Susan, the Prohibition Party has been “right” (at least in its own opinion) for more than 100 years. And as it happened, it WAS “right” for 14 years. Then it wasn’t “right” anymore.

The LP hasn’t been even that successful. One of the main reasons for the LPs lackluster performance is that, for at least 30 years, it has been at war with itself over everything from the contents of its platform to whether its primary purpose is to get libertarian candidates elected or merely to spoil elections for Ds and Rs. Everybody is so d*mn@d worried whether they are “right” that nobody notices that we are satisfying neither ourselves nor the voting public.

There were two Mainstream Libertarian candidates in the race for the LP nomination this year: Bob Barr and Wayne Root.

If you supported neither one of them, then you have zero claim to the mantle of “reformer.” All the rest of the LP candidates were radical Badnarik Anarchist types. (Well, Jingozian might have been an exception.)

Despite Richard’s arguments, sitting here in NH, knowing the SOS and the legislature far better than those in the LNC, I can say and will argue to my fellow LPNH exec board members that we have nothing to gain, and more to lose by getting into a lawsuit that cannot win, and will likely be thrown out. Not to mention the financial issues IF we put our name onto the lawsuit – I fully expect this to end up with a reversal and financial penalties for a frivolous case with no good standing and no merit.

If you want to see NH election reform, the way isn’t a lawsuit, it’s to put 2 Libertarians onto the ballot, and watch them scurry to make it possible to substitute, rather than see us put multiple folks onto the ballot. They want LESS choices, and here we are providing MORE.

How can you accomplish anything significant unless you’re right?

I mean significantly good, of course.

After 28 years (I doorbelled for Ed Clark) I’ve come to realize that the LP really doesn’t want to win. It wants to kibitz from the galleries–and don’t any of you BTP people bother to start looking smug. Never mind that this is just one election. Never mind that 95% (probably more) of the public couldn’t tell Phillies from Barr if their life depended on it. To read these comments is to recognize that, for many, its more important to be right than it is to accomplish anything significant.

If my 28 years has taught me anything, it is that the path of the LP (or any third party–including the Boston Tea Party) will continue to be thwarted without serious election reform. E.g., IRV, PR or whathaveyou — just about anything but single member plurality districts apportioned by insider D and R hacks. We can have all the right answers (whatever they are) and if we don’t have the soapbox it doesn’t mean diddly squat.

Screw the marital rights issue. Screw the war in Iraq. Screw the platform. Screw the personality conflicts. They are small potatoes when compared to the oppressiveness of the election laws third parties have to contend with all over the country.

Richard is right. This substitution issue needs to be taken up, not for Barr, not for Phillies, but for the future.

I can understand the need to have a petitioning requirement — to discourage Mickey Mouse candidates — but the UK and Canada would seem to prove that you have can free and equitable ballot access rules and not have every Tom, Dick and Harry running for office simply for fun.

Again, not all Democrats (or Republicans for that matter) are so prejudical or injust in terms of electoral reform.

I suspect, like gay rights, younger Demoocrats or Republicans are probably more interested in electoral reform then the older generation.

I know plently of Democrats and Republicans 30 and under who generally support IRV or PR and think that harsh ballot access laws are stupid.

Every time their is a local Democratic Party caucus or convention, I go and vocally support these reforms.

Yeah, people give me dirty looks, but I also get some support and I remind people that the Democratic Party ought to be behind political rights, voting rights, free and fair elections.

I spent a few years — while in college — trying to get people — independents, major and minor party — people together to work on behalf of election law reform.

This is a major way that election law is going to come out; coalition based interest groups and lobbying. I do not want to lecture down to anyone, but their really needs to be more support in that direction.

I contacted Congressmen and women for the ballot access bill, allowing PR in House races and the Voting Rights Amendment. Heck, I even wrote my own const. amendment that I lobby for.

(2) Libertarians do not like to admit it, but they clearly have deep rooted internal, bittlerly divided factions that do divide along a libertarian left/right line.

As an outsider looking in (BTW, this Democrat sure as hell does not approve of harsh/unfair ballot access laws and has been spending lots of time trying to fix them) it would seem that the R-L are making some noise — B B — is their man, and this bothers or scares the L-L.

I doubt that this is a new conflict between the R & L-wings of Libertarianism. The philosophy has had historical ties to Ayn Rand, Anarchists, Democratic Socalists, Democrats, Republicans etc.

What can be done? Well, if the National LP wants to keep the folks in NH in the party, and they sound like pretty passionate, dedicated people, then they are going to have to compromise.

If the NH people want to stick with the national party, then they will also have to compromise.

The fact that a Far-Left Anarchist non-libertarian like G.E. does not support Bob Barr, is proof that Barr is an outstanding candidate, safe for libertarian support.

It’d be quite scary for the G.E.s of the world, and the Tom Knapps, and the George Phillies, none of whom are actual libertarians, but Leftwinger Moveon.org types who’ve infiltrated the libertarian movement and who are frauduantly using our libertarian name, were actually supporting Barr.

Typical of Leftwinger Anarchists like G.E. They try to claim freedom of speech, except when it comes to actually allowing someone who disagrees with them to assert free speech rights.

For the record, Eric Dondero Rittberg is not permitted to post on G.E.’s Independent Political Report.

For the record, Eric Garris is one of my most bitterest enemies in life. He and I regularly trade vicious jabs. But Mr. Garris has always allowed me to post comments on this Forum, and even his Anti-War.com.

I allow anyone to post on Libertarian Republican blog, most assuredly Garris and even Tom Knapp. I only ask that you post under your own names, and not under some bogus moniker.

Eric Dondero, Publisher
Libertarian Republican blog