasted?" If they knew that such a vote would not go to waste, more voters would be inclined to vote for the party they truly like the best as opposed to being forced to make a decision between 0 and 1.

Are you arguing for a multi-party system such as exists in the U.K.?

Right now I tend to lean more towards the German party list system, but I'd prefer the Westminster system as they have in the UK to what we have. There is a tendency, as in the UK, for it to devolve into a two party system as well. The Liberal Democrats are an interesting phenomenon, but in practical terms they stand for nothing and everything depending upon the vote and moods of the day. As an example, they were the pro-European party of the UK yet they held a three-line whip to vote against the EU Constitution.

[_JS]

That is an interesting point Plane, but I don't recall ever saying that parties would be dependent upon government financing. 

How elese would the government produce a proportional election?

Ah...I see the confusion.

No, proportional is simply how the seats of the House are divided. For example, if there 100 seats and the results look like this:

GOP 42%
Democrat 40%
Libertarian 12%
Socialist 6%

Then the seats would be divided like this:

GOP 42 seats
Democrat 40 seats
Libertarian 12 seats
Socialist 6 seats

That is "directly proportional." Unfortunately it gets a little more complicated because there is a minimum threshold (usually 5%) so the seats are typically first directly divided then the party list seats are added on top.

[Universe Prince]

True, but how many voters choose to vote for the Democrat or Republican because they feel a third-party vote is "wasted?" If they knew that such a vote would not go to waste, more voters would be inclined to vote for the party they truly like the best as opposed to being forced to make a decision between 0 and 1.

I agree. I've said for some time that if everyone who thought voting for an LP candidate or any third party candidate was a wasted vote would actually vote for that candidate, those votes would not be "wasted" because the candidate would probably end up getting elected.

Right now I tend to lean more towards the German party list system, but I'd prefer the Westminster system as they have in the UK to what we have. There is a tendency, as in the UK, for it to devolve into a two party system as well. The Liberal Democrats are an interesting phenomenon, but in practical terms they stand for nothing and everything depending upon the vote and moods of the day. As an example, they were the pro-European party of the UK yet they held a three-line whip to vote against the EU Constitution.

Well, it couldn't possibly be worse than what we have now.

[Plane]

Well, it couldn't possibly be worse than what we have now.

Lets revisit this during BHO's second year , I bet you a doughnut you will admit it can get worse than what we have now.

[Xavier_Onassis]

If libertarian ideas are so bad and so unpopular, why do politicians running for office use them so frequently to sell themselves to the public?

I do not believe that Libertarians actually invented the idea of financial responsibility.

On one hand, there was too much deregulation in the trading of mortgages and their derivatives. Lenders were unconcerned that their mortgages would default, because they sold them in a month or two to someone else. Eventually really shaky mortgages were sold in bundles with the assurance that they were a seriously sound investment, when, in fact, they were anything but safe.

There was too much pressure on lenders to con everyone into financing their homes, and refinancing it time after time.

[Universe Prince]

I do not believe that Libertarians actually invented the idea of financial responsibility.

No one said they did. You don't quite get it do you?

On one hand, there was too much deregulation in the trading of mortgages and their derivatives. Lenders were unconcerned that their mortgages would default, because they sold them in a month or two to someone else. Eventually really shaky mortgages were sold in bundles with the assurance that they were a seriously sound investment, when, in fact, they were anything but safe.

There was too much pressure on lenders to con everyone into financing their homes, and refinancing it time after time.

On the other hand, there was the government pursuing "affordable housing" and protecting Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, keeping interest rates low, and promoting easy credit through it all. And now lenders can rest assured that if they screw up badly, the government will simply bail them out. Way to go. Yes, you "pragmatists" sure do know how (not) to fix things up. Keep up the, ahem, "good" work. And when the next economic downturn occurs, please be sure to bleat again out how libertarians don't live in reality.