Barr wins Libertarian Nomination.

[softwareNerd]

What if a really good third party candidate comes along? Like, ideal candidate.

If an ideal candidate comes along and has a slight chance of being elected, one would vote for him. If he has no chance of being elected (in the judgment of the person voting), one might still vote for him as a way of showing where your preferences lies. On the other hand, one would have to weigh that against the possibility that a vote for him means one vote less for the better of the other two candidates.

I also think there's a limit to voting for the "least bad". If both cross a certain line, and both are taking the country downhill, it might be more principled to opt out of the process. In the end, one's actual vote is pretty insignificant.

[Greebo]

Unless if you perceive either:

(I) there to be no significant difference between the Republican and the Democratic Presidential tickets.

(II) one of the two major parties to be significantly more evil but is almost surely going to lose anyway.

I recommend not voting for a third party. The reality is we are a de facto two party system. If we are not living under circumstances (I) or (II), any support for a third party is going to help the greater of two evils win.

Well, in my state, McCain is going to lose, no matter what, and the Democratic candidate is going to win, no matter what.

So I'll vote for Barr as the lesser of three evils.

[khaight]

Well, in my state, McCain is going to lose, no matter what, and the Democratic candidate is going to win, no matter what.

So I'll vote for Barr as the lesser of three evils.

Why? You've already established that your vote has no direct impact. It serves only as an endorsement of what the Libertarian party stands for -- and what they stand for runs counter to your values (on the assumption that you are an Objectivist).

[DarkWaters]

I also think there's a limit to voting for the "least bad". If both cross a certain line, and both are taking the country downhill, it might be more principled to opt out of the process.

I would say that the limit to voting for the lesser of two evils should be a function on how the two evils differ from each other rather than from an independent standard. For example, in the 2004 Presidential election, both John Kerry and George Bush were clearly bringing the country in the wrong direction but I still think it was important that everyone vote against George Bush. As Dr. Peikoff noted, President Bush was apocalyptically bad while John Kerry was only catastrophically bad.

Of course, if it actually comes to the point where we must choose between a religious dictator and a Marxist-Leninist dictator, then it is probably time for us all to leave the country.

What if a really good third party candidate comes along? Like, ideal candidate.

I agree with softwareNerd's response except for what I comment on. However, I would add that if there is a hypothetical ideal candidate running today who has no chance of winning, I would definitely advocate supporting him morally and politically. However, in terms of actual voting, I would only vote for him under the aforementioned conditions (I) or (II). The fact that we vociferously supported the candidate is more important in the long run. Actually voting for the candidate under these conditions will have at best a minuscule benefit and could potentially be one less vote against a truly bad candidate.

[IchorFigure]

As much as Obama makes me cringe, I think I will likely vote for him. Mainly because as much socialist-esque legislation as his party could toss onto our country, the recent right trying to make religion law sounds worse. To some etent at least, the left is working in the realm of reason. While the right, if it can find a way to force it's faith into government could undercut reason in favor of god-did-it. And that simply makes me shudder.

Still, the elections a ways off and it's such an atrocious selection, I'll have to see what develops.

Edited May 29, 2008 by IchorFigure

[Miles White]

As much as Obama makes me cringe, I think I will likely vote for him. Mainly because as much socialist-esque legislation as his party could toss onto our country, the recent right trying to make religion law sounds worse. To some etent at least, the left is working in the realm of reason. While the right, if it can find a way to force it's faith into government could undercut reason in favor of god-did-it. And that simply makes me shudder.

Still, the elections a ways off and it's such an atrocious selection, I'll have to see what develops.

Unfortunately, I have my doubts as to wether that same premise applies to this current election.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Barr's nomination proves that the "Party Of Principle" has none. (Yes, the LP calls themselves the Party of Principle, but even when I was a member I hated that slogan. Party of which particular principle?) One thing we pretty much agreed on in our local LP affiliate was that there was no way a libertarian could favor drug prohibition or gun control, no matter what path he followed to decide he was a libertarian. (Abortion you can, proceding from the wrong premises, decide should be banned if you think the fetus has rights. But there was simply no conceivable justification for the other two issues.) My state party nominated anti-gun candidates in order to fill the ballot, and Barr is a prohibitionist.

Case closed.

[khaight]

Case closed.

I've said often that the most convincing argument against supporting the Libertarians is the Libertarians themselves. I encourage people considering supporting them to attend their local party meetings. I did, and what I saw there was the final nail in the coffin as far as I was concerned.

[IchorFigure]

Unfortunately, I have my doubts as to wether that same premise applies to this current election.

Yeah, that is one of the other things complicating things. The lefts sucking up to God, and the rights sucking up to Gaia.

[Greebo]

Why? You've already established that your vote has no direct impact. It serves only as an endorsement of what the Libertarian party stands for -- and what they stand for runs counter to your values (on the assumption that you are an Objectivist).

No - a vote for a candidate is an endorsement of that candidate and their positions. In this instance, and in my opinion, Barr represents Objectivist goals better than Clinton, Obama, or McCain, all of whom are for more expansion of Government in one form or another.

Is Barr ideal? No - he's into closed borders, which is anti free-trade. But if everyone waited for the perfect candidate in an election before voting, the polls would be deserted.

[brian0918]

No - a vote for a candidate is an endorsement of that candidate and their positions.

This is a definition you have contrived. Another definition, which may be more free of assumptions, is that a vote is simply a tally mark. Which candidate gets that tally mark, and for what reasons, is up to the voter. The voter can choose to make that vote to affirm the principles of a candidate, or the voter can choose to make that vote just to affect the outcome one way or the other.

Is one reason better than another? I am not sure. Voting for the lesser of two evils makes sense if the greater evil has a good chance of being elected and is much worse for the country. But then again my vote is only one vote, so maybe it is better to use it to show a candidate that someone agrees with their positions. If the point is to avoid at all costs making the country worse, though, it would seem that voting for the lesser evil is the right choice.

Edited June 4, 2008 by brian0918

[Steve D'Ippolito]

OBTW...

I have some friends who were at the convention. They were disgusted that Bob Barr got the nod. They started quizzing me about my opinions of a lot of LP insiders and happily I recognized very few of the names. (I've been GONE from libertarianism for long enough to be clueless now!)

[Greebo]

This is a definition you have contrived.

It's a definition that represents what my vote represents, so...

Is one reason better than another? I am not sure. Voting for the lesser of two evils makes sense if the greater evil has a good chance of being elected and is much worse for the country. But then again my vote is only one vote, so maybe it is better to use it to show a candidate that someone agrees with their positions. If the point is to avoid at all costs making the country worse, though, it would seem that voting for the lesser evil is the right choice.

Once again - I'm in Maryland. It doesn't matter who the Democratic candidate is, they will get all of Maryland's electoral votes, so it doesn't matter who I vote for. I may as well vote for the candidate who at least would have given lip service to several of the same goals we seek.

[khaight]

I may as well vote for the candidate who at least would have given lip service to several of the same goals we seek.

This raises an obvious question: What is the value in a non-viable candidate's lip-service to a set of concrete policy goals we may also happen to support? It seems to me that a lot of damage has been done by people who give lip service to freedom in some cases but who don't really understand or support it in principle.

[sanjavalen]

This raises an obvious question: What is the value in a non-viable candidate's lip-service to a set of concrete policy goals we may also happen to support? It seems to me that a lot of damage has been done by people who give lip service to freedom in some cases but who don't really understand or support it in principle.

Well said.

[FeatherFall]

Well said.

Ditto.

[brian0918]

This raises an obvious question: What is the value in a non-viable candidate's lip-service to a set of concrete policy goals we may also happen to support? It seems to me that a lot of damage has been done by people who give lip service to freedom in some cases but who don't really understand or support it in principle.

That's about as clear as it gets.

[gags]

This raises an obvious question: What is the value in a non-viable candidate's lip-service to a set of concrete policy goals we may also happen to support? It seems to me that a lot of damage has been done by people who give lip service to freedom in some cases but who don't really understand or support it in principle.

Unfortunately that describes the Republican Party rather well.

[Greebo]

Unfortunately that describes the Republican Party rather well.

Exactly.

A vote Democrat is a vote for socialism in disguise. A vote Republican is a vote for a traitor to capitalism.

A vote for a Libertarian may not be a vote for the ideal candidate, but its at least a party that's honest in its intent. If my vote doesn't count anyway (and in MD, it won't), may as well increase the tally of numbers who are clearly looking for reduction in the size of Government.

[gags]

A vote for a Libertarian may not be a vote for the ideal candidate, but its at least a party that's honest in its intent. If my vote doesn't count anyway (and in MD, it won't), may as well increase the tally of numbers who are clearly looking for reduction in the size of Government.

In your position, living in the state of Maryland, I might do the same thing. One favorable thing about the Libertarians is that the public generally identifies them with smaller government.

[sanjavalen]

A vote for a Libertarian may not be a vote for the ideal candidate, but its at least a party that's honest in its intent. If my vote doesn't count anyway (and in MD, it won't), may as well increase the tally of numbers who are clearly looking for reduction in the size of Government.

Wow, way to miss the whole point of exactly what you quoted?

The libertarian party is NOT an idealistic, principled party, and they DO pay only lip service to freedom.

[khaight]

In your position, living in the state of Maryland, I might do the same thing. One favorable thing about the Libertarians is that the public generally identifies them with smaller government.

Setting up the vote total of the Libertarian candidate as a barometer for public support of freedom is counter-productive. No LP candidate for the presidency has ever cracked 1% of the popular vote, and the typical level is between half a percent and a quarter of a percent. If that's the number of people who support freedom, the mainstream politicians are right to be statists. Why give credibility to a metric that makes you look like a crackpot?

There's also a whiff of second-handedness in the argument that we can advance the cause of freedom by getting people to think that other people support freedom. Much better to get people to understand why freedom is good, and that goal is much more straightforward to pursue when decoupled from electoral politics.

As to the notion that the Libertarian Party is honest in its intent (presumably to support freedom) -- I don't agree, and even if I did it wouldn't justify supporting them. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I think George W. Bush genuinely does want to protect the United States from terrorist attacks. His foreign policy is still a disaster, best of intentions notwithstanding.

[Greebo]

I agree that the better approach is to advance freedom separate from politics. Nevertheless, we do have an election this year. The choices are between a party who advances socialism, a party who backed "the patriot act" and undermines capitalism from within, and a party who advocates reduced government for the wrong reasons, or not voting.

Not voting is a +1 in the column of apathy about how the country is run. If you think the country is already too far gone to save, that's fine - but I wouldn't count on the whole system collapsing in my lifetime.

[gags]

You do make a couple of good points Kyle. Despite the general association many people make between the Libertarian Party and smaller government, there is also a strong image that Libertarians are crackpots. Maybe Greebo can find a Congressman or two worth supporting because Maryland is surely going to vote Democratic in the Presidential race.

[khaight]

I agree that the better approach is to advance freedom separate from politics. Nevertheless, we do have an election this year. The choices are between a party who advances socialism, a party who backed "the patriot act" and undermines capitalism from within, and a party who advocates reduced government for the wrong reasons, or not voting.

Your third party, which won't win, is running a candidate who backed the drug war, the Patriot Act, anti-gay legislation like DOMA, and is (if memory serves) anti-immigration. And the more pure Libertarian he beat out for the nomination is apparently an advocate of legalizing child pornography. That isn't advocacy of a proper government for the wrong reasons; it's advocacy of an improper government.

If the Libertarians gained power, they'd be even worse than the Republicans at undermining capitalism "from within". This is simply not a party that should be endorsed in any way, either from a pragmatic or ideological perspective.

Not voting is a +1 in the column of apathy about how the country is run.

No, it isn't. But if you insist on voting, why not show up and turn in a ballot with no entry for President? Showing up indicates you aren't apathetic, and not filling in the bubble for any of the specific candidates indicates that none of them are acceptable to you. That sounds like a fair description of the situation.