Skip to main content

"Grow"-ing the party and the vote: some thoughts from a Libertarian candidate

This email by Daniel Grow [used by permission] is an intriguing statement of the problem faced by third-party candidates:

In my U.S. House (1st District, Michigan) campaign, the three 3rd party candidates scored nearly the same number of votes, about 1%. The incumbent (Democrat) received nearly double the number of votes of the Republican challenger. As far as I know, the Green/Socialist party candidate did absolutely nothing, not a single survey, debate, sign, or anything, and she still did as well as she did. On the other hand, I did three televised debates (usually just me and the D and the R), two radio interviews, a TV interview, and had a nice write up following an editorial board interview with one of the bigger papers in the district. I completed all of the non-biased surveys, and always stuck to a radical/anarchist message (I even suggested in one LWV survey that Michigan could fix its economy by basically seceding.)

Had I preached "pragmatic" positions or "transitional" plans would I have done better? I'd say if I had never left the house, I would have done exactly the same. Maybe I would have raised more money with a different message, but at least everyone who was stuck listening to me had a chance to hear a 100% libertarian message. I can only hope it rattles around the back of their heads such that they might see the truth, either sooner or later...

Maybe next time I'll run a public "don't vote for anybody, don't vote at all" campaign, such that we might deny government its "legitimacy" completely. Voting only gives the illusion that you make a difference.


Notice that this isn't a ballot access problem. It's a problem that there is a certain third-party base vote out there to be collected, and not much more--no matter what you do.

Daniel's suggestion is therefore realistic: stay true to your message and hope that it echoes even after the election.

Going to run as a Libertarian--then really run as one. Likewise a Green or a Constitutionalist.

I think, perhaps, that the 2008 election was something of an anomaly: open presidency, highly organized Democratic campaign that massed both enthusiasm and unprecedented amounts of money, and a GOPer campaign that virtually tanked itself but still managed to place a putative partial Libertarian on the ticket.

2010 will be a bye-year--usually a bad time for the incumbents of the ruling party, and 2012 may well see some of the luster flake off the Change we can believe in signs. I'm not suggesting that we're going to take Congress or the White House in 2012, but that there will potentially be a larger uncommitted or independent vote up for grabs than we have seen in a long time.

Yet Daniel's comments really echo in my head; how do we reach more than 1% without presenting a message that simply isn't Libertarian.

I do believe there is an answer out there ,,,

Comments

Brian Shields said…
Maybe by talking some Libertarian realism.

Munger did well as a Libertarian because he was established, educated, and respected.

He also was pragmatic while still staying idealistic. He faced real issues in North Carolina with real solutions based on libertarian ideology.

We need more candidates that can bring libertarian based solutions that are realistic. Start from the middle and work your way out, because the extreme will only get you the extreme vote.

Less theory, more reality.
George Donnelly said…
Look at these duopoly candidates. most of the time, they say nothing. oh, they mouth a lot of words, but it's a whole lotta nothing.

we might want to take their lead but in a more productive sense.

be vague, talk about better healthcare, better X Y and Z and when asked explain how, sure, but no need to get so detailed off the bat.

also, libertarian candidates need backup. we need teams to raise funds, set up websites, market them, train them, etc.
The Last Ephor said…
Libertarians need to enter the culture war. They need to infiltrate Hollywood and produce TV shows and movies that trumpet libertarian worldviews. All we get now is the dystopian corporatist future or the dystopian anarchical future.

Libertarians need to be seen as fun yet rational not as hedonistic and irresponsible.

We have a choice of being the party of low taxation, freedom with responsibility and property rights or we can be the party of legal drugs, legal prostitution and libertinism. Guess which one will give us some traction?
Anonymous said…
I know Dan Grow personally and he really worked his ass off during his campaign. I thought for sure he would receive the most congressional votes for a libertarian in Michigan. Turned out to not be the case.

I do believe part of what hurt Dan may have been the fact that he lived out of district. Remember, there is a loop hole in the law and as long as you live anywhere in the State, you can run for office in any congressional district. Both Dan & myself live in lower Southwest Michigan. He ran in District 1, which covers Northern Michigan and the Upper Peninsula. Had he lived "in district" as the other candidates, I believe he would have finished higher than 1%

Popular posts from this blog

Comment Rescue (?) and child-related gun violence in Delaware

In my post about the idiotic over-reaction to a New Jersey 10-year-old posing with his new squirrel rifle , Dana Garrett left me this response: One waits, apparently in vain, for you to post the annual rates of children who either shoot themselves or someone else with a gun. But then you Libertarians are notoriously ambivalent to and silent about data and facts and would rather talk abstract principles and fear monger (like the government will confiscate your guns). It doesn't require any degree of subtlety to see why you are data and fact adverse. The facts indicate we have a crisis with gun violence and accidents in the USA, and Libertarians offer nothing credible to address it. Lives, even the lives of children, get sacrificed to the fetishism of liberty. That's intellectual cowardice. OK, Dana, let's talk facts. According to the Children's Defense Fund , which is itself only querying the CDCP data base, fewer than 10 children/teens were killed per year in Delaw

With apologies to Hube: dopey WNJ comments of the week

(Well, Hube, at least I'm pulling out Facebook comments and not poaching on your preserve in the Letters.) You will all remember the case this week of the photo of the young man posing with the .22LR squirrel rifle that his Dad got him for his birthday with resulted in Family Services and the local police attempting to search his house.  The story itself is a travesty since neither the father nor the boy had done anything remotely illegal (and check out the picture for how careful the son is being not to have his finger inside the trigger guard when the photo was taken). But the incident is chiefly important for revealing in the Comments Section--within Delaware--the fact that many backers of "common sense gun laws" really do have the elimination of 2nd Amendment rights and eventual outright confiscation of all privately held firearms as their objective: Let's run that by again: Elliot Jacobson says, This instance is not a case of a father bonding with h

The Obligatory Libertarian Tax Day Post

The most disturbing factoid that I learned on Tax Day was that the average American must now spend a full twenty-four hours filling out tax forms. That's three work days. Or, think of it this way: if you had to put in two hours per night after dinner to finish your taxes, that's two weeks (with Sundays off). I saw a talking head economics professor on some Philly TV channel pontificating about how Americans procrastinate. He was laughing. The IRS guy they interviewed actually said, "Tick, tick, tick." You have to wonder if Governor Ruth Ann Minner and her cohorts put in twenty-four hours pondering whether or not to give Kraft Foods $708,000 of our State taxes while demanding that school districts return $8-10 million each?