BuckeyeKned; MORE VOICES MORE CHOICES! Third parties exist to be viable alternatives, and to push the major parties to address issues they would otherwise ignore (ie Perot and the economy in 1992). There is no way all third parties would ever unite, and that alright: Hagelin had hoped to form a “coalition” of third parties. That’s not a viable idea. Too many differences between them, and they need to retain ballot access.

It is all a group can do to keep up with ballot access laws and other state requirements for a party. Starting a new or revising an old party is NOT easy in todays’ world and it takes a lot of dedicated professionals in each state to pull it off.

Believe me, I know, here in Ohio. http://www.lpo.org

Ted got only a few hundred votes primarily because:

-The prior legal issues compromised our ballot access in many states.

-The court case pushed the convention to the last possible minute.

-In some states where we had ballot access, the defendants in the Texas suit managed to prevent him from appearing on the ballot.

Mr. Weill knew this at the time. His primary intention in running was to preserve the ballot line and do the best that could be done under the circumstances. Likewise, we knew we had a serious handicap since the nomination could not occur until July, a decision was not rendered until late August, and that left practically no campaign time.

With the viable disputes handled, we will be aggressively pursuing regaining ballot access. The LP is not the only minor party that has been benefiting from an influx of younger activists.

I do not see the LP as a competitor, rather as a partner in opposing the two entrenched parties. There are enough ideological differences between the LP and the RP that we do not step on each other’s electoral toes (much). I welcome their success as much as ours.

David Collison
RPUSA Chairman
2008-2012

How do you think the LP, in it’s present state, stacks up against the LP of a decade ago? True, it’s a party that expresses hard line fiscal libertarian positions. But I don’t think the party has made honest efforts to articulate a social libertarian message over the last several years. As I understand it, traditionally, libertarianism is about advocating a clear right for citizens to pursue whatever lifestyle choices they see fit, short of infringing on freedom of other individuals. However, I get the sense (particularly in light of the LP’s most recent presidential ticket) that the party has been overrun by officers who, at most, acquiesce in facing this view. If the social position of the lp in 2004 was that “the government must not influence a citizen’s lifestyle”, the lp in 2008 seemed to be saying “the goverment must not influence a citizen’s lifestyle, however, privately, their peers should encourage them to behave in a manner which accepts and/or responds to a Religious Conservative tradition and it’s hallmarks”. If this is the case, I’ll take an active RP with it’s current platform over the LP. I’d rather have a party with moderate fiscal views and no social views than a party with libertarian fiscal views and conservative social views cloaked in libertarianism.

#8: The deficit spending/national debt that Perot talked so much about in the 1990s was a fraction of today’s spending orgy. I guess the reason we don’t hear from Perot now is that he no longer has presidential ambitions.