Vote Libertarian!

 

Here’s a thought:  If Trump is nominated, I know a lot of you plan to just stay home.

Personally, I hope Ted Cruz pulls it off or Trump gets ousted at a contested convention.   But if that doesn’t happen …

Instead of staying home, why not vote Libertarian?  In an election where both candidates are big government populists, the best message you could send is a strong surge of support for the Libertarian candidate. Gary Johnson isn’t going to win, so you don’t have to worry about him legalizing dope or anything, but getting him into the debates would inject a very useful ideological counterpoint to the statism of the other two candidates.

The Libertarians have an organization that has them currently on the ballot in 34 states. At this point, they might wind up being the only viable third party. It would sure be nice to remind the people that they have choices other than big government and even bigger government.

Related article at Reason magazine.

Published in Elections, General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 81 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. TheRightNurse Member
    TheRightNurse
    @TheRightNurse

    I have come to the idea that a contested convention means a break in the GOP.  The people who are more moderate and fiscally conservative will probably go to the Libertarians and those who are religiously conservative can make a new party with the Democrats disenfranchised by Bernie.

    • #1
  2. John Wilson Member
    John Wilson
    @

    Why don’t the Libertarians try finding a candidate who isn’t a clown and we could vote for that party for real?

    • #2
  3. Cat III Member
    Cat III
    @CatIII

    John Wilson:Why don’t the Libertarians try finding a candidate who isn’t a clown and we could vote for that party for real?

    This year, it will be a battle to outclown the major parties. Libertarians can’t catch a break.

    • #3
  4. The Question Inactive
    The Question
    @TheQuestion

    That is definitely an option.

    • #4
  5. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Dan Hanson:Here’s a thought: If Trump is nominated, I know a lot of you plan to just stay home.

    Personally, I hope Ted Cruz pulls it off or Trump gets ousted at a contested convention. But if that doesn’t happen…

    Instead of staying home, why not vote Libertarian? In an election where both candidates are big government populists, the best message you could send is a strong surge of support for the Libertarian candidate. Gary Johnson isn’t going to win, so you don’t have to worry about him legalizing dope or anything, but getting him into the debates would inject a very useful ideological counterpoint to the statism of the other two candidates.

    The Libertarians have an organization that has them currently on the ballot in 34 states. At this point, they might wind up being the only viable third party. It would sure be nice to remind the people that they have choices other than big government and even bigger government.

    Related article at Reason magazine.

    My current thinking is I will not be able to vote for Trump or Hillary.  (Eventually I’ll probably explain in a new post.)

    But I am so voting in November.  Elections for House, Senate, TX Supreme Court, and heaven knows what else will give me decisions I can make in good conscience.

    Viable third party candidate for President?  I’ll have to see who it is.

    • #5
  6. Derek Simmons Member
    Derek Simmons
    @

    Why not just be honest and vote directly for Hillary?

    • #6
  7. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Derek Simmons:Why not just be honest and vote directly for Hillary?

    Glad you asked, because a protest non-vote indeed has that dreadful effect.

    In my case I’m thinking there may be one or two Trumpisms that fit my description of the overrider to the general rule that one must act to prevent greater harm: “There is such a thing as evil so bad that contributing to it is inexcusable; and such a thing is to be avoided, even if the results of inaction are even worse than the results of contributing to evil.”

    • #7
  8. OkieSailor Member
    OkieSailor
    @OkieSailor

    I will not for for Hillary or Trump, that said I will vote down ticket as I believe Hillary will win of Trump is nominated.

    http://www.salon.com/2016/03/13/how_hillary_beats_trump_9_steps_she_must_take_to_defeat_the_dangerous_demagogue_partner/

    I’ll probably got libertarian of that is on the KY ballot. I hope enough like mine voters turn out to retain the Senate

    (Can’t insert a link on my tablet)

    • #8
  9. Freesmith Inactive
    Freesmith
    @Freesmith

    This year and every year the appeal of libertarianism is the same: being principled with no accountability.

    • #9
  10. John Caldwell Inactive
    John Caldwell
    @JohnCaldwell

    Derek Simmons:Why not just be honest and vote directly for Hillary?

    Because honesty can’t be seen from the cold dark “Trump is Hitler” corner that they find themselves painted into.

    • #10
  11. A-Squared Inactive
    A-Squared
    @ASquared

    I may vote Libertarian, but I think it is more important to vote for Hillary this year.

    Not that my vote matters in Ilinois.

    • #11
  12. Idahoklahoman Member
    Idahoklahoman
    @Idahoklahoman

    I’ve heard plenty of stupid things from Trump but nothing so irredeemably bad that I could, in could conscience, participate in handing the election to Hillary. So far, at least, Trump still deserves the benefit of the doubt. Hillary does not, not after using her office to sell political favors and endangering the security of the country to avoid detection.

    • #12
  13. Tom Meyer, Ed. Contributor
    Tom Meyer, Ed.
    @tommeyer

    Derek Simmons:Why not just be honest and vote directly for Hillary?

    I have never understood this. There is both a moral and a mathematical differences between voting for a third party and voting for the opposition (in this case, Hillary).

    Is it good from Hillary’s perspective if a Republican stays home or votes third party? Of course it is. But it’s significantly better from her perspective if he votes for her.

    • #13
  14. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Idahoklahoman:I’ve heard plenty of stupid things from Trump but nothing so irredeemably bad that I could, in could conscience, participate in handing the election to Hillary.

    His remarks about intentionally unleashing the military on civilians, critiqued by David French on NationalReview.com, were what really struck me as strong candidates for something that irredeemably bad.  (I’d be happy to be wrong somehow.)

    (I’m toying with a few other things that might possibly be candidates, but my thoughts on them are too fresh in this regard to say anything with confidence.)

    • #14
  15. Vance Richards Member
    Vance Richards
    @VanceRichards

    Bernie is already offering legalized pot, and with a Socialist, he might just get the government to buy it for you. So what does that leave for the Libertarians? Self-reliance and person responsibility? Lots of luck trying to sell that in an age of free stuff. As for me, I want a pony.

    g3ZCLjO

    • #15
  16. The King Prawn Inactive
    The King Prawn
    @TheKingPrawn

    Constitution Party. They’re usually on the ballot in Washington State.

    • #16
  17. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    Right. I’m going to vote for the candidate whose official party position is open borders and unlimited immigration….

    • #17
  18. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    We cannot elect Hillary, so the issue is getting to the convention without a winner and nominating Cruz.  We have to know what Trump would take to get behind our candidate.  Any candidate other than Trump or Cruz would lose to Hillary.  How do we capture Trump?  He is a liberal, his instincts are liberal if he wins, how do we influence him?  We need two court nominees, the rest we can live with as long as we don’t lose the Senate.

    • #18
  19. Red Fish, Blue Fish Inactive
    Red Fish, Blue Fish
    @RedFishBlueFish

    How about we all wait until the fall to make broad statements about lesser evils and not voting and such?  We have a campaign to go through.  Let it happen.

    I am hopeful that once the nominee is selected and those whose candidate lost no longer have any hope or dreams left to be quashed, they will take a look at who is running and make an independent decision at that time.  It makes perfect sense to me if someone concludes in November that they will not vote for either Trump or Hillary, and it might even be the right call for me.  It sounds like opportunistic carping to make that call today while there is a chance that your preferred candidate will find a way on the ticket.

    • #19
  20. Von Snrub Member
    Von Snrub
    @VonSnrub

    Yeah, that’s a terrible idea. Libertarians lose out on everything.

    • #20
  21. livingthehighlife Inactive
    livingthehighlife
    @livingthehighlife

    Derek Simmons:Why not just be honest and vote directly for Hillary?

    Because she’s a criminal.  And that line of argument is, frankly, ridiculous.

    It’s the responsibility of those who supported Trump thus far to carry him across the finish line in November.  I don’t want to hear any whining if he loses to the matriarch of a criminal enterprise.

    • #21
  22. Larry3435 Member
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    I will definitely vote, because we have to hang on to the down-ticket offices.  All the more important when Hillary (in her newest, socialist, incarnation) is going to be President.

    Will I vote for Hillary?  I have always advocated choosing the lesser of two evils, but there are some evils that are hard to live with.  In the end, it will be a choice between abdicating my civic responsibility or being able to look at myself in the mirror.  And since I still have to shave, I may just vote Libertarian.  But I sure do wish the Libertarians would nominate a serious candidate, rather than another nutcase.

    • #22
  23. Ekosj Member
    Ekosj
    @Ekosj

    If it comes to that, I’ll probably pull the lever for Trump. I won’t like it. But I’ll do it.

    A Trump Presidency will most likely be an unmitigated disaster.

    But.

    A Hillary Presidency will absolutely, positively be an unmitigated disaster!

    The only counter-argument that make any sense to me is this… If we are going to have a disaster anyway, its best if it is left at the of the feet Democrats rather than the Republicans. So, in that case, vote Hillary. Like the joke slogan for Cthulhu-for-President … “Why settle for the lesser of two evils?”

    • #23
  24. The King Prawn Inactive
    The King Prawn
    @TheKingPrawn

    Larry3435: I have always advocated choosing the lesser of two evils

    The situation we are entering is unique. Romney, McCain, Dole — they weren’t evil like their opponents — they merely lacked sufficient good to justify enthusiasm. This November we’ll likely be forced to choose between equivalent evils or seek a third party. I have moral qualms with some positions of the Libertarian Party and will likely look elsewhere.

    • #24
  25. The Question Inactive
    The Question
    @TheQuestion

    Derek Simmons:Why not just be honest and vote directly for Hillary?

    Part of my thinking on this is that Trump as the head of the Republican Party makes the Republican Party much worse than it is now.  It would essentially end the mainstream debate on many issues in favor of the Left.  Trump is fundamentally more like a Democrat than like a Republican.  The Democratic Party is an organized crime syndicate pretending to be a political party, and Hillary won’t make them any worse than they already are.

    • #25
  26. Herod Otis Inactive
    Herod Otis
    @HerodOtis

    My voting for someone other than Hillary will not elect Hillary–it will be those who selected a flawed candidate like Trump who did that combined with those who actually pulled the lever for Hillary. It’s not my fault neither party put forward a conservative candidate for president.

    • #26
  27. Fred Houstan Member
    Fred Houstan
    @FredHoustan

    As a guy who wants to see dramatically reduced government, I should be easy to convince. However, here’s why I’m not:

    • The Libertarians’ reflex to cultural amorality, which, to me as the same effect as immorality. One can maintain a strong moral sense without legislating its every nuance.
    • Their “third way” rhetoric, which doesn’t pivot well if they were one of the two mainstream perspectives.
    • Their defense of abortion — the moral equivalent of slavery.

    There are many self-identifying people and pundits I admire and respect. My robust rejection of Objectivism sinks the deal every time.

    Jonah summed up many of my reservations, here: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426606/fusionism-60-years-later-jonah-goldberg

    • #27
  28. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    FYI: For conservatives who are concerned about the line between “libertarian” and “libertine”, LP presidential candidate Austin Petersen is a pro-life candidate who is skeptical (to say the least) of the Non-Aggression Principle. He’s also the founder of libertarianrepublic.com.

    Not an endorsement. Just pointing out that the LP candidates aren’t cookie-cutter stereotypes.

    • #28
  29. Larry3435 Member
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    Misthiocracy:FYI: For conservatives who are concerned about the line between “libertarian” and “libertine”, LP presidential candidate Austin Peterson is a pro-life candidate who is skeptical (to say the least) of the Non-Aggression Principle. He’s also the founder of libertarianrepublic.com.

    Not an endorsement. Just pointing out that the LP candidates aren’t cookie-cutter stereotypes.

    Apparently some of them aren’t even libertarian.

    • #29
  30. Buckpasser Member
    Buckpasser
    @Buckpasser

    Arrrggghh.  Can we just get this election over with so that the Republican party can get back to the business of being the tax collectors for the welfare state.

    I think that was sarcasm.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.