Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008
Nobody Will Vote for Bob Barr for President And that is why Ron Paul is rightby rtbohan
(Libertarian)
Saturday, June 14, 2008
When the votes for president are counted, there will not be a single vote cast for Bob Barr for President of the United States or any other office.
I know that there are people who intend to vote for Bob Barr for President. A great many will cast a ballot with an "X" beside his name this November. Some will do this because they believe in the message and the program of the Libertarian Party, and some will do so because they are enthusiastic about Bob Barr. Others, probably the majority, will vote for Bob Barr because they are conservative Republicans and want to vote against John McCain without voting for Barack Obama. A great many will vote Libertarian because they are Ron Paul supporters who want to support the message of their candidate even though he is no longer running.
The problem (and you know this) is that the vote in November is not a vote for President. It is a vote for electors who are the only people who actually vote for and elect the President. They will vote in December, and not a single one will vote for Bob Barr
I do not say this in order to discourage you from voting in November for the candidate you choose. Your vote for Bob Barr may bring attention to the Libertarian Party and to the Libertarian message. If he sets a new record in the popular vote for a Libertarian, this will be at least mentioned in the mass media and will be forever enshrined in the World Almanac. If he achieves large enough vote in any one swing state, he will receive notoriety as the many who cost one of the candidates the election (if the total electoral vote is close. But these are rather hollow victories. And, as Ralph Nader's experience has shown, raises more hostility rather than more support in future elections.
Tully has an interesting article, "Electoral Strategy for Bob Barr: Stay Away From Swing States", in which he presents possible strategies for this year's campaign([link edited for length]). I agree with his idea about this race. But I think in the long term, the party ought to follow a slightly different strategy.
The party should concentrate not on the states where they have the largest number of members, but where they receive the largest percentage of the vote on a regular basis. If the Party wants to A. Actually influence the presidential election, and or B. Receive attention from the media for its popular vote, it must concentrate on finishing first or second in the popular vote in at least some states.
The Libertarian Party prides itself, and rightly so, on its ability to win a place on the ballot in more states than any other third party. But this comes at a cost which the party may be better off without. At the moment, the party is conducting a drive to raise $40,000 to pay a professional service to collect signatures for ballot access in Oklahoma. Being on the ballot in all the states is impressive, and getting the maximum national vote for the party gets attention (if it is large enough). But it the object is really to influence the election, the party would be better off concentrating on a smaller number of states, even small states, where there is the possibility of ACTUALLY GETTING VOTES FROM ELECTORS. Sucess in doing that may be enough to send the election to the House of Representatives. Carrying even one state which George W. Bush won in 2000 would have sent the election to the House where the President would have been chosen by the votes of the states--not the individual Representatives. If you cannot win the Presidential election and you want to influence it, the concentration must be on winning states, no matter how small. If you cannot carry a state, you must at least establish yourself as the second party, not a third party, in at least some of the states.
The emphasis of the Libertarian Party has been on presidential elections, on the ground that this provides the greatest opportunity to propagate their ideas and produces the largest vote. And that is true, but it has had no effect on government in the United States. Even during a presidential election, the emphasis should be on growing a party infrastructure on the local and state level, as this is what will not only turn the Libertarian Party into a true political party but also increase the support of the party in presidential elections.
Until the Party turns itself into a political force, something that can only be done on the grass roots level and with at least annual rather than quadrennial renewal, the party will not get any votes in the presidential election nor will it have significant impact on the parties which do. This is why Ron Paul is right. The only way to bring libertarian ideas to the forefront in the United States is by building a permanent libertarian movement in one or both of the currently dominant parties.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 23 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of rtbohan only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. rtbohan is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Ronald Goldwater
Date: 2008-06-15 14:25:33
The tone of this piece is indicative of the dumbed-down, uneducated view of the U.S. Constitution most Americans hold. We're toast. We have become a dictatorship of the proletariat, and the people don't know it, and they don't care. Funeral services July 4th at 1313 hours.
Posted By: Jonathan Cymberknopf
Date: 2008-06-16 05:21:23
Did not like the aprmise of the article, the argument is a stretch to make a point. The thesis or conclusion that Barr cannot win is flawed. If I was to tell you 4 years ago that a black man with little political experience named Barack Hussein Obama would be the Presidential Candidate of the Democratic Party and probably the next President, you would have called me crazy. So anything can happen, Just vote Bob Barr for president , you can't control how other people vote nor you should be responsible for it. www.bobbarr2008.com Please donate today for ballot access as the deadline is fast closing in.
The premise of the article is correct. Let's say that Barr gets 10% of the electoral votes, by winning enough states or a couple big states (which either would be a miracle), and McCain and Obama got 45% each. The House would choose the President, and the Senate the Vice President.
Since the Congress will vote along party lines, Obama still gets it. But I don't think that Barr will win even one state. Unless Obama really screws something up, or McCain can assure a quick "victory" in Iraq, the Democrats got this one.
The public will hang the failures of the Bush administration on McCain. McCain is this year's Bob Dole: loyal to the party, not really appealing to the independents. Next!
In an election as close, for example, as that of 2000, a third party candidate taking, say, Alaska, would leave Bush with 268 votes and Gore with 266, and the third candidate with three. Nobody would have a majority, and the election would then be decided by the House of Representatives. In the House, the voting would be by state, rather than individual representatives. This means that the party majority in the House is irrelevant, it is the control of state delegations which matters. Alaska's vote would count the same as California. California's vote would go to the candidate of the party which had a majority of that state's delegation present and voting in the caucus of the state delegation. If two parties had equal representation in a state's delegation, the state would not have a vote. Of course the point of my strategy is not to bring this about, but to A. Suggest that rather than national popular vote a third party should concentrate in winning the plurality in any states, since the possibility of throwing the election into the House of Representatives will get the attention of the voters and make more of an impression that getting even 10% of the national vote would. Secondly, and just in case, my idea is that the party needs to concentrate on the state parties rather than the national party campaign for president, to increase the possibility of having congressional representatives and having the grass roots structure that would make carrying a state possible.
We, the Responsible Majority will not vote for Barr nor any other 2008 presidential candidate!
For those who call themselves Ron Paul Republicans and to those Harry Browne Libertarians, if you are like most Americans who do not agree with the choices for president:
“It is commonly said, If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain about the outcome. The opposite is true. By playing the game, voters agree to the rules. Only those who don’t play and withhold their consent have a right to complain about the outcome, especially since the winner will have his hand in the non-voter’s pocket. Voting is not an act of political freedom. It is an act of political conformity. Those who refuse to vote are not expressing silence. They are screaming in the politician’s ear: You do not represent me. This is not a process in which my voice matters. I do not believe you." Wendy McElroy
"Viewing the nation as divided into two camps ignores the largest single group of Americans, namely, those who don't vote at all. In the 2000 election only about 54 percent of eligible voters actually turned out to vote. In 2004, despite expensive get-out-the-vote campaigns by both ideological camps, the percentage who voted rose only a few points from the previous election. In fact, in 2004, an all-time record was set when more than 80 million eligible voters failed to vote; this number was far greater than the votes secured by either Bush or Kerry, by a substantial margin. In fact, no Republican or Democratic nominee has attracted as much as 30 percent of eligible voters since Ronald Reagan in 1984." [link edited for length]
I agree with going after electoral votes. That is the best strategy since heck, that's what decides the office! Furthermore, remember that it is the NEW house of representatives and senate that choose the Pres and VP. The votes are not counted until Jan 3rd AFTER the new members are sworn in.
The LP should focus on the smallest states which have both a strong LP leaning electorate (i.e. - democrat strongholds that went for Reagan in 1980 and heavy Perot in 92 and 96) AND where the LP pulls consistent numbers in presidential races. (meaning you have a solid base)
In those SAME states, and also in other congressional districts where the LP is strong as above, they need to go after those House seats full bore so they can be in the new delegations on Jan 3rd.
Finally, even if Barr or a future LP candidate managed to secure electoral votes, and even win in the house, the constitution only allows the top TWO vote getters for VP to be considered (rather than the top 3 like in the House) so you would end up with a coalition executive. The only way to assure a Congressional win for both spots short of 270 outright votes is to come in second in the electoral count AND have sufficient support in both houses. (even if you have to work both sides of the aisles hard)
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
