Posted on 05/16/2002 7:10:54 AM PDT by Hillary's Lovely Legs
MAY 15, 2002
Libertarians plan strategy to upset elections By Allison Stevens
Long reviled by Republicans for eroding its base in congressional elections, the Libertarian Party is now taking the unprecedented step of engineering a nationwide 'spoiler' strategy in this year's midterm elections.
Libertarians plan to field candidates and pour resources into a select few races not in order to win office but rather to siphon away enough votes to defeat targeted incumbents. They are zeroing in on both GOP and Democratic incumbents who oppose the decriminalization and legalization of drugs and who face potentially tough reelection contests in November.
To date, the targeted incumbents include Sens. Tim Hutchinson (R-Ark.) and Max Cleland (D-Ga.) and Reps. Bob Barr (R-Ga.), Henry Bonilla (R-Texas), Doug Ose (R-Calif.) and Mark Souder (R-Ind.). "The so-called spoiler effect in the past has been random," said Ron Crickenberger, the party's political director. "It hasn?t been a weapon that we've attempted to use for specific purposes in the past. But this time it is."
Following the drawn out 2000 presidential contest, where Green Party nominee Ralph Nader garnered national attention by helping tip the race to George W. Bush, Libertarians held a yearlong planning process where they weighed strategies that would maximize their influence on the national agenda.
As Crickenberger put it:"We feel as a third party, we can have an influence on Congress and the state legislatures through the use of our spoiler effect. " It will have the most influence for the least amount of money.'
Green Party officials said they too are focusing on a single issue in the 2002 elections " theirs is fast-track trade promotion authority " and have in the past employed a similar strategy of fielding candidates in competitive races. They were careful to note, however, that they have never had a nationally coordinated strategy to intentionally spoil elections.
"Generally the Green Party does not seek to split votes," Green Party Political Coordinator Dean Myerson said. ?It does happen on occasion. " But it's not usually something we do as an intentional strategy. It's something that happens when Democrats are weak."
Meanwhile, the Libertarian and Green parties will field candidates in a majority of House and Senate races this year, many of which are considered toss-ups. The third party presence could tip the balance in some competitive congressional races this year, as it has done on several occasions in the past, and could therefore help determine which party controls the Congress in January.
So far, Libertarians have filed Senate candidacies in at least 15 states, including Colorado, Georgia, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Dakota and Texas. Green Party Senate candidates have already filed in five states including Texas and are debating whether to file in Minnesota, where they could erode Democrat Paul Wellstone's progressive base.
In the House races, Libertarians have fielded 166 candidates so far, about a dozen of whom are running in competitive races. In 2000, the party fielded 256 House candidates, a number they hope to match this year. Green Party candidates have so far filed in 32 races, almost none of which are regarded as competitive.
In the past, third party candidates have been able to change the result of an election, according to Rob Ritchie, executive director of the Center for Voting and Democracy.
In 2000, a Libertarian candidate took credit for spoiling the Senate race in Washington state, where then-Sen. Slade Gorton (R) took 48.6 percent of the vote and Democrat Maria Cantwell took 48.7 percent. Libertarian Jeff Jared won 2.6 percent of the vote largely from conservative voters enough to hand Cantwell a victory.
In 1998, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) narrowly won a third term with 47.9 percent of the vote against John Ensign (R), who took 47.8 percent of the vote. Libertarian Michael Cloud won 1.8 percent of the vote.
In the same year, New Mexico Republican Heather Wilson cruised to victory in a special election against her Democratic opponent Phillip Maloof, thanks to Green Party candidate Robert Anderson, who took 15 percent of the vote.
Green Party candidates challenged Wilson in the 1998 and 2000 general elections, taking a majority of votes away from the Democratic candidate and handing reelection victories to Wilson.
In 1997, New Mexico Republican Bill Redmond defeated Democrat Eric Serna with the help of Green Party candidate Carol Miller in a special election House contest. Redmond later lost to Democrat Tom Udall in the 1998 general election, where Miller garnered only 3.6 percent of the vote.
And in 1996, Georgia's Cleland narrowly defeated Guy Millner (R) in a race where Libertarian Jack Cashin took 3.6 percent of the vote. Cleland captured 48.8 percent while Millner captured 47.6 percent of the vote.
While political experts don?t discount the possibility that third party candidates could spoil a tiny fraction of this year?s competitive races, most doubted the Libertarian?s coordinated strategy to split votes would cause targeted incumbents to lose.
The policy would only be successful in districts where people place a high priority on ending the war against drugs, Cato analyst John Samples said. He noted that voters concerned about this issue don?t tend to reside in large numbers in rural states like Georgia and Arkansas. Targeted races must also come down to a 1 or 2 percent margin ' an unlikely scenario in races that feature incumbents, he added.
"It strikes me as unlikely that they're going to make a difference," Samples said. "But as Florida proved, if the race is close enough, you don't need a whole lot of votes [to alter an election result]."
Yeah man, sssst(toking on a joint), we'll show those evil statists who don't think that pot is the wonderweed that will save the world and will give democrats like Barney Frank who agrees with us on drug validation, the power he deserves.
Sure you do. As is true with most libertarians, nothing would give you greater satisfaction.
Pro-dope libertarians are essentially Gen-X and aging hippie socialists who want to keep their cash (taxes) and stash (dope).
DWG
Maybe the LP leadership needs to go into rehab. Might help them to think more clearly.
And a person who wants the state to take my cash and redistribute to them is called what, in your vocabulary? I call that person a cowardly parasite.
A coward because he doesn't have enough of a pair to rob me in person, and a parasite because he feeds off the work of another.
Regards
J.R.
Started smoking early today it seems. If you like amoral views that are more in tune with the ACLU, then the Libertarians are just the ticket for your pipe.
True liberty must be accompanied by self-control formed by adherence to a moral standard. If it is not, it becomes the most insidiouys form of slavery, where the slave thinks that he is free, but actually is enslaved.
(My comments about licentiousness are directed at the LP platform, BTW, not at any practicing libertarian unless, of course, they buy the LP platform hook, line and sinker)
Oh really? And just how does it do that when its getting Democraps elected by stripping Republicans of votes? I don't see too many Democraps standing up for the constitution or our rights! Liberterians can only promise to get rid of "Big Government" by overwealmingly taking over the House and the Senate to control spending! That aint ever going to happen, so its a wasted vote on a wasted party! You reform from within, not by going to an outside group!
Where, exactly, are the similarities???
The elections need upsetting, bigtime.
Agreed. So some tax cuts are definitely in order. Or are they? A conservative (notice I didn't say "Republican") would cut taxes and spending. I can't imagine an LP-er cutting any government program other than the DEA and National Defense. IOW, the Welfare State lives on....
What is the difference between the LP and those oxymorons in the two major parties who refer to themselves as "fiscally conservative" but "socially liberal"? Anyone who describes themselves that way is 50% liar (fiscally conservative, my ass) and 100% coward.
DWG
If this is the LP's core issue, to hell with 'em.
I heard Begala say basically the same thing. He also went on to say that these 30 somethings usually go on to be senior citizens who come to realize that they need government and want big government for healthcare and social security etc. They lose their small government belief set at that point.
I think he may be right. I have noticed a lot of the old conservative farts usually just give up and accept the fact that they need government.
How old are you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.