Serious Question...how can you possibly NOT be a libertarian?

[Goodburbon]

But We've GOT to do it this time or the world will end.

[TFOGGER]

Let's discuss the farce that is the Electoral College. Electors are not constrained to vote in accordance with the popular vote in their state, nor are they apportioned in accordance with that vote. Under the current system, a candidate can win as few as 12 key states, and still accumulate the 270 votes necessary to win the presidency. Perot garnered over 20% of the popular vote in 1992, but received not a singe electoral vote. Somehow this is a representative republic?

[mjzman]

Let's discuss the farce that is the Electoral College. Electors are not constrained to vote in accordance with the popular vote in their state, nor are they apportioned in accordance with that vote. Under the current system, a candidate can win as few as 12 key states, and still accumulate the 270 votes necessary to win the presidency. Perot garnered over 20% of the popular vote in 1992, but received not a singe electoral vote. Somehow this is a representative republic?

True. But the Libertarian party has received an (one) electoral vote for President/Vice President. And the first woman to receive an electoral vote (for Vice President) was a Libertarian. Not that it's likely to happen again- the two big parties vet their electors much more now.

[ChadAmberg]

Let's discuss the farce that is the Electoral College. Electors are not constrained to vote in accordance with the popular vote in their state, nor are they apportioned in accordance with that vote. Under the current system, a candidate can win as few as 12 key states, and still accumulate the 270 votes necessary to win the presidency. Perot garnered over 20% of the popular vote in 1992, but received not a singe electoral vote. Somehow this is a representative republic?

The alternative is countries with parliaments, where after the election they do all the horse trading to see who gets to form the government. Works well in smaller countries, not so sure it would work here. Often it fails and it's election day again.

Although, you always do seem to get the fights that break out and generally bad behavior which can be really funny to watch.

[cstone]

I am curious. What do people have against libertarianism? I just don't see how anyone could be against anything on the libertarian platform. And the argument "because it takes votes away from republicans and allows democrats to win elections" has been proven completely false so that doesn't count.

I genuinely want to know.

People are different and they often do not agree on goals or methods to achieve those goals. When they do agree, they form alliances of like minded people to accomplish goals using methods they can agree upon. When those goals and/or methods clash, alliances are broken. Political parties are just one such example of these alliances. Political parties are not empowered by or required by the US Constitution. I have never sworn allegiance to or ceded any of my authority as a citizen to any political party.

I do not believe everyone will ever agree on any one thing. If such a thing were ever to happen, I personally would expect that the apocalypse was imminent.

Libertarian is not the same as libertarian. You probably already know that one is a party and the other is an idealogy. I assume that not all Libertarians are libertarians.

The Electoral College is defined and authorized by the US Constitution. This is the Constitution that many of us have sworn to uphold and defend. The role and make up of the Electoral College has been redefined over time through the amendment process and I would hope that if citizens have ideas on how to make the process better, they work within the Constitutional methods as provided to do so.

Be safe.

[cstone]

All this party talks reminds me of this scene:

[Dave_L]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. So yes, the republican party has work to do but if we dont all join our efforts, dems will continue their pathway. Let's work on defeating the dems first, then focus on the republicans.

[Goodburbon]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. So yes, the republican party has work to do but if we dont all join our efforts, dems will continue their pathway. Let's work on defeating the dems first, then focus on the republicans.

I did not leave the party, the party left me, and I will not back a party because they're only half bad and the other party is HALF bad.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Aloha_Shooter]

I have joined the Republican Party solely to vote in primary elections where it seemed like there was a shot at influencing those primaries. I did the same thing with the Democrat Party a couple times although my primary selections generally lost. I'm a pretty firm independent but it is generally most logical and effective to steer the GOP toward independence and smaller government than to keep giving the reins to the ultimate big statist government types by "voting conscience." For that matter, I don't accept the premise that the Libertarian Party is necessarily the choice of conscience. Many of the planks appear to be more anarchist than anything else and while the Founding Fathers did not envision or want a huge statist government, neither did they believe in complete anarchy. The Constitution set up laboratories of freedom and empowered states to set their own rules but left freedom of travel so the best ideas would eventually win. Furthermore, the 19th century national security view of many Libertarian candidates like Ron Paul is unworkable in an environment with the quick and free travel available since the mid-20th century.

As far as "the party left me", that's true for moderate Democrats like Ronald Reagan in the 1950s and 1960s but the GOP has never been for the Libertarian wet dream advocated so claiming the GOP "left me" is utter BS. In fact, the reason TR was hated so much by Establishment Republicans in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was that he led the fight to break down totalitarian and winner-takes-the-spoils corrupt government. Sound familiar?

[Jer]

I have joined the Republican Party solely to vote in primary elections where it seemed like there was a shot at influencing those primaries. I did the same thing with the Democrat Party a couple times although my primary selections generally lost. I'm a pretty firm independent but it is generally most logical and effective to steer the GOP toward independence and smaller government than to keep giving the reins to the ultimate big statist government types by "voting conscience." For that matter, I don't accept the premise that the Libertarian Party is necessarily the choice of conscience. Many of the planks appear to be more anarchist than anything else and while the Founding Fathers did not envision or want a huge statist government, neither did they believe in complete anarchy. The Constitution set up laboratories of freedom and empowered states to set their own rules but left freedom of travel so the best ideas would eventually win. Furthermore, the 19th century national security view of many Libertarian candidates like Ron Paul is unworkable in an environment with the quick and free travel available since the mid-20th century.

As far as "the party left me", that's true for moderate Democrats like Ronald Reagan in the 1950s and 1960s but the GOP has never been for the Libertarian wet dream advocated so claiming the GOP "left me" is utter BS. In fact, the reason TR was hated so much by Establishment Republicans in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was that he led the fight to break down totalitarian and winner-takes-the-spoils corrupt government. Sound familiar?

Curious, what is your opinion on pure Anarchy (assuming that's what the Libertarian party is built off on as you surmise) versus what we currently have or where we are trending towards?