Posted on Feb 12, 2015
Of the leading Libertarian Candidates, who would have your vote? Is voting Libertarian like not voting? Is Rand Paul the third wheel?
3.85K
10
9
1
1
0
You do not have to post a comment unless you want. Remember uniformed service members are subject to scrutiny. Please keep this professional. Pretend you are voting Libertarian even if you are not.
This list could be longer but these are suspected front runners; feel free to add a comment about who is not on the list.
This thread is not meant to cause controversy, instead the goal is to get you to explore and do research.
This list could be longer but these are suspected front runners; feel free to add a comment about who is not on the list.
This thread is not meant to cause controversy, instead the goal is to get you to explore and do research.
Posted in these groups: 
Politics
Politics
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 7
2
2
0
So, I did not answer the poll. And won't mention a favorite politician here. I wanted to respond to the second sentence of your title.
" Is voting Libertarian like not voting?"
For this exercise, you can replace "Libertarian" with "Constitution", "Green", "Worker's Party", or any other third party.
I realize that it was a teaser, meant to generate interest.... However, there are many that sincerely believe exactly that. They argue that because $PARTY has no chance of willing, you should back the lesser of two evils, and doing anything else is impractical. Generally, these are also the same people who - when the electee does crazy sh$t - state "I didn't vote for X, I voted against Y."
No they didn't.
If you voted to put X in office... You voted FOR X. The same is true whether X ultimately wins or not. The ballot is a means of expressing a direct preference. In the simplest terms, if you vote for X, the message you send - to future politicians - is "I like X." They will then try to be more like X, because they would like to be elected too.
"Not Y" was NOT a choice on the ballot. Pundits may talk about protest votes and the politicians in the very next race may attempt to talk about how the people really believe 1,2, and 3 but were turned off by Y. But the lesson that they will internalize is "X is a winner. They want X. Be like X."
Again, a ballot is a direct means of expressing a preference. If you like neither X nor Y, pick one of the other 24 letters of the alphabet. If the person loses, you at least voted in accordance with your conscience. It is every much as much of a "Not Y" vote AND you signaled what you actually prefer in government. Which MAY (not holding my breath) lead to the next crop of politicians making at least some modest changes to their pitches, if not their views....
Now, for personal thoughts... I think "none of the above" should be a choice on all ballots, and I think he should be able to win. I think a two party system inevitably becomes a one party system in practice over time. I think that complexities that make the legislative process more difficult are a feature, not a bug. I think that the average level of political literacy, memory, and attention among the general population means that none of the above really matters. And I think my coffee may need a little Irish in it.
" Is voting Libertarian like not voting?"
For this exercise, you can replace "Libertarian" with "Constitution", "Green", "Worker's Party", or any other third party.
I realize that it was a teaser, meant to generate interest.... However, there are many that sincerely believe exactly that. They argue that because $PARTY has no chance of willing, you should back the lesser of two evils, and doing anything else is impractical. Generally, these are also the same people who - when the electee does crazy sh$t - state "I didn't vote for X, I voted against Y."
No they didn't.
If you voted to put X in office... You voted FOR X. The same is true whether X ultimately wins or not. The ballot is a means of expressing a direct preference. In the simplest terms, if you vote for X, the message you send - to future politicians - is "I like X." They will then try to be more like X, because they would like to be elected too.
"Not Y" was NOT a choice on the ballot. Pundits may talk about protest votes and the politicians in the very next race may attempt to talk about how the people really believe 1,2, and 3 but were turned off by Y. But the lesson that they will internalize is "X is a winner. They want X. Be like X."
Again, a ballot is a direct means of expressing a preference. If you like neither X nor Y, pick one of the other 24 letters of the alphabet. If the person loses, you at least voted in accordance with your conscience. It is every much as much of a "Not Y" vote AND you signaled what you actually prefer in government. Which MAY (not holding my breath) lead to the next crop of politicians making at least some modest changes to their pitches, if not their views....
Now, for personal thoughts... I think "none of the above" should be a choice on all ballots, and I think he should be able to win. I think a two party system inevitably becomes a one party system in practice over time. I think that complexities that make the legislative process more difficult are a feature, not a bug. I think that the average level of political literacy, memory, and attention among the general population means that none of the above really matters. And I think my coffee may need a little Irish in it.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
To early to tell, I honestly do not believe any of these guys will make it past the first few months.
(2)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
A lot of people believe Rand Paul is the closest the to a Libertarian that will get to the White House.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google