Glenn and Liz both found this Randy Barnett essay persuasive.
The Libertarian Party’s effort will, if effective, attract more libertarian voters away from the candidate who is marginally less hostile to liberty,
Really? Support “the Lesser Evil”? What can one say but, “Ph’nglui mglw’nafh Cthulhu R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn!”
Cthulhu: the Leviathan’s Leviathan!
But seriously, Dr. Barnett? Mitt Romney: Not Nearly As Bad As Lenin. Yeah. That’ll learn ‘em. Because nothing restrains statist politicians like unearned votes.
By that logic, aren’t the Tea Parties bad? After all, the nominations of Angle and O’Donnell meant the loss of GOP seats. And remember the internal discord caused by those Uppity-Americans!
If “Republican good, Libertarian bad,” then why not “Republican good, Tea Party bad”?
Barnett makes some vital points. Heck, I considered voting Green for precisely that “divide and conquer” effect. So he’s absolutely right: if you are a freedom-loving American living in a battleground state…it is your dad-gum patriotic duty to vote for Mitt Romney. Should you witness Democratic fraud…vote early and often.
To patriotic voters in safely Romney states: obviously, this is trickier. But take my (and also Instapundit’s) state. In 2008 one in seven McCain voters could have gone Libertarian without Obama getting the Volunteer State’s his electoral votes. This year it will be one in six voters, or even one in five. C’mon. If only a tithe of Americans were libertarian we’d never have gotten into this mess in the first place. So don’t vote “Marginally Less Totalitarian” if it makes you barf. You won’t be giving the Oval Office back to Obama.
Again, as long as battleground independents and libertarians all vote Romney. Romney. ROMNEEEEEEY!
Which brings us to patriotic Americans living in deep blue Obama states. There is only one right choice: ignore Randy Barnett! Vote Gary Johnson for President! (But sure, go GOP in state and local elections if survival is at stake. Or even because your spouse is a free-loading Republican pol. That sends an effective message, too.)
There is no downside to blue state GOPers and Tea Partiers voting Johnson in the presidential election. Seriously, try a thought experiment: if Gary Johnson gets more California votes than Romney…does that throw the election to Obama? No. Does it change the perceptions of millions of Americans? Hells YES!
“Mommy, what does ‘libertarun’ mean?”
Do you know what’s better than Johnson getting 8% of the vote, Obama getting 47%, and Romney getting 45% but winning 330 electoral votes? Me gaining vast superhuman powers and reshaping the Solar System like a Minecraft boss. But apart from that, nothing.
Are you afraid that Democrats will shriek, “Waaaah! Obama got more votes than Romney! It’s not fair it’s not fair!” That is no bug…it’s a necessary feature. The only alternative to their whining is their gloating and bullying. They have sacrificed reason and conscience for their social desires. You don’t argue with hungry tigers, why pretend you can with an Obama or Krugman or Matthews?
But John “Gollum” McCain? He was a hobbit himself once, as a POW who had nothing left but his ideals. Though long decades in the “precious” Senate corrupted his principles, he can still recognize the right thing and will even do it, when it serves his self-interest.
That’s why, at least at the national level, every Gadsden-American who can safely vote Libertarian should vote Libertarian. Nothing else will scare the crap out of self-serving GOP politicians. How can the Republican Party fight statism when half of its members are statists?
It’s very simple, freedom-lovers: we will never break the Left without breaking the Right first.
So, purple state Americans: vote ROMNEY or CUT ALL OUR THROATS AND SAVE US SOME TIME.
Red state Americans: tithe your votes to Liberty!
Blue state Americans: either vote Libertarian or write-in for “Snake”.
And finally, the most important thing of all. America: ROLL TIDE.
I think there should be a ranking system to guarantee the winner of an election is over 50%. Say there are 4 candidates; R, D, L, and G. You can likely figure out by their letters the party they represent. Anyway, with 4, each voter orders their top 3. You may like L over R then G. The candidate with the fewest votes, say G, gets tossed out first. Of the voters who put G first, their next choice now comes into play. Eventually, its down to 2 and one wins or a dead-even tie.
The neat thing about this is it enables one to vote for who they truly want to win (L) without fear of letting their least desirable (D) into office because if L has fewer than D or R, your next favorite R counts as your vote.
Although such as system may have put Ross Perot into office many years ago. He ended up with 19% I think. How many who voted for D or R would have first voted for Ross if they new their second in line was safe.
What do you think? Cool idea?
I believe it’s called instant runoff. And yes, it would be awesome, possibly even break the 2 party system — which functions as an extra-constitutional circumvention of the separation of power.
And to Mr. Wormme, I was going to vote Gary Johnson here in Illinois for those exact reasons. But then Benghazi….It cannot be born, now I just want Obama to lose the popular vote by as much as possible, so Romney it is.
Yes, but…tens of millions of voters have enough trouble voting once without screwups. This almost amounts to an I.Q test, and election litigators would have a field day.
On the other hand, I’m in favor of anything that disenfranchises people from voting in my business. So…WIN!
Well, let me put it this way: