Tag: libertarian

Categories
general freedom incumbents local leaders national politics & policies political challengers

The Reverse of the “Spoiler Effect”

leverage, politics, Virginia, Libertarian, influence

“Voter surveys have found the GOP-controlled Congress,” I wrote last weekend at Townhall, “to be more popular among self-described Democrats than self-described Republicans.”

Why? Because Republican politicians are proving themselves unable — even unwilling — to legislate as they have promised. One word: Obamacare. And few dare actually cut spending on anything . . . though they campaign on something (mythical?) called “fiscal responsibility.”

This leaves the GOP open to challenge. By the party I mentioned yesterday on this page.

And that can prove disastrous for the Republicans, for our elections in these United States are not run, on the whole, on reasonable grounds. They are “first past the post” elections, where, if enough people vote for their most favorite candidate it ensures that their least favorite candidate wins.

In those races where allegedly “small government”/“fiscally responsible” Republicans are challenged by serious budget-slashing Libertarians, the Libertarian candidacy can have the effect of electing a Big Government/Pro-Debt Democrat.*

Yet the actual political outcome of these challenges could be positive — yes, for the GOP. As I wrote yesterday, the Virginia Libertarian gubernatorial candidate seems to be influencing the Republican to be less of a “jail ’em all” Drug Warrior.

When Republicans adopt pro-freedom positions they’ll win more votes.

Moreover, this influence need not be ad hoc.

State Libertarian Party officials could identify the most critical issues and negotiate directly with state GOP officials: “These are our issues — if your incumbents vote correctly on these issues, we will not challenge them. But if not, we will take them out.

“And if we help elect Democrats, that’s on your head.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* There may be cases where the Libertarians — when focusing on issues such as drug legalization and peace — have cost Democrats elections. If so, Libertarians ought similarly leverage Democrats in those areas to improve their positions on those issues.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
Accountability media and media people national politics & policies political challengers

Remember the Rigged Election?

FEC, debates, presidential, Commission on Presidential Debates, Lawsuit, libertarian, green

Remember the 2016 presidential election?

You know, the contest that still bedevils us? The one allegedly rigged by the Russians and fake news? The one the outcome of which Michael Moore (and others) suggested, even this week, should be overturned by “the courts” simply by installing Hillary Clinton as president?

Turns out one major element of the election process was rigged: the debates run by the Commission on Presidential Debates.*

At least, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan has ruled** that, “In sum, with respect to Plaintiffs’ allegation that the FEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously and contrary to law when it dismissed their two administrative complaints, this court agrees. . . .”

The plaintiffs*** are Level the Playing Field (LPF), the Green Party, the Libertarian National Committee, and Dr. Peter Ackerman. They sued the Federal Election Commission because the FEC, as the judge wrote, “stuck its head in the sand and ignored the evidence.” Prior to the lawsuit, LPF and others had filed complaints and asked the FEC to establish fair rules. They were told to go play in — er, far away from — traffic.

“The FEC was the defendant in the case,” explained IVN News, “but the real villain in the story is the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), a private organization . . . dominated by Democratic and Republican party stalwarts.”

Under federal law, the FEC, itself organized along bipartisan lines, is charged with ensuring that the CPD is using “objective” criteria, which doesn’t arbitrarily exclude independent and minor party candidates.

Now, thankfully, the court has ordered the FEC to come back, by April 3, with new thinking on how to ensure fair and open presidential debates.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* The problems with the presidential debate rules and the CPD itself were covered extensively last year in these four commentaries: “Smash the Duopoly,” “The Media’s Job,” “The Stupidity of 15,” and “The Two-Product Economic System.”

** Tellingly, there’s been scant news coverage of the court decision except by IVN News, the Independent Voter Network website, and . . . RT, the Russian government’s TV channel.

*** The case is Level the Playing Field, et al v. Federal Election Commission.

Printable PDF

 

Categories
general freedom meme nannyism too much government

Government

big government, abuse, war, drug war, bureaucracy, libertarian, libertarianism, liberty, statism, statists, meme, illustration, Common Sense, James Gill, Paul Jacob

You can’t feed a part of it without feeding the whole damn thing.

Click below for a high resolution version of this image:

big government, abuse, war, drug war, bureaucracy, libertarian, libertarianism, liberty, statism, statists, meme, illustration, Common Sense, James Gill, Paul Jacob

 

Categories
Accountability ideological culture media and media people national politics & policies political challengers Regulating Protest

The Media’s Job

debate, debates, candidates, media, illustration

Do nearly two-thirds of Americans want Libertarian Party presidential nominee and former two-term Republican governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson in the presidential debates?

Snopes.com, the hoax-busting website, investigated the truthiness of a widespread Internet meme making just that claim.

The verdict?

It’s true.

An August 25th Quinnipiac University poll showed 62 percent of likely voters saying yes, “Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for president, should be included in the presidential debates.” Among 18-to-34-year-olds, a whopping 82 percent felt Johnson deserved a podium.

Or perhaps more accurately, these voters want an opportunity to hear about all their choices, not just Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton —deliciously dubbed “the unloved presidential candidates” in the Quinnipiac news release. Which leads to the most important number in the survey: 68 percent felt they “haven’t heard enough” about Gov. Johnson to even form an opinion.

He still garnered 10 percent support overall and was the only candidate with a higher favorable* than unfavorable rating.

Voters are dissatisfied with the major party choices, so why limit the debate to just Trump and Clinton? Because the Commission on Presidential Debates is a crony organization, a wholly owned subsidiary of the DNC and the RNC. With 68 percent of the public totally uninformed about Johnson, he’d have to win nearly a majority of everyone else to hit the 15 percent support required to get in the debates.

Where’s the Fourth Estate? Doesn’t the American voter deserve enough information about Johnson and Stein to form an opinion?

Or will they be broadcasting rigged debates?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* By the way, once again, the contest was closer when the polling included Libertarian Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein. While head-to-head Mrs. Clinton bested Mr. Trump by a full 10 percentage points, 51-41, with Johnson and Stein included, Clinton’s advantage shrank to 45-38 percent, a seven point lead.

Printable PDF

debate, debates, candidates, media, illustration

 

Categories
Accountability media and media people moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies responsibility too much government U.S. Constitution

Too Dangerous x 2

CIA, Director, Michael Hayden, Donald Trump, danger, Libertarian, Gary Johnson, illustration

“If he governs consistent with some of the things he’s said as a candidate, I would be very frightened,” former CIA Director Michael Hayden says about Donald Trump.

These are the words that begin an ominous television spot from Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. The advertisement concludes that Mr. Trump is “too dangerous.”

Hayden was director of the National Security Administration under President George W. Bush, before becoming the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, and then moving to head the Central Intelligence Agency. He served at the CIA for only a few weeks into President Obama’s first term, but obviously Mrs. Clinton wouldn’t broadcast his negative view of Trump before millions of us in TV Land if she didn’t respect Mr. Hayden’s opinion.

Funny, yesterday on John Catsimatidis’s New York City radio program, Hayden declared, “I’m uncomfortable with the nominee of both of the major political parties.”

“John, a lot of my friends are saying that’s nice, Hayden, but you have to vote for one of them,” the former top spy offered, “but I’m not so sure I do.”

He doesn’t. Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson will be on all 50 state ballots and Green Party standard-bearer Jill Stein will be on most. And there are others.

“Somebody is going to win, but . . . I’m hoping they don’t think they’re sweeping into office with some powerful mandate,” Hayden continued. “And for people like me . . . to vote for some other choice, might deny them that sense of mandate, which would make, I think, things even worse.”

I’m no fan of Mr. Hayden, but regarding this? I agree.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

CIA, Director, Michael Hayden, Donald Trump, danger, Libertarian, Gary Johnson, illustration

 

Photo of Michael Hayden Credit: TechCrunch on Flickr (CC License)

 

Categories
Accountability ideological culture media and media people moral hazard national politics & policies political challengers Popular

Smash the Duopoly

presidential, debates, duopoly, two party, illustration

When Donald Trump called our country’s electoral process a “rigged system,” he was not wrong. The system is a legally secured duopoly.

I’ve discussed a number of the elements of this system previously. But one I may not have explored enough is the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD).

The League of Women Voters sponsored the first televised presidential debates in 1952, and from 1976 till 1988 ran a “tight ship,” as How Things Work puts it. After the League refused to cooperate with the bullying major parties, the CPD was established by former R and D bigwigs aiming to fully accommodate the major party candidates.

And no one else.

The CPD calls itself “non-partisan,” but that’s a misnomer. It is a bipartisan commission, as everyone who knows its history knows. The commission raised the bar on minor party candidates to polling 15 percent in a number of polls.

Recently, we’ve been hearing that the commission is preparing a third place on stage, for Libertarian candidate Gov. Gary Johnson. But he still hasn’t quite yet hit the prescribed percentage, though he has met the most important qualification: he is the only minor party candidate likely to be on all state ballots.

And now there’s a kicker. According to Brian Doherty, historian extraordinaire of Reason, “The Socially Liberal and Fiscally Conservative PAC (Solifico) [yesterday] morning sent a letter to Janet Brown, executive director of the [CPD], threatening to send the IRS after them over their policy of not allowing all legitimate candidates for president in their debates.”

The case looks solid.

And could secure for Johnson a podium at the debates.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.   

Printable PDF

presidential, debates, duopoly, two party, illustration