Will the Libertarian Party actually make a difference this year?

[Houseboat Mike]

I am kind of curious about everyone's thoughts about the Libertarian Party's chances this year. With Trump and Clinton both with extremely high negatives, and Gary Johnson polling at 13%, just 2% shy of the threshold needed to join the debates, could we possibly see a libertarian president this election cycle? And if so, is that a good thing? There are many aspects of the LP that I like, however the foreign policy part of their platform is a concern.

Thoughts?

[Adam White]

No way in hell will the USA see a so-called "Libertarian" president this election cycle (or any in the near future). And that's not because the so-called "Libertarian" Party's ideology is ludicrous. It's because a) their beliefs are still too far outside the mainstream to appeal to a large enough number of 'average' Americans (who tend to view themselves as moderates) and b) because the two main parties have a stranglehold on the system, making it virtually impossible for a third party to have a reasonable chance of success. Of course, the fact that the USA has a first-past-the-post system doesn't help - those tend to create two-party systems over time.

What might happen (if enough people actually end up voting Libertarian and/or Green) is some worthwhile, sustainable growth for the parties going forward. If they do well enough (and if they can keep the voters past this election cycle), they might be able to force their way into the next election's debates. And maybe they'll have more growth at the State and local level.

[Tacachale]

The most recent polls have Johnson ranging between 5-10%, which is too low to be included in debates. No third party candidate has polled higher than 15% since Perot in the 90s, and he had a lot more support, influence and money than Johnson. Additionally, third party support falls off on election day, so Johnson will likely only get a fraction of what he's polling at.

But he could do well enough to impact the election. Nader only got 2% of the vote in 2000, and it was enough to cost Gore some states, giving Bush the electoral victory. With Johnson, it's hard to tell who he'd "spoil" more at this point. The polls show he usually hurts Clinton more, which seems counterintuitive as Libertarians usually draw from Republican-leaning voters.

[coredumped]

It will make a difference this election year, as it does every election year.
The libertarian party is the ONLY party growing. Will Gary win? Probably not. I'll still vote for him.

The libertarian party is following the playbook of the Republican party from when they destroyed the whig party. They aren't just a 1 candidate party like the green party, if Gary and weld weren't running, it would be someone else.

There's also already many libertarian's in elected positions now, including in Florida.
https://lpf.org/elected-officials/

Not to mention all the recent GOP defectors that have joined the LP this year.

It takes time, but we're chiseling away....

[Adam White]

They aren't just a 1 candidate party like the green party, if Gary and weld weren't running, it would be someone else.

I don't know where you get the idea that the Green Party is a "one candidate party". This is only the second time Stein has been the GP presidential nominee. And there are over 100 Greens in elected office around the USA.

If Stein wasn't running, it would be someone else. They've fielded a candidate in every presidential election since 1996 (and they'd been competing in Congressional elections before that).

[coredumped]

What I meant was Jill *IS* the green party.
They're a small party, even compared to the libertarian party. They're not even on 25 ballots. They've got a long way to go. I wish them luck, I like having another option.

[Houseboat Mike]

The most recent polls have Johnson ranging between 5-10%, which is too low to be included in debates. No third party candidate has polled higher than 15% since Perot in the 90s, and he had a lot more support, influence and money than Johnson. Additionally, third party support falls off on election day, so Johnson will likely only get a fraction of what he's polling at.

But he could do well enough to impact the election. Nader only got 2% of the vote in 2000, and it was enough to cost Gore some states, giving Bush the electoral victory. With Johnson, it's hard to tell who he'd "spoil" more at this point. The polls show he usually hurts Clinton more, which seems counterintuitive as Libertarians usually draw from Republican-leaning voters.

They just announced a "15 for 15%" initiative on FB...apparently in at least some polls, he is at 13%. They are asking for $15 donations to get them to the magic 15% mark.

I would really like to see both Gary and Jill on the debate stage- it is such a weird political year anyway and all.

[Adam White]

What I meant was Jill *IS* the green party.
They're a small party, even compared to the libertarian party. They're not even on 25 ballots. They've got a long way to go. I wish them luck, I like having another option.

You do realise that she is the presumptive nominee, right? She has actually had to campaign for the nomination (there is one other candidate, but Stein has beaten him in all but one primary).

The Green Party is a young party, but as I mentioned, they've got over 100 people in office - I believe the LP have 135. So not too bad, considering.

I am not a GP supporter, but I get tired of those who say voting for a third party is a waste of time. Or that Stein is somehow 'stealing' support that rightfully should go to Clinton.

People have every right to vote how they want - but it seems that the only people on Facebook who are telling me how to vote are the people who are trying to force me and others to vote for Clinton. I don't see Green Party activists abusing people and calling them all sorts of names because they won't vote Green.

[Adam White]

I would really like to see both Gary and Jill on the debate stage- it is such a weird political year anyway and all.

That could only be a good thing. More voices are needed. People need to feel like they have a choice.

[bencrix]

the fact that the USA has a first-past-the-post system doesn't help - those tend to create two-party systems over time

This is why third (or fourth) parties are likely not worth the time.

They can destabilize an election, then fade, e.g. Nader '00. (How many people who voted for him then are happy w/ the results?)

Or they may hope to be outflanked by one of the two mainstream parties' shifting ideology. (See Libertarians' influence on the GOP).

For rational actors, it is hard to see why voting for a 3rd party makes sense.

[Adam White]

For rational actors, it is hard to see why voting for a 3rd party makes sense.

Well, I don't eat meat because I don't like the idea of killing animals. But I appreciate that my actions alone won't really save animal lives.

And it is unlikely that a third party will gain traction, but it's not unheard of (e.g. the Republicans in the USA or Labour in the UK).

[coredumped]

For rational actors, it is hard to see why voting for a 3rd party makes sense.

It sends a message that you're unhappy with the 2 other candidates. Personally, I like the fact that I can vote against Hillary AND Trump! For me, there is no "lesser of 2 evils," they're both horrible options.

Plus, like I said, these things take time. The whig party wasn't destroyed over night. The party is on the right track, 15% with midwest voters:



By the way, for those interested, CNN will be hosting the second Libertarian town hall tonight:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/01/politics/libertarian-town-hall-gary-johnson-william-weld/

[bencrix]

Well, I don't eat meat because I don't like the idea of killing animals. But I appreciate that my actions alone won't really save animal lives.

I get your point - there are cases when rather than act rationally, we may choose to stand on principle.

That said, your analogy isn't quite apt and I think illustrates why "standing on principle" in the general election is not a good stand to take.

You make choices about what to eat 3 or more times a day (> 1,000 times per year) often directly influencing others (who you cook for, purchase food for, etc.). When you forego eating meat over time, you may actually save an animals' life on the margin.

You vote 0.25 times a year, with the ability to influence others only indirectly. When you vote for a third party, because of the way the electoral system works, the outcomes are a) it makes no difference, or b) you cause one of the two dominant parties to lose when they otherwise would have won.

In case (b), there is no mechanism for your principles to be represented in the resulting administration, and you risk empowering ideologies hostile to your principles. There is a chance over time that the penalized party adopts some of your principles, but the cycles are long w/ many intervening contingencies.

It would be as if by refusing to eat meat, you risk increasing the meat consumption of your friends and neighbors.

You are better off supporting 3rd parties at the local / state / congressional level. I think that is largely the 3rd parties' strategy, by the way.

[finehoe]

I get tired of those who say voting for a third party is a waste of time.

It is a waste...on the national level.  Third parties need to build their support on the local level, work their way up to the state, get some people elected to Congress, and then think about running a presidential candidate.  The way our system is designed, a third-party candidate will never win a national election.

[Downtown Osprey]

I get tired of those who say voting for a third party is a waste of time.

It is a waste...on the national level.  Third parties need to build their support on the local level, work their way up to the state, get some people elected to Congress, and then think about running a presidential candidate.  The way our system is designed, a third-party candidate will never win a national election.

So voting for someone that you align with is wasting your vote? No, it isn't. It's voting for who you truly believe in. Win or lose.