Eric, Yeah, there is the Libertarian party, and they get a lot of electoral votes. In fact, I think that our next president will be Harry Browne. Our work is done. Let's go get a drink. Seriously, what we are discussing here is the feasibility of establishing a credible power base for a third party. I don't think (and maybe you disagree with me here) that the Libertarian party has achieved this at all. I don't think that the current Libertarian party CAN establish this kind of voter confidence. The current presidential candidate for the Libertarian party, Harry Browne, has done little to gain voter enthusiasm with such bold and impractical claims as the statement that his first action in office would be granting executive pardon to drug offenders. I am familiar with the Libertarian party, to the extent that I was a member for the past several years, and have attended several state and national Libertarian party conventions, and spoken with Congress-people as a representative of Libertarian interests. The fact of the matter is, in a discussion of strong representation of issues within a viable Washington D.C. power movement, you can only be bringing up the Libertarian party as either an example of failure in the third party strategy or a recommendation for a third party to endorse. As for the possible assertion that the Libertarian party is an example of a failure to succeed at activism outside of the two-party arena, I think that any failure (perceived or real) may in fact be due to the outrageous demands of the LP (as an activist, I have been embarrassed by them many times), and the complete stubborn demand for overnight change without compromise. These facets of the party may be sexy to guys like you and I, but don't engender the public, or establish a foothold in Washington. As to the possible recommendation of the Libertarian party as a viable alternative to the two party system, I just don't see how that answers my question. Sure, the Libertarian party seems to be fairly interested in privacy and personal freedom. That still doesn't tell me whether you think it would be easier to get the Libertarian party enough power to actually protect our interests, or convince existing partisan powers to take up the cause. In short, thanks for the info, but you've answered nothing. ok, Rush Carskadden -----Original Message----- From: Eric Murray [mailto:ericm@lne.com] Sent: Friday, October 27, 2000 12:11 PM To: Carskadden, Rush Cc: 'cypherpunks@algebra.com' Subject: Re: Parties On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 11:09:40AM -0500, Carskadden, Rush wrote:
Scott and I have been discussing (from a theoretical standpoint) the possibility of a third party that focuses on privacy and personal freedom,
There already is one. It's called the Libertarian party. www.lp.org. -- Eric Murray Consulting Security Architect SecureDesign LLC http://www.securedesignllc.com PGP keyid:E03F65E5
On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 12:54:39PM -0500, Carskadden, Rush wrote:
Eric, Yeah, there is the Libertarian party, and they get a lot of electoral votes. In fact, I think that our next president will be Harry Browne. Our work is done. Let's go get a drink. Seriously, what we are discussing here is the feasibility of establishing a credible power base for a third party. I don't think (and maybe you disagree with me here) that the Libertarian party has achieved this at all. I don't think that the current Libertarian party CAN establish this kind of voter confidence. The current presidential candidate for the Libertarian party, Harry Browne, has done little to gain voter enthusiasm with such bold and impractical claims as the statement that his first action in office would be granting executive pardon to drug offenders.
Well, that gets my vote! Why should I vote for someone who doesn't stand for what I beleive in just because the media says that they're "not electable"? That's the kind of loser attitude that's gotten us a contest that'll assuredly elect either an idiot (Bush) or a fool (Gore). Unfortunately Americans are more interested in voting for a "winner" than they are in voting their concious. A "Libertarian Lite" party wouldn't get the principled voters away from the Libertarian party and wouldn't get any more mainstream voters than any other third party gets. But if you really want to do it, go ahead. The cipherpunks list isn't a very good place to discuss it though, as most posters seem to think that the Libertarian party isn't radical enough, and besides, crypto anarchy will soon make governments obsolete. -- Eric Murray Consulting Security Architect SecureDesign LLC http://www.securedesignllc.com PGP keyid:E03F65E5
On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Eric Murray wrote:
Why should I vote for someone who doesn't stand for what I beleive in just because the media says that they're "not electable"? That's the kind of loser attitude that's gotten us a contest that'll assuredly elect either an idiot (Bush) or a fool (Gore). Unfortunately Americans are more interested in voting for a "winner" than they are in voting their concious.
That's commendable idealism, but in most modern countries the electorial process is practically guaranteed - and in fact mostly designed - to in essence round out dissent. The fact that voting for the loser implies casting your vote for nothing, *even in matters which had nothing to do with the winner being elected*, simply means that there is absolutely no point in voting for someone who cannot win. It's a nasty side effect of the present implementation of democracy based on a mix of representative democracy, political parties, the relative voting system (dunno if you guys have this) and what have you. Sampo Syreeni <decoy@iki.fi>, aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university
On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 11:30:26PM +0300, Sampo A Syreeni wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Eric Murray wrote:
Why should I vote for someone who doesn't stand for what I beleive in just because the media says that they're "not electable"? That's the kind of loser attitude that's gotten us a contest that'll assuredly elect either an idiot (Bush) or a fool (Gore). Unfortunately Americans are more interested in voting for a "winner" than they are in voting their conscious.
That's commendable idealism, but in most modern countries the electorial process is practically guaranteed - and in fact mostly designed - to in essence round out dissent. The fact that voting for the loser implies casting your vote for nothing, *even in matters which had nothing to do with the winner being elected*, simply means that there is absolutely no point in voting for someone who cannot win.
Of course if everyone feels that way, then we'll elect only the candidates which have been pre-chosen for us. Which is pretty much what happens in the US, at least on a national level. I refuse to play along, especially in contests where I don't like the candidates from the two major parties. I prefer it to not voting at all. If voters don't vote, then the major parties see them as merely apathetic. They don't care how many people don't vote as long at they win. If voters do vote, but for a third party, then the major parties see them as voters who care, but not for them. Meaning that there's an issue or issues which they presumably voted for that the major parties can co-opt in order to try to get their vote the next time. So, while I agree with you that the system is rigged so that third parties never get appreciable power, I disagree that voting for one is a waste of one's vote. -- Eric Murray Consulting Security Architect SecureDesign LLC http://www.securedesignllc.com PGP keyid:E03F65E5
Sampo writes:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Eric Murray wrote:
Why should I vote for someone who doesn't stand for what I beleive in just because the media says that they're "not electable"? That's the kind of loser attitude that's gotten us a contest that'll assuredly elect either an idiot (Bush) or a fool (Gore). Unfortunately Americans are more interested in voting for a "winner" than they are in voting their concious.
That's commendable idealism, but in most modern countries the electorial process is practically guaranteed - and in fact mostly designed - to in essence round out dissent. The fact that voting for the loser implies casting your vote for nothing, *even in matters which had nothing to do with the winner being elected*, simply means that there is absolutely no
That's simply a result of the dim-bulb "first past the post" voting system that the US (and apparently you) endure. In countries with electorates that are expected to be able to count past 1 (eg Australia) they have preferential voting and you can express your preferences from 1 to N (the number of candidates). This allows you to express your preference for libertarian drug-taking pornographers and still have an equal impact on the outcome. Tim
So, everybody's third choice gets elected, or they take turns holding the office, or what? Weighted voting can work for corporate directors or other committees, but for a chief executive? Even the electoral college sounds better. MacN On Sat, 28 Oct 2000, BENHAM TIMOTHY JAMES wrote:
That's simply a result of the dim-bulb "first past the post" voting system that the US (and apparently you) endure. In countries with electorates that are expected to be able to count past 1 (eg Australia) they have preferential voting and you can express your preferences from 1 to N (the number of candidates).
This allows you to express your preference for libertarian drug-taking pornographers and still have an equal impact on the outcome.
Tim
So, everybody's third choice gets elected, or they take turns holding the office, or what? Weighted voting can work for corporate directors or other committees, but for a chief executive? Even the electoral college sounds better.
In single transferable vote systems the winner is almost always one of the two candidates with the most first preferences; the minor party candidates get progressively eliminated and the corresponding votes distributed to the next in preference order (instead of being thrown away). In US terms such a system might have got Bush senior over the line against Clinton because he would (I presume) have been preferred by most voters who voted for that fellow with big ears. In the coming election it might help Gore overcome Bush because Gore would be strongly preferred by most voters who are planning to waste their votes on Nadir. A system based on weights would, as you suggest, have an excessive (political) centrist tendency. Tim
That was the nice thing about Ross Perot. If he'd gotten elected, he'd have caused serious chaos in Washington (even though he was basically just another Republicrat), and the worst case is the Second Amendment said we could shoot him if he got too crazy. Unfortunately, he wouldn't let go of the Reform Party, preferring to give the party to the Transcendental Meditation cult if it wasn't going to be run by the Ross Perot personality cult, and now Buchanan has a certain risk of coming out behind the Libertarians :-) (Probably won't happen, since the LP hasn't done enough successful publicity to get mentioned in the media's "oh, yeah, there's also Nader and Buchanan" afterthoughts, but it'd be nice.) At 07:36 PM 10/27/00 -0500, Mac Norton wrote:
So, everybody's third choice gets elected, or they take turns holding the office, or what? Weighted voting can work for corporate directors or other committees, but for a chief executive? Even the electoral college sounds better. MacN
On Sat, 28 Oct 2000, BENHAM TIMOTHY JAMES wrote:
That's simply a result of the dim-bulb "first past the post" voting system that the US (and apparently you) endure. In countries with electorates that are expected to be able to count past 1 (eg Australia) they have preferential voting and you can express your preferences from 1 to N (the number of candidates).
This allows you to express your preference for libertarian drug-taking pornographers and still have an equal impact on the outcome.
Tim
Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
At 11:16 AM -0700 10/27/00, Eric Murray wrote:
On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 12:54:39PM -0500, Carskadden, Rush wrote:
Eric, Yeah, there is the Libertarian party, and they get a lot of electoral votes. In fact, I think that our next president will be Harry Browne. Our work is done. Let's go get a drink. Seriously, what we are discussing here is the feasibility of establishing a credible power base for a third party. I don't think (and maybe you disagree with me here) that the Libertarian party has achieved this at all. I don't think that the current Libertarian party CAN establish this kind of voter confidence. The current presidential candidate for the Libertarian party, Harry Browne, has done little to gain voter enthusiasm with such bold and impractical claims as the statement that his first action in office would be granting executive pardon to drug offenders.
Well, that gets my vote!
Why should I vote for someone who doesn't stand for what I beleive in just because the media says that they're "not electable"? That's the kind of loser attitude that's gotten us a contest that'll assuredly elect either an idiot (Bush) or a fool (Gore). Unfortunately Americans are more interested in voting for a "winner" than they are in voting their concious.
I assume you mean "conscience," though many voters are indeed close to unconscious. Anyway, where did you ever get the idea that voting is about "conscience"? A vote is a chance to minimize damage, financial or in terms of freedoms, as far as I'm concerned. Voting has never been about "voting for the best man." It's been about evaluating the alternatives, estimating the rewards, payoffs, costs, and then voting. Needless to say, any single person's vote is hardly worth spending 4 minutes evaluating the issues. (Beware the logical fallacy of "If _everyone_ thought that way..." What one person actually does in the voting booth will affect no other person. This is separable from what people may say on television that they plan to do, or say here, etc.) --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
-- At 06:01 PM 10/27/2000 -0700, Tim May wrote:
Needless to say, any single person's vote is hardly worth spending 4 minutes evaluating the issues.
Do you believe that the average person spends four minutes evaluating the issues? --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG QpV14VbJS7QzF4iIp0eJYWlfR9b38R66Mi+sjvqZ 42siuFKjU9z0rocY9PX1z13HOnwuoXA/wWynL0WwQ
participants (8)
-
BENHAM TIMOTHY JAMES -
Bill Stewart -
Carskadden, Rush -
Eric Murray -
James A. Donald -
Mac Norton -
Sampo A Syreeni -
Tim May