Columns

Liberation From Loony Libertarians

Share
Tweet
email Email
Print
Advertisement
Voting Booths

If Republicans fall short of taking control of the US Senate in next week’s elections, oddball activists behind quixotic third party campaigns will deserve part of the blame (or credit, if you’re a liberal). At least voters in Oregon will be able to cast ballot for a worthwhile reform to prevent such anti-democratic outcomes in the future.

First, consider the very real possibility that candidates of the Libertarian Party and other right-leaning operations will drain just enough votes away from conservative, Republican nominees to hand victory to a series of embattled Democrats. In North Carolina, for instance, the Democratic incumbent Kay Hagan has never surged above 50% in her difficult re-election drive but she still leads her GOP opponent, Speaker of the State House Thom Tillis, by the narrowest of margins. Her persistent advantage stems in no small part from the presence on the ballot of a good-natured Libertarian Party nominee: 53-year-old pizza delivery man Sean Haugh. The bespectacled non-conformist gets 6-7% in most statewide polls, drawing his support from anti-Obama, smaller-government voters — precisely the segment of the electorate that would never vote for Hagan.

Those who insist that a vote for Haugh isn’t a wasted and meaningless ballot ought to confront an obvious and important question: what conceivable difference would it make if the pizza man got 7% of the vote rather than 6%? How would that distinction impact policy or politics in any way? The answer, obviously, is that the trivial showings for minor party contenders can only damage one of the major candidates, but never lend significant support to the fringe party’s agenda. Quick, now: try to remember how many votes Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson received in 2012. Did he receive 3% or 2% of the total popular vote? Actually, he got just under 1% — and it would have made no difference by any political calculation had he somehow tripled that total. If however, Mitt Romney had managed to add 3% to HIS popular vote tally he would have won a majority and almost surely would have captured the White House.

The point is that a relative handful of votes to a major party candidate with whom you mostly agree can change the course of history, but that same scattering of ballots for a fringe candidate with whom you entirely agree will do nothing at all to influence events.

In this election cycle, minor party candidates are playing a role in several crucial contests, in almost all cases damaging the chances of Republicans. In the breathlessly close re-election battles for Governor Scott Walker in Wisconsin and Governor Rick Scott in Florida (both in states that Barack Obama carried in 2012), Democrats hope that Libertarian contenders (Adrian Wyllie in Florida, Robert Burke in Wisconsin) will draw just enough voters away from the conservative incumbents to hand undeserved victory to the stridently liberal, Democratic challengers. In Georgia, in another race in which the candidates look to be virtually tied, an embarrassing Libertarian could easily make the difference. Democrat Michelle Nunn hopes to pick up a Republican seat in a conservative state with the help of Libertarian nominee Amanda Swofford, a para-legal and City Council member in Flowery Branch, Georgia, who, in a very tight race, could destroy the chances of David Perdue, the conservative, pro-life, pro-gun, pro-defense businessman who won the GOP nomination in a hotly contested primary.

In the last twenty years, Libertarians and other fringe candidates have cost Republicans at least 12 senate seats around the country. Consider the crucial contest in Washington state in 2000, where the uber-liberal Maria Cantwell edged the incumbent Republican senator Slade Gorton by a margin of 48.7% to 48.6%. Her victory gave Al Gore’s Democrats a tie in the battle for Senate control, setting the stage for Vermont Senator “Jumpin’ Jim” Jeffords to switch parties and install the loathsome Harry Reid as majority leader. Meanwhile, Cantwell’s advantage on election day amounted to a mere 2,129 votes, of more than 2.4 million cast, in a race that featured a no-name Libertarian on the ballot, one Jeff Jared, who scored 64,734 votes (2.6%) In other words, this Libertarian “protest” candidate won 30 times more votes than the microscopic margin that gave Democrats their Senate control (and enthroned Maria Cantwell on a seemingly permanent basis). Can anyone name a single achievement of the Jeff Jared Libertarian campaign OTHER than securing victory for the Democrats?

With these disasters in mind, voters in Oregon can take a crucial step by supporting this year’s Measure 90 and avoiding such doleful results in the future. If the initiative passes on November 4,, Oregon will join the other Pacific Coast states (California and Washington) in adopting a top two primary system. Rather than separating voters and candidates according to party identification in the primary, all candidates will appear together on a single primary ballot. If a contender wishes to identify himself as Republican, or Democrat, or Libertarian, or Flat Earth Party member, he or she may do so. All voters receive the same ballot – no separate ballots for Democrats and Republicans and fringe party loyalists. On primary day, officials will tally the votes among all disparate candidates and the top two – and only the top two – will proceed to the general election. In most cases, of course, those top two will include one Republican and one Democrat but if a Libertarian runs an unusually strong race, that candidate might finish in the top two and make it to the general election campaign. As one of the two finalists, a minor party candidate might actually win — a novelty for parties like the Libertarians and the Greens, who have never elected anyone to any significant office, despite more than three decades of trying.

In any event, the beauty of the top two primary is that it avoids outcomes where, say, conservatives clearly outvote liberals (as in the Washington state election of 2000, where the Republican and the Libertarian won a combined 51.2%) but the leftist takes the Senate seat or the governorship with a minority of the votes. Such outcomes count as undemocratic and frustrating, contributing to conservative disillusionment with the entire electoral process.

One more race might be worth a recollection in terms of making the argument against the current wrecking-ball potential of Losertarians and other fringies. In 2008, Oregon voters sent Jeff Merkley to the US Senate with just 48.9% of the vote. Senator Merkley counts as one of the most outspoken and irresponsible leftists in Congress, and hardly exemplifies the easy-going, moderate outlook of most Oregon voters. He won, however, due to the 92,565 votes (5.24%) that went to the “Constitution Party” nominee, David Brownlow. Neither Brownlow, an engineer who refused to answer election questionnaires about his own background and positions, nor his party (which later focused much attention on Obama’s birth certificate), has played any discernible role in Oregon politics in the last six years. But Merkley, who looks likely to win his second term in November, spent his entire service in the Senate providing Barack Obama with a reliable liberal vote for every one of his leftist projects. Without his crucial 60th vote, Obamacare would have died in the Senate.

The good news is that top two primaries will avert such outcomes in the future. Not because they will destroy third and fourth and fifth parties; actually, they might strengthen such parties by giving them a chance for open competition in free-for-all primaries. But once two candidates have been selected for a general election, there can be no more wasted votes. If voters do the right thing and approve Measure 90, Oregonians will join other west coasters in getting a clear, clean choice in every general election with the winning candidate assured of representing a majority of all voters.

 

This column appeared first at TruthRevolt.org on October 27, 2014. 

Share
Tweet
email Email
Print

Comments (3)

Leave a comment
  1. JOSEPH STEVENSON  •  Nov 5, 2014 at 10:37 am

    Were it not for Libertarian clowns, Virginia would have a Republican governor now and a Republican winner in yesterday’s Senate race. Warner’s victory was by a thin 12,400 or so votes. If only 13,000 of the Losertarian’s 53,000 votes had voted for the winnable candidate with a point of view closest to the Libertarians’ alleged ideals, they would have elected a savvy, effective less-government republican. Instead, their wasted votes ensured victory for a mediocre big-government liberal hack.
    In 2012, election pundits breathlessly reported that without the Libertarian, the Democrat still would have won. But this analysis relied on exit polls showing that without a Libertarian on the ballot, most of them would have stayed home. Again, the fault is the Losertarian delusion that the difference between the major parties is so insignificant that there is no use voting for either.

    • Steve A  •  Nov 10, 2014 at 1:25 pm

      This argument merely reflects Medved’s well exposed disdain for any libertarian POV. I recall clearly Medved comparing Ron Paul to a “goofy uncle” and other ad hominem insults years ago, and his tirades against libertarianism continue.

      It is clear that the Republican party dislikes and rejects their members with any sort of libertarian-leaning ideas. Rand Paul won the CPAC straw polls repeatedly and the headline and party push are all about how well Rubio or some other centrist Rep did. The elimination of Gary Johnson from the primary debates in favor of an unelectable person like Santorum is another example.

      I an not a Libertarain party member. Many of their national candidates seem egotistical fools who have duped that party into accepting non-libertarian candidates (I’m thinking of Bob Barr as a good example). That doesn’t mean it can’t be a useful mechanism for other candidates.

      But Medved’s entire rant is based on two false premises. He must believe that these Republican candidates & platforms are acceptable to libertarian-leaners, but that is often false. There is a real difference between Dem & Rep parties. Dems are in favor of less free-markets,(more regulation), redistributionism, less war and generally believe that government controls the economy. Reps are in favor of endless foreign wars, somewhat freer markets perhaps with heavier emphasis on crony capitalism. Both want bigger federal government, and more intrusive police-state activity such as the patriot act and NSA internal data collection; they just have different views about whether government is a nanny or a big-brother. Neither has any commitment to limited powers or the rights of citizens. So the idea that I would have vote for Romney (a genuinely nice individual I believe) when his top adviser was Michael Chertoff (author of the ironically named “Patriot Act”) is ridiculous.

      The other false premise is the belief that votes toward failed candidate are meaningless. Obviously they are not, since Medved and likely real party strategists squeal like stuck pigs that there were enough non-Dem votes of actual voters out there to make a difference.

      Votes or Libertarian candidates are NOT the property of Reps as Medved suggests nor of Dems. They seem to be disenfranchised voters who’s primary interests wrt government are rudely rejected Dems & Reps alike. If the Rep party want’s those votes they will need to change to accommodate this faction. You can’t have my vote just b/c there is an “R” after your name.

      BTW Mr. Medved – lasers produce collimated light – they don’t focus ! You sound like a failing science student whenever I hear your refrain.

      .

Tell Us What You Think

All fields required. The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this website you agree to accept our Terms of Use.

Medhead - Michael Medved's Premium Content

Login Join
Advertise with us Advertisement
Advertisement

Follow Michael

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Get Medved weekly movie reviews, columns, and special offers delivered to your inbox.

Subscribe

The Michael Medved Show - Mobile App

Download from App Store Get it on Google play
Advertisement
Advertisement
Michael Medved's History Store Also available on TuneIn