Skip to main content

Arizona Libertarians shame both wings of Demopublican Party

Noting that the Arizona Libertarians have achieved major party ballot status in their state, Third Party Watch reports that this means they are legally eligible to participate in their own primary on Super Tuesday.

These entrepreneurial Libertarians, however, have given the whole process a new twist:

Unlike the Democratic and Republican parties, Arizona Libertarians aren’t conducting their election process in the traditional polling booths or at taxpayer expense.

“This is believed to be the first time in U.S. history that a state-wide election has been held via the Internet, only,” stated party chairman Michael Kielsky in a press release.

Additionally, Maricopa County election officials have estimated that the Libertarian Party election will save “Arizona taxpayers over a million dollars by sparing them the costs of printing, distributing, collecting and counting Libertarian ballots.”

I spoke with Kielsky on the telephone a couple of hours ago. When asked how much this online election will cost the Arizona Libertarian Party, he responded “about a grand.”


The Libertarians report that they have had to overcome some technical and security problems, but anticipate both a high turn-out and an accurate result.

This raises an important question: Why is it the fiscal responsibility of the States to run party primaries?

Comments

Paul Smith Jr. said…
Assuming the question isn't merely rhetorical, as I recall, states took over the running of primaries in an attempt to open up the process to voters. I agree with the point I think you're making: what business is it of the government's how parties pick their candidates?
That's part of my question, all right. The other part is why I, as a taxpayer, am footing the bill for any of it beyond necessary (by law) FEC oversight.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...