Libertarian vs. Republican

[Lucky]

I want to vote libertarian this election-and thus vote for the candidate who's views match mine the closest. I also want to help insure he gets 5% so that in the next election they get on the ballot automatically.

OTOH I really dont want the democratic gubernatorial candidate to win. Since it will likely be a very close race, any vote for libertarian will undoubtably help the democratic candidate.

Anyone else feel this way? :frown:

 

[JimmyEatWorld]

"it'll be a cold day in hell before I recognize [Alabama]"

 

Wow! Lucky's really changed from the liberal that he was. :Q

Well, if every person voted by how he or she honestly felt and didn't worry about what major party would win, we would have some third party in place. And one who is likely to do what he (or she) promises.

No one can tell you what to do. It is for you to weigh what is more important to you. You decide.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Personally, I'd vote Republican in that scenario. Basically, I'd rather focus on the immediate issue of voting against the Democrat than the longer-term issue of 5% for the Libertarian. If the race wasn't close, I'd vote Libertarian.

ZV

 

[Maetryx]

It's possible that as many Dems as Reps will vote for Lib instead. So go ahead and vote for who you want.

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: Maetryx
It's possible that as many Dems as Reps will vote for Lib instead. So go ahead and vote for who you want.

theoretically that's possible but in this race (illinois) i'm fairly positive 90% of the libertarian votes would otherwise go to the republican candidate.

 

[Gnurb]

I think we should by able to rank the voters from most liked to least liked. Winner gets 5, second gets 4 and so on...I haven't found anyone so far who doesn't like this idea, it's ashame that I'll never see it done this way in my lifetime.

 

[chrisjor]

I always vote Libertarian when a candidate is running. When a Libertarian is not running, I vote for the one who most closely matches my views (though this tends to lean toward Republican).

I agree with Luvly......I never vote against any candidate by voting for someone else ....I always vote for the one I like. A third party will never gain a foothold if we are not true to our beliefs.

 

[glenn1]

I'd rather vote for someone i liked and have him not win, than vote for someone i didn't like (but liked more than someone else i liked even less) and have him win. Voting for the lesser of two evils still means you're voting for an evil.

 

[Torghn]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Personally, I'd vote Republican in that scenario. Basically, I'd rather focus on the immediate issue of voting against the Democrat than the longer-term issue of 5% for the Libertarian. If the race wasn't close, I'd vote Libertarian. ZV

 

[chrisjor]

This reminds me of a debate I saw a couple of years back for candidates for the Kentucky Statehouse. There was a Republican, a Democrat, and a Libertarian (he was blind!) taking phone questions.

A woman called in and and lamented that she had three sons that ranged in age from 25 to 50. All three suffered from Down's Syndrome. She was obviously elderly and quite simple from the way she spoke. She wanted to know what each of the candidates "was gonna do to help her". The Republican rambled on for his 2 minutes about existing programs and social security. The Democrat pledged to strengthen programs that help families and the poor. They were saying the exact same thing!!! The Libertarian then responded....."Ma'am if you had already given birth to two sons with Down's Syndrome...what led you to think it would be prudent to have a third child...especially if you were on government assistance at the time". He then went on to say that he would encourage her to contact private and non-profit charities who's business was in dealing with these situations and that it was not the responsibility of government to raise her family.

The camera then panned over to the other candidates....you should have seen the look on those faces!!! They looked as if they just witnessed a murder. It was glorious. I almost stood up and applauded in my living room!!!!!!

Please do not flame me......I think the woman was living a tragedy, and I felt a deep sense of empathy for her. I just agree with what the Libertarian candidate said to her question.

 

[FoBoT]

governor isn't that big of deal to go to the dark side, vote for the Libertarian!!!!

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
governor isn't that big of deal to go to the dark side, vote for the Libertarian!!!!

its a big deal in illinois. at least to me. this state is a disaster.

 

[MacBaine]

Originally posted by: Lucky

Originally posted by: FoBoT
governor isn't that big of deal to go to the dark side, vote for the Libertarian!!!!

its a big deal in illinois. at least to me. this state is a disaster.

I'll agree with that.... oh... and Lisa Madigan pisses me off!

 

[Dudd]

With all the Libertarians around here, you'd think they'd win sooner or later. I would have liked to see that debate though, that sounds hilarious.

 

[JellyBaby]

Vote for the best candidate in accordance with your conscience. Anything else is a true wasted vote.

Voting for libertarians when available is fine but remember there are bad seeds in any party so be sure he/she's got it together.

The problem today with Ds and Rs is there are so few independent thinkers. I swear most votes I watch on CSpan always go down party lines. It's like they're all drones for some Grandmaster Republicrat.

 

[Ornery]

I will NEVER forget, or forgive myself for voting Perot in 1992.

• • NEVER AGAIN! :frown:

 

[p0b0ye]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Personally, I'd vote Republican in that scenario. Basically, I'd rather focus on the immediate issue of voting against the Democrat than the longer-term issue of 5% for the Libertarian. If the race wasn't close, I'd vote Libertarian.

ZV

If you dont vote your conscience, things are never going to change. If you think bipartisan, then thats how its always going to be.

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby
It's like they're all drones for some Grandmaster Republicrat.

like?

they are drones

they owe their job to the party

the party decided to put them on the ballot

the party raised money so they could get elected

the party ran ads to get them elected

any politician above local school board signs a pact with the devil, i mean party, to get into and stay in office

it is in the best interest of the Repubs and Demos to keep the current bipartisian/two party system in place, none of them want to change it

 

[Lucky]

chrisjor, funny story. Reminds me last night of the PBS host who interviewed Cal Skinner, the (L) candidate here I'm thinking of voting for. After asking him how he planned to fix our budget deficit, he went on to address gun control. After asking him a biased question (along the lines of "now libertarians do not believe in any form of gun control at all; how do you defend this in the wake of the sniper shootings?") Skinner replied, "I'd encourage getting more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens." (paraphrasing him.) You would not believe the reaction of the host. Clearly stunned at his reply he stammered out a question on why he would do that. Skinner cited some statistics that showed it would decrease crime and said, "the problem with gun control is that most people think with their emotions on this issue. I prefer to think rationally."

I think I felt similarly Skinner doesn't seem like a very exciting guy but when someone sticks up for their values and opinions even when he knows that most people would go :Q it makes me giddy.

 

[Dudd]

If I were you, I'd vote Libertatian. As others have said, doing anything else would only serve to continue the corrupt 2 party system we have now. If people actually voted based on conscience and not on strategy, I think we would actually see a third party candidate win every now and then. If anything it might force the Republican's and the Democrats to make changes. People always like to complain, but they still keep voting the same people into power.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: chrisjor
This reminds me of a debate I saw a couple of years back for candidates for the Kentucky Statehouse. There was a Republican, a Democrat, and a Libertarian (he was blind!) taking phone questions.

A woman called in and and lamented that she had three sons that ranged in age from 25 to 50. All three suffered from Down's Syndrome. She was obviously elderly and quite simple from the way she spoke. She wanted to know what each of the candidates "was gonna do to help her". The Republican rambled on for his 2 minutes about existing programs and social security. The Democrat pledged to strengthen programs that help families and the poor. They were saying the exact same thing!!! The Libertarian then responded....."Ma'am if you had already given birth to two sons with Down's Syndrome...what led you to think it would be prudent to have a third child...especially if you were on government assistance at the time". He then went on to say that he would encourage her to contact private and non-profit charities who's business was in dealing with these situations and that it was not the responsibility of government to raise her family.

The camera then panned over to the other candidates....you should have seen the look on those faces!!! They looked as if they just witnessed a murder. It was glorious. I almost stood up and applauded in my living room!!!!!!

Please do not flame me......I think the woman was living a tragedy, and I felt a deep sense of empathy for her. I just agree with what the Libertarian candidate said to her question.

I'm not going to flame you, but this story is exactly why Libertarians will never win any major office. Like this women in the story, the majority of people look to gov't like children look to a parent - to have their needs met. Libertarians reject that, and offer the sort of liberty and independence from gov't interference which most people do not want, and in fact actually fear.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: JellyBaby
It's like they're all drones for some Grandmaster Republicrat.

like?

they are drones

they owe their job to the party

the party decided to put them on the ballot

the party raised money so they could get elected

the party ran ads to get them elected

any politician above local school board signs a pact with the devil, i mean party, to get into and stay in office

it is in the best interest of the Repubs and Demos to keep the current bipartisian/two party system in place, none of them want to change it

funny that you say this when candidates are the most independent they've ever been from the parties, and the trend keeps moving that way.

 

[Amused]

Lucky, where in IL are you?

 

[Tominator]

IF you vote for the Libertarian your vote is worse than wasted!

I do not like the way this works ar all, BUT if you do not vote for someone that has a chance of winning you just enable the other party.

The Republican platform is a lot closer to the Libertarian platform than the Democrats. If you take votes away from the Republican, you just insure the Democrat gets elected. Then we get further from Libertarian ideals. The further we go the harder the return.

Face it. A Libertarian has no chance.

Again, I don't like this at all.