Travis Pahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in part: >> But how are you going to get so many more libertarian votes? That's up to >> the voters! The candidate doesn't get to pull the levers.
>By working with the LP to convince more people to vote libertarian and >not republican, democrat, or conservative. You'd better capitalize party names, because I'd like people to vote more libertarian too, just not via the Libertarian Party. >So you are admitting that the more people that vote libertarian, the >more the republicans will put up candidates that are more libertarian? Potential candidates do try to take home lessons about issues when candidates strongly identified with them do unexpectedly well. So, for instance, Harris Wofford's upset election to the US senate via special election, because he promoted socialized medicine strongly in his campaign, was taken as a signal of the strength of the issue, and led to many proposals for such being introduced into Congress. However, Jeff Friedman pointed out at the Junto that pundits probably deduce too much about issues based on people's votes, because people vote for all sorts of reasons, most not having to do with particular policy matters or overall ideology. >> You mean, it WOULD change them, if LP candidates got signficant numbers. >> But how many demonstrations do you need that that's not something to hold >> your breath for? >They have got signifigant numbers to win elections, it is possible and >has happened hundreds of times. Why you ignore this is beyond me. I ignore them because they're insignificant in the practical sense. >> >Also what is so special about this area of texas that resulted in a >> >libertarian being elected that is not present in the other 220+ >> >republican congressional districts in the nation? >> Not MOST of them, but probably in very few. It's obviously a very >> conservative voting district. >So why would a very conservative disctrict vote for a man opposed to >the drug war, opposed to the patriot act, opposed to gambling >restrictions, etc...? Because of the choices presented to them, he was (for whatever reason) the best. And doesn't this demonstrate to you the futility of a specifically libertarian political party? Maybe you'd understand better if you knew that the Libertarian Party nominated someone to run against Ron Paul in, IIRC, 1982. LP's candidate got trounced by Ron Paul, as well as by the Democrat. If it were libertarian ideology that was attractive to the voters in that district, why wouldn't the election have been at least close? >So you are basically saying it was a combination of a bunch of luck >factors that got him elected as a republican. So why then should I >vote republican if you are admiting that it is extremely unlikely that >we will see another republican like Paul, I'm not advocating that you vote Republican IN GENERAL. Did I ever say you should vote a straight Republican ticket, wherever you are, at all times, for all offices? Judge each election on its own. I don't want people to vote for the Republican nominee for senate, SD 34 NY. I am saying that if more Republicans get elected to Congress (your district IIRC is very unlikely to send one soon), the average measure supported by Ron Paul will have a much better chance of passage, and the average measure opposed by Ron Paul would have a much better chance of being defeated. > when he is the only >republican in congress i like? How many other members of Congress have you looked into in detail? Or at least looked up the ratings of? There's another libertarian Republican now in his first term in Congress whose name I forgot (from the Southwest), and there's also Dana Rohrabacher. Bounty? Rely, Iris!, Robert _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
