CDR: Re: Parties

[Eric Murray]

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