Why Do Libertarians Get < 1% of vote?

[GBMelBlount]

.

Ron Paul's Presidential Campaign Was Ruined by the Paulbots

I am a Ron Paul supporter. I absolutely love the guy. I even own the “Ron Paul Revolution” t-shirt. Even if I don’t agree with everything he says, I think we need a president with his compassion, wit, and consistency. Had some of his warnings been more closely heeded, we would not be in many of the problematic situations we find ourselves in today; I resent the way that mainstream media and his own party constantly ignore him. That being said, I am sometimes embarrassed to be associated with other Ron Paul supporters. The overly zealous support for Ron Paul damages his campaign and makes him a less appealing candidate.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/81...y-the-paulbots

[Seven]

[cold-hard-steel]

Because chickens don't have lips .

[GBMelBlount]

I guess the first statistic we can look at is why Romney got 4600% more votes than the libertarian candidate in the election.

In fact I am not even sure if the libertarian candidate got a million votes (I think our general population is around 300 million).

What makes this even more amazing is that the majority of this country arguably leans conservative / libertarian (including myself) in general.

So why in the world didn't the libertarian get more votes?

I mean I certainly would have voted for the libertarian candidate in a heartbeat if I felt he was electable.

the first thing that comes to mind is that the 4600% more people that are being chastized thought there was enough of a difference between the two electable candidates to vote for Romney as opposed to throwing their vote away.

[Wallace108]

What makes this even more amazing is that the majority of this country arguably leans conservative / libertarian (including myself) in general.

So why in the world didn't the libertarian get more votes?

I mean I certainly would have voted for the libertarian candidate in a heartbeat if I felt he was electable.

Not all, but a lot of the problem is with what you just stated yourself ...
"I mean I certainly would have voted for the libertarian candidate in a heartbeat if I felt he was electable."

It's not that you don't agree with the libertarian view; I think what you're saying is that you don't want to "throw away" your vote on a candidate who has no chance of winning. You're far from alone in this thinking. I hear people saying it all the time. Among a lot of my friends. On radio talk shows. On the Internet. If more people would vote for the candidate they think is best, and not the candidate they think can win, non-establishment candidates would get a hell of a lot more than 1 percent of the vote.

In 2016, if all the people who claim to be conservative support a candidate like Rand Paul or Ted Cruz, then yes, they can win. But my guess is that a lot of people who claim to be conservative will be lining up to support the next best electable Rino ... someone like Chris Christie ... because he's more electable.

It shouldn't be just about winning the White House. Right now, it's about saving the country. I know it's popular to blame all of America's problems on Obama and the Democrats, but things weren't so swell when the Republicans were in power. Republicans are just as responsible as Democrats for the mess we're in. Electing the same kind of Republican who helped get us into this mess won't do anything to help get us out of it. It's not about Republicans winning. It's about America winning.

[GBMelBlount]

Not all, but a lot of the problem is with what you just stated yourself ...
"I mean I certainly would have voted for the libertarian candidate in a heartbeat if I felt he was electable."

It's not that you don't agree with the libertarian view; I think what you're saying is that you don't want to "throw away" your vote on a candidate who has no chance of winning.

I am more to the right and libertarian than the majority of people.

So any way you slice it is arguably impossible for a libertarian to win as a 3rd party candidate in a three candidate race when they are perceived as 1/2 of the right.

If it was a two horse race....maybe...otherwise, no.

In fact, even though the libertarian candidate would get my full support as the republican candidate (unless he was a TRUE dirtbag) it is still highly debatable if a libertarian would have had a chance.

[Seven]

I am more to the right and libertarian than the majority of people.

So any way you slice it is arguably impossible for a libertarian to win as a 3rd party candidate in a three candidate race when they are perceived as 1/2 of the right.

If it was a two horse race....maybe...otherwise, no.

In fact, even though the libertarian candidate would get my full support as the republican candidate (unless he was a TRUE dirtbag) it is still highly debatable if a libertarian would have had a chance.

It sure would be a lot easier for a libertarian to win the Republican nomination if the Libertarian voters weren't mostly made up of extremists. Public perception of libertarians is that they are all doomsday prepper anarchist types - and while that stereotype isn't all that inaccurate - it's unfortunate. Absent a major fundamental change in philosophy from the vast majority of this country, a libertarian candidate won't see the White House in the next half century at least. And I don't blame the Republican party for not taking libertarian candidates seriously. The public doesn't. Nominating a Ron Paul type would be about the same as taking a presidential campaign and flushing it down the toilet before it even began.

[SteelCityMom]

The third comment down in the article is spot on as to why... "There is a kernel of truth to this, but it ignores the fact that Paul has largely been ignored by the mainstream media, and when acknowledged, he is treated like a third tier candidate. Consequently, supporters have relied on innovative and oftentimes "over the top" ways of spreading the message."

The media doesn't want thoughtful voters.

[Count Steeler]

The third comment down in the article is spot on as to why... "There is a kernel of truth to this, but it ignores the fact that Paul has largely been ignored by the mainstream media, and when acknowledged, he is treated like a third tier candidate. Consequently, supporters have relied on innovative and oftentimes "over the top" ways of spreading the message."

The media doesn't want thoughtful voters.

Home run, then.

[GoSlash27]

^That is absolutely true. A Libertarian (big L) candidate has absolutely no chance of winning. Not only for the reasons that have already been mentioned here, but also because the deck is legally stacked against them and the Republicrats exercise their influence over the media to keep them from having a public voice. No debate invites, no news coverage.
But a libertarian (little l) candidate can win the whole thing *if* he can overcome the Republican leadership's animosity and get the nomination. This is the only way a Republican can get elected in the future, since that's where the electorate is trending.

[GoSlash27]

As opposed to a John McCain type? Or a Mitt Romney type? 'Cuz that hasn't been working out so well last I checked.
The libertarian Republicans are doing well in Congress. It's the *establishment* types that are losing. Seems clear to me who the public takes seriously and who they don't.

[Seven]

As opposed to a John McCain type? Or a Mitt Romney type? 'Cuz that hasn't been working out so well last I checked.
The libertarian Republicans are doing well in Congress. It's the *establishment* types that are losing. Seems clear to me who the public takes seriously and who they don't.

How many states did Gary Johnson win? If the majority took libertarians seriously, you would be able to proudly answer this question directly. Instead you'll have to find a roundabout way of explaining why circumstances and not public opinion prevented him from getting more votes. Much of the country is dumb. But there are a lot of smart people who pay attention, too. If libertarian ideals were as popular as this forum thinks they are, Libertarian candidates would consistently get more votes. I'm sorry, but that's the truth.

[X-Terminator]

How many states did Gary Johnson win? If the majority took libertarians seriously, you would be able to proudly answer this question directly. Instead you'll have to find a roundabout way of explaining why circumstances and not public opinion prevented him from getting more votes. Much of the country is dumb. But there are a lot of smart people who pay attention, too. If libertarian ideals were as popular as this forum thinks they are, Libertarian candidates would consistently get more votes. I'm sorry, but that's the truth.

There seems to be a lot of confusion about libertarian beliefs and the Libertarian party. They are NOT exactly the same thing. We don't necessarily need to have a Libertarian Party, there just needs to be more Republicans with libertarian beliefs and ideals, because Slash is right - those types are winning elections, while the RINO-types are not.

I still fail to see the problem with wanting candidates to actually be conservative, rather than pseudo-liberals with "R" next to their name. You would also be surprised how many people in this country - Democrat and Republican - have libertarian viewpoints that they agree on. Because when it comes right down to it, most people want to live their lives as freely as possible, with as little government interference as possible.

[GBMelBlount]

I still fail to see the problem with wanting candidates to actually be conservative, rather than pseudo-liberals with "R" next to their name. You would also be surprised how many people in this country - Democrat and Republican - have libertarian viewpoints that they agree on. Because when it comes right down to it, most people want to live their lives as freely as possible, with as little government interference as possible.I don't think anyone in this discusions would be surprised.

Just wow.

Most everyone who has weighed in on this has agreed they'd vote for an *ELECTABLE* true conservative or libertarian in the general election so I do not see what you are still compaining about.

There wasn't as slash and others has agreed.

This entire argument is because the 1%'ers are pissed AND chastising the other 98% who chose to vote for what we felt was a better electable option than Obama rather than *throw away* our vote in the general election.

[X-Terminator]

Just wow.

Most everyone who has weighed in on this has agreed they'd vote for an *ELECTABLE* true conservative or libertarian in the general election so I do not see what you are still compaining about.

There wasn't as slash and others has agreed.

This entire argument is because the 1%'ers are pissed AND chastising the other 98% who chose to vote for what we felt was a better electable option than Obama rather than *throw away* our vote in the general election.

What's so "WOW" about it? Did you actually read my entire post, or just pick over that one aspect of it? Seven is saying that nobody takes libertarian-conservative candidates seriously, when the truth is exactly the opposite. So once again, he is confusing the Libertarian Party with people with libertarian beliefs, and because the Libertarian Party doesn't have any influence, they should basically be ignored and instead vote for a guy basically because he's not as bad as the other guy. Sorry, but that's not going to fly with me. So again I ask, what is the problem with wanting a better conservative candidate over someone who is not nearly as conservative as you and others on this forum think, and I'll also ask why it is so wrong for someone to stand on his principles and not vote for someone just because he's not the other guy? That kind of thinking is why this country is in trouble to begin with, and I don't know about you, but I think we all deserve better than that.

[Seven]

Seven is saying that nobody takes libertarian-conservative candidates seriously, when the truth is exactly the opposite. So once again, he is confusing the Libertarian Party with people with libertarian beliefs

In your opinion, what is the difference between a libertarian and a Libertarian? And do you believe the general public is cognizant of the difference?

[X-Terminator]

In your opinion, what is the difference between a libertarian and a Libertarian? And do you believe the general public is cognizant of the difference?

Libertarian (big L) primarily references the party, while libertarian references their belief system. Meaning, you can be a libertarian and still be a member of one of the major parties (mostly Republican). They do not necessarily need to form their own party, just gain more power and influence within the Republican Party, and get them back to focusing mostly on true libertarian-conservative principles. That has been the point I have been trying to make all along. We need more of them, and less of the Bush/Romney/Christie types.

[Seven]

Libertarian (big L) primarily references the party, while libertarian references their belief system. Meaning, you can be a libertarian and still be a member of one of the major parties (mostly Republican). They do not necessarily need to form their own party, just gain more power and influence within the Republican Party, and get them back to focusing mostly on true libertarian-conservative principles. That has been the point I have been trying to make all along. We need more of them, and less of the Bush/Romney/Christie types.

Lol, I realize the bolded selection. I didn't mean to ask for a definition. I understand that difference and have never been confused by the distinction. What I'm asking, though, is what are the fundamental differences between a libertarian and a Libertarian? What is the relevance in claiming I am confusing libertarians with Libertarians? They share the same fundamental beliefs, no? So why is it necessary for a libertarian to win the Republican nomination? If my claim that the public does not take libertarians seriously is so off-base, why doesn't the Libertarian party receive more votes? I'm not trying to be an asshole. I'm trying to understand your position. If you think there is a fundamental difference between a libertarian and a Libertarian that causes the party to receive such little support from voters, I'm all ears. But I don't see it. I think that's an excuse.

[GBMelBlount]

What's so "WOW" about it? Did you actually read my entire post, or just pick over that one aspect of it? Seven is saying that nobody takes libertarian-conservative candidates seriously, when the truth is exactly the opposite. So once again, he is confusing the Libertarian Party with people with libertarian beliefs, and because the Libertarian Party doesn't have any influence, they should basically be ignored and instead vote for a guy basically because he's not as bad as the other guy. Sorry, but that's not going to fly with me. So again I ask, what is the problem with wanting a better conservative candidate over someone who is not nearly as conservative as you and others on this forum think, and I'll also ask why it is so wrong for someone to stand on his principles and not vote for someone just because he's not the other guy? That kind of thinking is why this country is in trouble to begin with, and I don't know about you, but I think we all deserve better than that.

We all want a better conservative candidate BUT.....

once again, you didn't listen to my post.

HE WAS UNELECTABLE.

You want to throw away your vote and are comfortable with 4 more years of Obama, fine, you are entitled to that.

However if you want to puff your chest and chastise the other 98% who didn't want to throw away their vote because they felt Romney was a better option that Obama in the general election then we will just continue to go in circles.

[X-Terminator]

We all want a better conservative candidate BUT.....

once again, you didn't listen to my post.

HE WAS UNELECTABLE.

You want to throw away your vote and are comfortable with 4 more years of Obama, fine, you are entitled to that.

However if you want to puff your chest and chastise the other 98% who didn't want to throw away their vote because they felt Romney was a better option that Obama in the general election then we will just continue to go in circles.

Nevermind, I'm not wasting any more of my time. All I'm doing is getting pissed, and you're too good a guy to get mad at. So out of respect for you, I'm leaving it here.

[Seven]

Oh, of course they do. There is literally no difference here. "Socialism" is an unpopular party that nobody votes for, yet "socialism" is at the core of modern Democratic Party principles, and they're winning elections. How do you explain that?

I really fail to see how socialism has anything to do with my assessment of the popularity of libertarian ideals whatsoever. Please explain the relevance.

- - - Updated - - -

What you're suggesting here is an entirely different discussion.

[Seven]

Alright, I'll try and dissect your "point". You are saying that libertarians do not vote Libertarian because they are voting Republican: similarly to how socialists are voting Democrat. If that's the case, then how is this statement true?

it is true that the modern Republican Party doesn't have much in common with libertarianism

So by your own admission, libertarians have to seek out the Libertarian party if they want to vote for libertarian ideals. Therefore, the Libertarian party is a somewhat reasonable measure of how popular libertarianism is in this country. Which is exactly what I've been saying. You've proved my point for me. Better than I could have.

[X-Terminator]

Alright, I'll try and dissect your "point". You are saying that libertarians do not vote Libertarian because they are voting Republican: similarly to how socialists are voting Democrat. If that's the case, then how is this statement true? So by your own admission, libertarians have to seek out the Libertarian party if they want to vote for libertarian ideals. Therefore, the Libertarian party is a somewhat reasonable measure of how popular libertarianism is in this country. Which is exactly what I've been saying. You've proved my point for me. Better than I could have.

If I may...what he's saying that if the Republican Party wants to win elections, rather than go the way of the Whigs, it needs to become more libertarian, embrace libertarian ideals. Instead, they denigrate and marginalize them in favor of the establishment, in the very way you have been doing throughout this entire debate. It's the complete opposite of what the Democratic Party has done with socialism, to the point where it has become the foundation of the party and voters don't need to seek out the SPUSA. Hell, there are many Democrats who are card-carrying members of the Socialist International.

[Craic]

If I may...what he's saying that if the Republican Party wants to win elections, rather than go the way of the Whigs, it needs to become more libertarian, embrace libertarian ideals. Instead, they denigrate and marginalize them in favor of the establishment, in the very way you have been doing throughout this entire debate. It's the complete opposite of what the Democratic Party has done with socialism, to the point where it has become the foundation of the party and voters don't need to seek out the SPUSA. Hell, there are many Democrats who are card-carrying members of the SPUSA.

That really got me to thinking. . . Do you believe that the democrats are shifting from "left" to "Down." That is, from liberal to statist? If so, then it would make sense that the problem the GOP has is that it is still staying "right" instead of shifting to "libertarian" and as such, it is not picking up the liberal libertarians, even though the dems are picking up some of the right statist voters.

[X-Terminator]

That really got me to thinking. . . Do you believe that the democrats are shifting from "left" to "Down." That is, from liberal to statist? If so, then it would make sense that the problem the GOP has is that it is still staying "right" instead of shifting to "libertarian" and as such, it is not picking up the liberal libertarians, even though the dems are picking up some of the right statist voters.

That's pretty clear if you simply look at the things this Administration has done, and so many Democrats and Democrat voters doing everything they can to protect it. Obama is a socialist AND a statist, and that's about as dangerous a combination as you can get.

[Seven]

if the Republican Party wants to win elections, rather than go the way of the Whigs, it needs to become more libertarian, embrace libertarian ideals.

You're assuming that based off of what though? All those votes that will come over from the Libertarian camp? According to you guys, the Republicans are already getting those. And I don't know about you, but everyone I know who is a Democrat is fully entrenched in their liberal ideals, socially and economically. Even after the past couple of weeks. I certainly don't see a mass migration of voters from the Democratic party happening. What will they all of a sudden decide they like lower taxes and more private sector freedom? I understand your theory. But I disagree with it. Where are all these phantom votes going to come from?

[X-Terminator]

You're assuming that based off of what though? All those votes that will come over from the Libertarian camp? According to you guys, the Republicans are already getting those. And I don't know about you, but everyone I know who is a Democrat is fully entrenched in their liberal ideals, socially and economically. Even after the past couple of weeks. I certainly don't see a mass migration of voters from the Democratic party happening. What will they all of a sudden decide they like lower taxes and more private sector freedom? I understand your theory. But I disagree with it. Where are all these phantom votes going to come from?

Those are not the voters they should try to get. Just like with the Republican Party, there are those who are going to vote Republican no matter what. What wins elections is getting the undecided voter who is not a hard-liner for either party, yet share some of your values and ideas. They're only about a third of the electorate - not exactly an insignificant number. Offer them a CLEAR choice between the candidates, and then let the chips fall where they may.

[Seven]

Those are not the voters they should try to get. Just like with the Republican Party, there are those who are going to vote Republican no matter what. What wins elections is getting the undecided voter who is not a hard-liner for either party, yet share some of your values and ideas. They're only about a third of the electorate - not exactly an insignificant number. Offer them a CLEAR choice between the candidates, and then let the chips fall where they may.

And that brings us yet again back to Romney. Who was going to revoke Obamacare, remove private sector restrictions and implement tax reform as some of his first actions in the White House. I don't know how much clearer a choice you needed. But I realize we're going in circles and it's never going to end nor are we going to reach a mutual opinion. I'm not frustrated or pulling my hair out like usual because you clearly define your beliefs and I appreciate that. Like I've said, it's just a difference of opinion. At the end of the day most of us desire the same things.

[Wallace108]

I don't know about you, but everyone I know who is a Democrat is fully entrenched in their liberal ideals, socially and economically. Even after the past couple of weeks. I certainly don't see a mass migration of voters from the Democratic party happening. What will they all of a sudden decide they like lower taxes and more private sector freedom? I understand your theory. But I disagree with it. Where are all these phantom votes going to come from?

Just as there's a wide variety of thinking on the right (as evidenced by this board), there's also a wide variety of thinking on the left. I personally know a handful of Democrats who are disgusted with the Obama administration and the direction the country is heading. Just as we had Reagan Democrats, there are a lot of modern Democrats who would vote Republican if the right candidate was running. But I can guarantee they're not going to vote for any candidate who is seen as just another racist, anti-women, anti-gay, anti-middle-class Republican. Most of the Democrats I know (friends and co-workers) haven't said that they'd vote for a candidate like Rand Paul, but they're certainly intrigued by him (as well as a few others). But I can assure you they'd never vote for Romney, McCain, or any other establishment Republican.

[Seven]

Just as there's a wide variety of thinking on the right (as evidenced by this board), there's also a wide variety of thinking on the left. I personally know a handful of Democrats who are disgusted with the Obama administration and the direction the country is heading. Just as we had Reagan Democrats, there are a lot of modern Democrats who would vote Republican if the right candidate was running. But I can guarantee they're not going to vote for any candidate who is seen as just another racist, anti-women, anti-gay, anti-middle-class Republican. Most of the Democrats I know (friends and co-workers) haven't said that they'd vote for a candidate like Rand Paul, but they're certainly intrigued by him (as well as a few others). But I can assure you they'd never vote for Romney, McCain, or any other establishment Republican.

Personally, I think there is too great a stigma on a Rand Paul/Ron Paul type to ever have a chance at the White House - which I'm almost certain you've agreed with me on in a previous thread. If the Republicans want to take back the executive branch, they need a Christie or a Toomey. That's my strong opinion and I know 95% of The Soapbox disagrees with me, which is fine.