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.

[68Charger]

Jesse Ventura immediately comes to mind.

He was Independent, not Libertarian... But an example nonetheless
I take it back, he was reform party... So he is an example of a 3rd party exploiting pop culture..

Now we just need a famous Colorado resident to run for Gov under the Libertarian party, shouldn't be too hard to find, right?

H. Ross Perot, 1992. His bid is often cited as a factor in Clinton's win, as he beat Bush in a number of states.

Perot was not very famous until he ran, AND he lost... We're looking for examples where a Libertarian won because they were famous.

[Aloha_Shooter]

He was Independent, not Libertarian... But an example nonetheless


Perot was not very famous until he ran, AND he lost... We're looking for examples where a Libertarian won because they were famous.

Dude, I don't know what rock you were living under but H. Ross Perot was pretty damned well known before he played the spoiler and gave Clinton the plurality. I supported him for the Republican primary over Bush I but once he went third party, he gave the election to the Dems and they knew it. Evidence came out later that the Dems pulled some dirty tricks to make Perot believe the Bush's had run some dirty trick against his family in order to keep him separate and sucking away Republican votes.

It's not a matter of Libertarians winning, it's a matter of them or other independents sucking away or depressing GOP votes and thereby handing the elections -- and power -- to the Socialists Communists anti-Americans Democrats.

To flip the OP, I can't see why any thinking person would vote Libertarian in an election where their vote could actually count (i.e., if you're in San Francisco, LA, Detroit, or NYC then it probably doesn't matter so go ahead and make your protest).

[68Charger]

Dude, I don't know what rock you were living under but H. Ross Perot was pretty damned well known before he played the spoiler and gave Clinton the plurality. I supported him for the Republican primary over Bush I but once he went third party, he gave the election to the Dems and they knew it. Evidence came out later that the Dems pulled some dirty tricks to make Perot believe the Bush's had run some dirty trick against his family in order to keep him separate and sucking away Republican votes.

It's not a matter of Libertarians winning, it's a matter of them or other independents sucking away or depressing GOP votes and thereby handing the elections -- and power -- to the Socialists Communists anti-Americans Democrats.

To flip the OP, I can't see why any thinking person would vote Libertarian in an election where their vote could actually count (i.e., if you're in San Francisco, LA, Detroit, or NYC then it probably doesn't matter so go ahead and make your protest).

Very would be the operative word- he was well known in business circles, but as pop culture goes, your average Jane/Joe didn't know him until he started using his catch phrases in debates.

The American public has the attention span of a gnat on crack. Unless he was on something like a reality show, probably 50% of the population won't know who he is.

I'd also submit that the "very famous" part has to come from OUTSIDE politics, and probably from outside business...

I could name a dozen very famous politicians that would have zero chance of winning on a 3rd party ticket... and any businessman is going to be doomed by the "he's one of the 1% fat cats" game that the Dems play, and apparently the American public will play into class warfare easily.

[PugnacAutMortem]

To flip the OP, I can't see why any thinking person would vote Libertarian in an election where their vote could actually count.

If you want change in the way our government is currently set up (two party system), and you don't vote for the change (3rd party..Libertarian or anything else) then you continue to perpetuate the problem. I despise the idea that a vote not for R or D is a wasted vote. How in the hell do you ever expect anything to change if you aren't willing to put your nuts on the line and vote for who you believe will actually bring change? I actually should use the word reform instead of change.

Artema actually said it best...if the Republicans and Democrats as institutions would just lean more libertarian then I wouldn't have any problem with the setup we have now. It's not possible unfortunately because there has to be division in order for things to function in this system.

[68Charger]

If you want change in the way our government is currently set up (two party system), and you don't vote for the change (3rd party..Libertarian or anything else) then you continue to perpetuate the problem. I despise the idea that a vote not for R or D is a wasted vote. How in the hell do you ever expect anything to change if you aren't willing to put your nuts on the line and vote for who you believe will actually bring change? I actually should use the word reform instead of change.

Artema actually said it best...if the Republicans and Democrats as institutions would just lean more libertarian then I wouldn't have any problem with the setup we have now. It's not possible unfortunately because there has to be division in order for things to function in this system.

And if you think that a few votes for a libertarian candidate will change anything, you're badly fooled- and playing into the Demoncrat play book...

you think the Democrats look at election results, see a double-digit vote for the Libertarian and say "Damn, we'd better move our policies towards the center"?
They look at those results, and will say "great, that helped us win that election"

Or do you believe that the general population will see those results, and decide that maybe the Libertarians are popular enough to start paying attention to?
Because your average American doesn't give 3rd parties a second thought without something to grab their attention.

[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.

[davsel]

If you want change in the way our government is currently set up (two party system), and you don't vote for the change (3rd party..Libertarian or anything else) then you continue to perpetuate the problem. I despise the idea that a vote not for R or D is a wasted vote. How in the hell do you ever expect anything to change if you aren't willing to put your nuts on the line and vote for who you believe will actually bring change? I actually should use the word reform instead of change.

Artema actually said it best...if the Republicans and Democrats as institutions would just lean more libertarian then I wouldn't have any problem with the setup we have now. It's not possible unfortunately because there has to be division in order for things to function in this system.

Unfortunately, I don't see any evidence our two party system is going away any time soon. Therefore, why not work on changing the platform of the party you most align with.
Welcome to the Tea Party.

Party platforms have drastically shifted over time. Work within the party to shift it in the direction you would prefer. It may never reach full-on Libertarian, but a third party candidate will never win a major election in our lifetime.
Wasted vote.

[Artema]

Unfortunately, I don't see any evidence our two party system is going away any time soon. Therefore, why not work on changing the platform of the party you most align with.
Welcome to the Tea Party.

Party platforms have drastically shifted over time. Work within the party to shift it in the direction you would prefer. It may never reach full-on Libertarian, but a third party candidate will never win a major election in our lifetime.
Wasted vote.

Are you kidding? Tea Party is full of bat-poop insane wackos. The original informal Tea Party with Ron Paul is not what exists today. If they pretended to do what they claim to do a fraction of a percentage of the time I still wouldn't vote for many of those nutjobs. And Rand Paul is a PINO. Paul In Name Only! As of now I vote based on the candidate, not the party, so I wouldn't be against voting for someone affiliated with them, just not the main wackos.