libertarians (small and big L) got 0.08% of the House vote, Dems got 51.2%

[Thorgrim]

Across the country, people fed up with both parties had a chance to vote for LP candidate, or just a regular libertarian as a write-in or who made the ballot through his own effort

Every single person in this great nation got to vote, and everyone fed up with Republican spending, but not about to give into Democrats or their values of fiscal liberalism (2/3rds of those who were elected were progressives/liberals, the rest of them were generally populists) any of them could have either voted for the libertarian who made the ballot, or write in the name of a libertarian they knew...because obviously who want either one of those choices to win?

What was the final tally in all the races?
Total votes: 72,959,590 401 districts (34 ran unopposed)
Democrats: 37,384,882 51.2%
Republicans: 33,937,956 46.5%
Libertarians 600,715 0.8%
CNN.com - Elections 2006

In an election many in the media said the Republicans deserved to lose and the Democrats didn't deserve to win, the libertarian alternative got 0.8% across the ENTIRE COUNTRY

This wasn't like the presidential race where you waste your vote if you don't vote for one of the two, in many races they are so gerrymandered you can vote however you please just to show your opinion and you aren't going to change the outcome...and in the close races...its not like you are determining the president you are just talking about one congressional seat

Even so, libertarians (small l) were so unappealing to voters that 99.2% of the American electorate voted for a non-libertarian

[TheScatman]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Across the country, people fed up with both parties had a chance to vote for LP candidate, or just a regular libertarian as a write-in or who made the ballot through his own effort

Every single person in this great nation got to vote, and everyone fed up with Republican spending, but not about to give into Democrats or their values of fiscal liberalism (2/3rds of those who were elected were progressives/liberals, the rest of them were generally populists) any of them could have either voted for the libertarian who made the ballot, or write in the name of a libertarian they knew...because obviously who want either one of those choices to win?

What was the final tally in all the races?
Total votes: 72,959,590 401 districts (34 ran unopposed)
Democrats: 37,384,882 51.2%
Republicans: 33,937,956 46.5%
Libertarians 600,715 0.08%
CNN.com - Elections 2006

In an election many in the media said the Republicans deserved to lose and the Democrats didn't deserve to win, the libertarian alternative got 0.08% across the ENTIRE COUNTRY

This wasn't like the presidential race where you waste your vote if you don't vote for one of the two, in many races they are so gerrymandered you can vote however you please just to show your opinion and you aren't going to change the outcome...and in the close races...its not like you are determining the president you are just talking about one congressional seat

Even so, libertarians (small l) were so unappealing to voters that 99.92% of the American electorate voted for a non-libertarian

99.92% of voters, and turnout was only ~40%

So in reality the major parties only have the support of ~20 percent of americans

edit - and dont you mean .8%

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by TheScatman

99.92% of voters, and turnout was only ~40%

So in reality the major parties only have the support of ~20 percent of americans

edit - and dont you mean .8%

I said electorate, 99.2% of the electorate

and who really cares about people who refuse to vote, you really need their support in politics?

If 60% of the non-voters pledged never to vote again, and advocated slavery, would they really be a part of the political process? Considering they had no role whatsoever in politics besides what they thought inside their heads and never acted on

And in your non-voters, you are including child molestors, illegal immigrats, escaped murderers, legal non-citizens, etc

Note: I had hit edit, I guess it didn't go through and then I had to go to to lunch, but I had known by the end of my post I had to move the decimal point one over

[Stylerod]

You already have a Libertarian bashing thread here So when is the "Libertarian year"

Why are you so threatened by them that you felt the need to create another?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

You already have a Libertarian bashing thread here So when is the "Libertarian year"

Why are you so threatened by them that you felt the need to create another?

In the past, people have been encouraged to make threads on the same subject

I am still confused as why the third largest political party or the third largest political affiliation, whatever, can not find one charismatic libertarian and give him money to win one house seat out of 435, let alone one house assembly seat out of thousands

Kansas is an extremely Republican state, yet in statewide elections they elect Democratic governors, and basically with little national support...

In NC08, without a dime of support from the DNC, DCCC or their packs, Rahm and the Dem leadership completely abandoned the Dem in a district that was "too republican" to win...all on his lonesome he is now in a recount and only 300 votes behind out of 120,000 cast

In 2002, two indepdents with no party affiliation were elected to Congress

I am still confused as to why small l and big L libertarians can not get a simple seat

Again I come back to TX-22, a zogby poll showed only 36% of the district wanted to vote for the Democrat, and only 28% were going to write in the republican chosen...that's 36% left that have rejected the only other two options and were poised to vote for the only other ballot option: The Libertarian...he was quite reasonable, not extreme

There could have been an internet fundraising drive, buzz creating around the internet...actually libertarians on their own could have contacted the campaign and asked what they could do from home (Phone-bank, donate, even write letters, etc)

The entire libertarian community could have easily taken the race, I have no idea why they didn't and why they continue to pull the numbers they do

I shall continue to make threads periodically until any sort of real answer is given

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

In the past, people have been encouraged to make threads on the same subject

I am still confused as why the third largest political party or the third largest political affiliation, whatever, can not find one charismatic libertarian and give him money to win one house seat out of 435, let alone one house assembly seat out of thousands

Kansas is an extremely Republican state, yet in statewide elections they elect Democratic governors, and basically with little national support...

In NC08, without a dime of support from the DNC, DCCC or their packs, Rahm and the Dem leadership completely abandoned the Dem in a district that was "too republican" to win...all on his lonesome he is now in a recount and only 300 votes behind out of 120,000 cast

In 2002, two indepdents with no party affiliation were elected to Congress

I am still confused as to why small l and big L libertarians can not get a simple seat

Again I come back to TX-22, a zogby poll showed only 36% of the district wanted to vote for the Democrat, and only 28% were going to write in the republican chosen...that's 36% left that have rejected the only other two options and were poised to vote for the only other ballot option: The Libertarian...he was quite reasonable, not extreme

There could have been an internet fundraising drive, buzz creating around the internet...actually libertarians on their own could have contacted the campaign and asked what they could do from home (Phone-bank, donate, even write letters, etc)

The entire libertarian community could have easily taken the race, I have no idea why they didn't and why they continue to pull the numbers they do

I shall continue to make threads periodically until any sort of real answer is given

Just to remind them how much they suck. Ok, you big bully

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Just to remind them how much they suck. Ok, you big bully

No, just until the confusion is resolved...I doubt their excuse is "well small l and big L libertarians are both just stupid, lazy and cheap" but if it were that, as you say...i guess i'd accept that as an excuse

All of the excuses so far haven't overcome the basic fact that dailykos community that consists of 0.0003% of America was instrumental in teaming up with Democrats who were recieving no national and little if any state aid, were able to get several no-name candidates to about or over 50%

Now, I imagine more than 0.0003% of americans are actively interested in electing libertarians to congress...so what gives?

[TheScatman]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I said electorate, 99.2% of the electorate

and who really cares about people who refuse to vote, you really need their support in politics?

If 60% of the non-voters pledged never to vote again, and advocated slavery, would they really be a part of the political process? Considering they had no role whatsoever in politics besides what they thought inside their heads and never acted on

And in your non-voters, you are including child molestors, illegal immigrats, escaped murderers, legal non-citizens, etc

Note: I had hit edit, I guess it didn't go through and then I had to go to to lunch, but I had known by the end of my post I had to move the decimal point one over

maybe people dont vote because the system is broken? you basically have a political enviornment where no economic/property/personal regulation is off the table, so the lobbyists head to washington to get budernsome regualtion on their competitors and control others...

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by TheScatman

maybe people dont vote because the system is broken? you basically have a political enviornment where no economic/property/personal regulation is off the table, so the lobbyists head to washington to get budernsome regualtion on their competitors and control others...

That's your excuse, libertarians don't vote for libertarians because the system is broke?

[RMNIXON]

The only way to have a real third party in a democracy is to have a run off elections. That will end the cries that you are just voting for the republican or democrat if you vote green or libertarian. For example: Clinton was under 50% of the vote twice!

[hsmith]

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by hsmith

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

Now we're down to one liners that don't make any sense...

Either we're ignoring you, laughing at you, fighting you, or you're winning...pick one, you can't have them all

BTW I think that's the line the Taliban used, except they messed up the winning part

[mididoctors]

is the percentage of the vote representative of the validity of ones political position?

in the UK the major parties are all increasingly trying to adopt positions held by the green party for 20 years who are and where completely marginalized at the polls

Boris
London

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Now we're down to one liners that don't make any sense...

Either we're ignoring you, laughing at you, fighting you, or you're winning...pick one, you can't have them all

BTW I think that's the line the Taliban used, except they messed up the winning part

you have no valid arguments on anything, especially libertarianism, in my opinion. so continue to waste your breath.

[Diesel66]

How do you know the percentage of Small l libertarians ? Many run under other parties. The Costitutional Party Congressman from Montana can be described as a small l. A few Republicans are small l.

Originally Posted by hsmith

you have no valid arguments on anything, especially libertarianism, in my opinion. so continue to waste your breath.

maybe that is why he was banned from :diaf:

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

How do you know the percentage of Small l libertarians ? Many run under other parties. The Costitutional Party Congressman from Montana can be described as a small l. A few Republicans are small l.

I was thinking that... I bet a lot of small l libertarians voted for Ron Paul, for instnace.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

How do you know the percentage of Small l libertarians ? Many run under other parties. The Costitutional Party Congressman from Montana can be described as a small l. A few Republicans are small l.



maybe that is why he was banned from :diaf:

I am not banned from there, there is simply no reason to post there...if I want to post anything I post here, but thanks for the false attack

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I was thinking that... I bet a lot of small l libertarians voted for Ron Paul, for instnace.

Ron Paul doesn't have to join the LP, he can simply be indepedent and call himself a libertarian

He refuses, and anyway he is just one example, and the example is much more likely to be "RP lives in an overwhelming republican district, therefor, they all hit the R lever" He'd be primaried out if the GOP wasn't worried with more important things like winning back the house

about the thousands of state assembly/senate positions, one constitutional member...C Party is not libertarian...that'd like me saying if Rudy wins, the Democrats won because he has many similiarity in issues with moderate Democrats

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Ron Paul doesn't have to join the LP, he can simply be indepedent and call himself a libertarian

He refuses, and anyway he is just one example, and the example is much more likely to be "RP lives in an overwhelming republican district, therefor, they all hit the R lever" He'd be primaried out if the GOP wasn't worried with more important things like winning back the house

about the thousands of state assembly/senate positions, one constitutional member...C Party is not libertarian...that'd like me saying if Rudy wins, the Democrats won because he has many simil