Libertarian Party

Libertarian Booster PAC Denies Supporting Robert Sarvis for Virginia Governor as Part of Democratic Party Plot

|

Wes Benedict, the longtime Texas Libertarian Party man and current executive director of the Libertarian National Committee, who founded the Libertarian Booster PAC, responds in a statement today to accusations floating around the right-wing world that his PAC only supported Robert Sarvis's LP campaign for governor of Virginia as a tool of moneyed Democratic Party interests, specifically donor Joe Liemandt (who had also given six figures to the Obama campaign in 2012).

Says Benedict:

I realize that, no matter what I say, paranoid right-wingers will think I'm a sneaky operative trying to help Democrats beat Republicans. This message is for the rational people out there.

I founded the Texas-based Libertarian Booster PAC in late 2011. Its purpose was to recruit and assist Libertarian Party candidates for public office. You can read more about it here.

In 2012, the PAC focused solely on non-federal races in Texas. With satisfactory accomplishments, and no partisan election happening in Texas in 2013, I looked to expand to other states where permitted by law. Virginia was one of two states with a gubernatorial election in 2013 plus state legislative elections, so it was an obvious choice.

Back at the end of 2008, a man contacted me expressing interest in the Libertarian Party. It turned out he was a successful high-tech entrepreneur. One of his comments was along the lines of, "What could the Libertarian Party do if it had a million dollars?" Naturally, I contact this man whenever I think I have a good idea that needs funding.

I've raised $300,000 from this donor for the Libertarian Booster PAC. He has provided very little in the way of instruction or advice regarding use of the money….

It was my idea, and my decision, to have the Libertarian Booster PAC help recruit Libertarian Party candidates in 2013 in Virginia. I even advertised about it in February.

According to The Blaze, "[Rush] Limbaugh said the Democrats enlisted a 'fake Libertarian candidate' who was 'bought and paid for by an Obama bundler.'" That's an outright lie, and Limbaugh should retract his claim.

My strategies and tactics have never been secret. They are common strategies in the Libertarian Party, and they are the same strategies promoted at the founding of the Libertarian Party. I try to publicize them any way I can. I've even written a book about them and included a chapter about PACs.

I want Libertarians to win elections. But I also want them to run for office even when they're unlikely to win. Why? To get the public to discuss and consider libertarian principles…

The total amount the Libertarian Booster PAC gave to Sarvis' campaign was barely over $11 thousand, by the way. Sarvis freely discussed the PAC's role in helping him get on the ballot in my October interview with him, hardly a good idea if that was the key to revealing he was some sort of Democratic plant all along.

Benedict points out that:

If I wanted to hurt the Republican in Virginia, I would have supported a right-wing candidate who sounded like a Tea Partier — who only talked about cutting welfare, Obamacare, and how bad Democrats are. I would never have helped someone like Robert Sarvis, who talked a lot about social issues that appeal to liberal voters. As it turned out, polls show that if Sarvis weren't in the race, McAuliffe would probably have won by a slightly bigger margin.

I'll be writing more extensively about the Sarvis campaign and its meaning for libertarianism and Libertarianism in American politics moving forward here next week.

Advertisement

NEXT: UK Spy Chiefs Go Public to Blast Snowden

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Let the hate flow through you, Team Red!

    1. A Libertarian candidate with a little money – the only thing scarier than a black man with a gun.

  2. paranoid right-wingers

    Man, I’m having some serious ’90s nostalgia right now.

    1. VRWC?

      1. Maybe a little militia on the side for fun.

    2. The conspiracy is vast, jesse. VAST.

  3. “I want Libertarians to win elections. But I also want them to run for office even when they’re unlikely to win. Why? To get the public to discuss and consider libertarian principles…”

    Hear, hear! By the way, did you hear how Lindsey Graham is wasting everyone’s time by introducing a bill that probably won’t pass?

    1. False equivalence. Graham’s warmed over culture-war BS is something the nation has already discussed and settled on. Freedom isn’t.

      1. It isn’t even settled on H&R, where there’s a whole lot of people with the same basic premises. How then can it be settled in the nation as a whole?

        1. Anyway, by your logic, the nation has already discussed and settled on the New Deal and the Great Society. And until a few years ago, they had discussed and settled the War on Dope, too.

      2. Cyto, I’m thinking that freedom is also something the nation has already discussed, and decided it doesn’t really want much, thanks.

        1. There is that whole “Fire!” in a crowded theater thing…. that just…won’t…fucking…die.

      3. Yes, abortion is certainly a settled issue in this country.

        1. Pizza and circumcision – as separate topics.

          Settled.

          1. So you like the new Papa John’s foreskin and pineapple pizza too? Mine was so good I gave the delivery guy a big tip.

    2. Heh. The irony of this thought on a libertarian website is immeasurable. Next thing you’ll tell us is that Cruz/Lee are clearly insane because the “shutdown” didn’t work.

      1. A Paul minion banned and censored me for tweeting the following: “Ron Paul says libertarians are insane to vote for Sarvis, a topic some say he is an expert on.”

  4. Sarvis was for expanded medicaide, a full buy in to Obamacare and putting a GPS on every car registered in Virginia. In fairness, maybe the Obama bundler liked him.

      1. If you don’t think mileage taxes aren’t a vertical slope, greased with triple-distilled KY, to a GPS on every car, you’re too naive to run for office.

        1. You may delete one (1) “n’t” from that post, at your discretion.

        2. Well, first of all, that doesn’t make what John said correct.

          Second of all, you can argue that, and that’s fine, but Sarvis had the mileage suggestion among a bunch of other suggested complete and total tax repeals.:

          Eliminating the Car Tax, which is unpopular;
          Eliminating the BPOL, Machine & Tools, Merchant Capital and other business taxes that hide the cost of taxation, burden employers, and reduce business activity;
          Eliminating, or dramatically reducing, the income tax, which reduces employment and lowers take-home pay;
          Moving to a uniform consumption tax on all final retail sales of goods and services.
          Reforming property taxes by excluding, or lowering the rate applied to, improvements to land;
          Prefering, where possible, user fees to general taxes.

          1. The interview below and his failure to deny Paul’s accusation does.

            1. Except it doesn’t. Sarvis has indicated that he doesn’t think GPS is necessary for the proposal. You may think that idea has flaws, but that doesn’t mean Sarvis supports GPS tracking.

              1. Shooting a gun near someone you think is threatening you might be a good idea – but if someone should die, the person with the gun cannot say “I didn’t see that coming.”

                So… how exactly would they get me to pay by mileage if not through either individual reporting – which I’m sure will be accurate – if not GPS?

      2. That is an interesting question. The charge has been made and the Sarvis supporters on here never denied it.

        The source of the charge is Ron Paul who claims Sarvis supports such. The source of that seems to be this MSNBC interview

        http://video.msnbc.msn.com/dai…..3#53145353

        About five minutes in Sarvis talks about transportation and the various libertarian use tax unicorns including giving his support to the idea of a millage tax.

        Now maybe he didn’t really support it and was speaking off hand there and not thinking. That is possible. But after Paul made the charge, you would have thought he would have walked away from it or clarified it to say “no I don’t support that or I want to do it in a way where we don’t use GPS”. But I can’t find any where he did.

        Considering that Ron Paul is kind of a big deal among the people whose votes that Sarvis was courting and the charge is pretty serious and widely reported, I can see no reason why Sarvis would not have repudiated the position if he didn’t in fact hold it.

        1. Unless you have some reason to doubt Ed Krayewski:

          At campaign rallies, Sarvis pointed out the tax doesn’t require GPS tracking?a standard odometer already tracks mileage.

          1. That sounds nice. But doing it that way, as opposed to using a GPS would defeat the purpose of the tax. The point of the tax is to tax each person by how much they use the roads. If you just read the odometer, you have no idea how many of those miles were done on Virginia roads. That is just as inaccurate and potentially unfair as a gas tax. And really more unfair since people near the border are likely to get really fucked.

            So I am sorry, I think he pulled that out of his ass after Paul called him on it. I have never heard of implementing a mileage tax like that. Every place that has talked about it used GPS. And using GPS is the only way it makes sense.

            So either Sarvis is lying or his is a moron who doesn’t understand his own proposal.

            1. Fuck off John. You said he explicitly advocated for GPS tracking in every car, and he very well did not, and now you’re just being the typical lying piece of shit you are to bluster and cover up your lie.

              1. And I granted you he said that. Now explain to me how he didn’t either pull that out of his ass or doesn’t understand how is own tax is supposed to work.

                Show me anywhere in the country where a millage tax has been proposed that involves reading an odometer versus GPS.

                I don’t know maybe Randian, maybe you are too stupid to understand how the tax works. But the rest of us are not and therefore find the “I am only going to read the odometer” excuse a bit unconvincing.

                1. John, you said, “Sarvis was for…putting a GPS on every car registered in Virginia.”

                  That was a lie. You are a liar. And now instead of admitting your lie, you’re attempting to say, “Well, because Sarvis SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that a mileage tax MAY HAVE led to GPS tracking, he was ‘for’ it and I was right!”

                  Fuck off. you lied.

                  1. No Randian. I didn’t lie. I took Sarvis at his word and made a rational conclusion from it. Turns out that was wrong. Sarvis never did explicitly say that. But that means he doesn’t understand his own tax and is an idiot. I didn’t think he would admit to being that stupid. But he did. Or more likely Sarvis is lying and only partisans like you and Bailey are dumb enough to believe him.

                    I am not sure that helps your cause.

              2. Yep. What we learned in this campaign is that Ron Paul GOPsters who are paid GOP hacks are just as big liars as the other GOP whores.

              3. Yep. What we learned in this campaign is that Ron Paul GOPsters who are paid GOP hacks are just as big liars as the other GOP whores.

            2. The reason the GPS thing was attached to Sarvis is because there was legislation submitted in 2011 which would have introduced a mileage tax — and this legislation would have required that private vehicles to have GPS black boxes installed on them. Sarvis made casual reference to that law.

              It is perfectly possible that he simply didn’t know what was in it and said “mileage tax, sounds good” — if so, that’s a really dumb and irresponsible mentality to take to a state capitol you’re ostensibly in charge of.

              Sorry guys, but I’m not any more impressed by all the LPartisans trying to blow Sarvis than I am by the GOPers who tell me to vote Red every election without fail.

              1. Sorry guys, but I’m not any more impressed by all the LPartisans trying to blow Sarvis than I am by the GOPers who tell me to vote Red every election without fail.

                So, in other words, you’re basically telling me what? That I shouldn’t have voted for Sarvis because he have been making an academic point without knowledge of a two-year-old bill?

                Compelling stuff, bro.

                1. I’m not telling you who to vote for, I’m telling you that you’re a hack as shown by your utter ignorance of how the voting system works, of your candidate, of your party, and by your unsubstantiated personal attacks against people who disagree with you on any of those factors.

                  In fact, the only person I’ve seen suggest that anyone on this board is a bad person for voting a certain way is you, towards anyone who votes other than L. That’s LPartisanship.

                2. That I shouldn’t have voted for Sarvis because he have been making an academic point without knowledge of a two-year-old bill?

                  No. They are telling you Sarvis is a shitty candidate. What that means to your vote is your business. If you want to vote partisan L because you like that or the others are worse, good for you. But stop pretending Sarvis is something different than what he is.

                  1. He was a great Libertarian candidate, and a damn sight better than both Cooch and McCauliffe.

                    1. He could be a bad L candidate and better than the others. But why is it so hard to admit his flaws? No one is perfect, least of all any politician.

                    2. You can’t even point to a flaw! He was spitballing ideas on Chuck Todd’s interview. Big fucking deal.

                    3. But then doubled down when Paul called him on it.

                    4. Are you kidding, John?

                      Ron Paul’s criticism of Sarvis was over the assumption that GPS’s would be required.

                      Sarvis said, “no, they wouldn’t be required”.

                      How is refuting Ron Paul’s mistake and now your compounding lie “doubling down”?

                    5. They have to be required, otherwise how could they only tax miles driven in Virginia? And not in Washington DC, where a lot of Virginians work?

                    6. And not in Washington DC, where a lot of Virginians work?

                      You know forty years ago Fairfax County was mostly farmland.

                      I weep for old Virginia. I really need to run for governor on a platform of building a big ol’ wall below Quantico.

                3. It’s GOPcare – they mandate that you buy the party platform with the coverage they know you need, not that shoddy platform you want to buy.

        2. Ron Paul has now lost all moral authority. Like Ayn or Murray in their dotages, he has become a nasty old crank. Fuck him.

    1. For me, easily the worst part of Sarvis’ campaign (and the reason I wouldn’t have voted for him) is that he was mouthing the same non-committal platitudes R’s mutter when they’re not really in favor of cutting spending. Oh yeah, Sarvis’ll be the one who will finally find all of that mythical “waste, fraud, and abuse” I’ve heard all about since the 80s. I’m sure that someone running on a platform of “gay marriage now, fiscal issues maybe” will be great on spending and taxes. The guy would not commit to almost anything — and to me, that is a great marker of someone who doesn’t know shit about how government works and how hard you have to fight to actually cut government.

      But he’s running as an L, so he must be great on spending despite having no record, not running a campaign to cut specific things from the budget, and having no details. When an R pol does that, it’s bad and means the won’t do shit about it in office. When an L pol does that, it’s good and clearly means that they will implement a bunch of cuts in office.

      Lots of people compared Sarvis to Gary Johnson’s NM campaign, but that comparison sucks: Johnson 1) gave specifics for what he was going to do and ran on them, and 2) went out of his way to be conciliatory to SoCons to the extent that his ideology permitted.

      1. That’s an excuse to not vote for Sarvis or only vote for ballot access or something. It’s not an excuse to vote for the other candidates.

        1. Agreed.

          1. I personally would have voted for him on ballot access alone but have no argument against not voting for him. I always press the straight ticket L button and only amend my votes from their if I know someone is truly awful or theirs an independent I like. The reason I can vote L straight ticket is because here in Texas we always get at least one or two statewide candidates over 10% and I want to keep that going.

            1. Sure, and that’s logically defensible since the candidate’s actual views have no bearing on that issue. The people I’m taking issue with are morons like NK who are being Team L hacks and not paying any sort of attention to who the hell their candidate is and what he supports.

              I’ve voted Team L in the past two Presidential elections — but I will go to my grave knowing that every one of those votes had nothing to do with the candidate I voted for winning, and knowing that some of the people I voted for were utter crapweasels.

              1. I know what Robert Sarvis stood for. Team Red took an interview where Sarvis was basically spitballing alternative ideas to implement something closer to user fees rather than taxes and is trying to concern troll libertarians about it.

                And I find it funny I was supposed to dump Sarvis for merely mentioning a mileage tax, which is one small thing, but i was supposed to embrace Ken “Transvaginal Probe” Cuccinnelli, for a similar token fealty to “economic freedom”.

                1. You’re not supposed to “embrace” anyone, you fucking dolt. Why the hell would dropping support for the L candidate require you to vote for anyone else, or even vote at all? And look closely at what the fuck I actually said, since I offered a reasonable explanation for Sarvis’ remarks entirely consistent with what you are suggesting.

                  Did you go to the same school of logic as the idiot GOP/Dem voters who tell you that “a vote for [anyone besides my candidate] is a vote for [mainstream opposing candidate]”?

                  1. You told me I didn’t know what he stood for. I did. I have no idea where you’re getting your unentitled sense of intellectual superiority.

                    1. I have no sense of intellectual superiority, I am (over)reacting to your unentitled arrogance and ignorance. John is right: the rationale for a mileage tax (as a close proxy for a user fee on roads) is diminished by using an imprecise measurement system like an odometer for the purpose. I subscribe to a more charitable interpretation — that Sarvis, like the rest of us, is human and didn’t think through what he was attaching support to by saying what in his mind was simply, “sounds like a cool idea”. It happens.

                      But no, Sarvis the Supergenius can never be in the wrong! He must have been articulating the perfect libertarian position — one going way over everyone’s head, and one which will assuredly be implemented in the perfect libertarian way. After all, he is an L.

                    2. John is right: the rationale for a mileage tax (as a close proxy for a user fee on roads) is diminished by using an imprecise measurement system like an odometer for the purpose.

                      John is attempting to bootstrap this statement to rehabilitate his lie that Sarvis explicitly supported GPS systems.

                    3. John is attempting to bootstrap this statement to rehabilitate his lie that Sarvis explicitly supported GPS systems.

                      No I am saying that Sarvis doesn’t understand how the mileage tax is supposed to work or he is lying. Which is it?

                    4. See, in order for you to say that, you have to establish an odometer reading wouldn’t work. Which you have not done.

                      And just to be clear, that isn’t what you initially said. You said:

                      “Sarvis was for…putting a GPS on every car registered in Virginia.”

                      Now you’re attempting to say that he didn’t understand how his own tax worked. Which is a far, far different thing from claiming he was explicitly advocating something.

                    5. See, in order for you to say that, you have to establish an odometer reading wouldn’t work. Which you have not done.

                      BS – you really are arrogant, aren’t you? Because only a skim reading shows this has been proven several times above… but since you’re apparently too smart to read, I’ll reiterate what others have already stated:

                      How do they charge only VA miles when many people in VA drive to DC for work, without utilizing some mechanism, like GPS, to know where the car is when it is getting those miles?

                      Or do you trust me to say out of the 15K miles I put on my car last year,14.5K of them weren’t in the state in which I live?

                      PS: Please feel free to reply with “never proved anything” – I need a good laugh.

                    6. You mean Sarvis, with a JD, and various Ivy League math degrees, and a masters in Econ from Mason, can’t imagine more ways to implement policy options than you can. You are most persuasive.

                      So you are telling me you know how a private road system would charge users? It can only be the way you know?

      2. What a silly twit you are. Shouldn’t all you dumb little bitches infest MoJo or NR or some other ragazine more on your level? Sarvis is co-author of 3 papers on the Mercatus Center website criticizing the stimulus, state government spending, and government regulation. I suggest you print them out, put them in a copy of Atlas Shrugged, and shove them up the other, more intelligent, orifice of your GI tract.

    2. Sarvis’s position was for mileage based user tax accomplished through an annual odometer reading. Now I don’t think that is a good idea, but he never advocated to have everyone’s car tracked through GPS. John is just making stuff up like usual.

      1. Sarvis’s position was for mileage based user tax accomplished through an annual odometer reading

        Show me where he said that. I can’t find it. All I can find is the interview and the Ron Paul statement I talk about above.

      2. And see above. He said that after Paul called him on it. And it makes no sense to read the odometer. I thought you people were supposed to be better than typical partisan. Just because Sarvis has an “L” after his name doesn’t mean he can’t be an idiot or a crap weasel.

        1. Now John is very concerned with the purity of our Libertarian candidates. What’s that phrase again? Oh yeah – concern trolling.

          We’re aware of our own intellectual diversity, John. I’m not going to have some Team Red whore like you tell me that someone who has differing ideas on libertarianism isn’t a libertarian when it happens to suit your ends.

          1. Yeah Randian, I know, you can’t defend Sarvis and are too much of a partisan to admit the obvious so you will now call everyone names and scream Red Team!!!

            We know the routine. Wouldn’t it be easier to just say “yeah, Sarvis was wrong to support that”?

            You don’t do yourself any favors here and it will make the next time you start screaming team at someone else a bit ironic to say the least.

            1. I can defend Sarvis. I have defended Sarvis – multiple times, by pointing out that he explicitly did not advocate for GPS tracking in cars, which is something you said he DID support.

              He wasn’t wrong to support an odometer reading and you are a liar for saying he supported GPS tracking.

        2. The idea just doesn’t make sense with the odometer only. Maybe he hasn’t thought it through. Maybe he’s fos.

          1. You have no idea how a market would handle it if roads wee privately owned. If you are so smart, how come you aren’t rich?

    3. J: With due respect you have fallen for GOP disinformation. I personally talked with Sarvis about those claims and this is what he told me:

      He specifically denied wanting to install “black box” mileage trackers, but did suggest that all cars currently carry a device that measures how many miles they travel which might be used to assess such a tax. The device? An odometer.

      He is NOT in favor expanding Medicaid as some rumors have claimed. He would move toward more privatization with regard to health care for the poor or as a second best alternative perhaps ask that all Federal Medicaid money be sent as a block grant so that the state could design its own program.

      Hope that helps. Don’t believe everything the GOP tells you.

      1. He specifically denied wanting to install “black box” mileage trackers, but did suggest that all cars currently carry a device that measures how many miles they travel which might be used to assess such a tax. The device? An odometer.

        That would defeat the entire purpose of a millage tax Ron. There is no way to tell how many of those miles are driven on Virginia roads. It would be just as inaccurate and unfair as a gas tax.

        Show me anywhere in the country where someone has advocated administering such a tax by odometer. I have never seen it becuase it would destroy the reason behind the tax.

        What you are telling me Ron is that Sarvis doesn’t’ understand how the tax he supported is supposed to work.

        You not helping his cause.

        He would move toward more privatization with regard to health care for the poor or as a second best alternative perhaps ask that all Federal Medicaid money be sent as a block grant so that the state could design its own program.

        I don’t even know what that means Ron. Seriously, privatize how? Doing what? And I guess he could ask for a unicorn with that block grant too.

        Really Ron. Come on. You are smart enough to see through that.

        1. So now we have John saying that both Ed Krayewski and Ron Bailey are either liars or dupes. All in service to the fact that John lied and won’t retract.

          1. I never called them liars. Ron is not lying. Sarvis does claim to want to use an odometer.

            The problem is that doing that makes no sense and defeats the purpose of the tax. Now if you have something to say about that issue, please do.

            But do me a favor and stop claiming I am calling Bailey a liar when I am clearly not.

            1. Then retract what you said about Sarvis. You said he supported putting GPS’s in cars. He didn’t.

              1. I just did you half wit. But that means he doesn’t understand his own tax.

                That is a bit puzzling. I can’t read Sarvis’ mind. But it seems likely that he just pulled that out of his ass after he started taking heat about the millage tax. I find it difficult to believe that anyone who supports a millage tax would think reading odometers yearly would be the way to do it.

            2. So you’re calling them dupes.

          2. John is clearly one of those lifeboat emergency cases that Ayn Rand wrote about, where the NAP no longer applies. Does anyone have his address? I just bought a new baseball bat and some rusty nails, and I am running low on cat food.

      2. I personally talked with Sarvis

        +1 doing actual journalism, Ron! In all seriousness, thank you.

        Now, back to being a snarky, juvenile HyR regular…

      3. The odometer thing doesn’t really make sense. It taxes VA cars for miles out of state and out of state car not at all. There is no congestion fee. It’s better just to tax fuel than tax odometer miles. Ask a reason transportation guy.

    4. Sorry John you are a liar. He denied those things when asked on the campaign trail. Your masters kept him out of debates so he couldn’t be asked about any of that , and then threw the mud in the last few days, bitches that you, and they, are. I drove his RV for the last few days of the campaign with him riding shotgun, and heard him being interviewed by reporters. He is wonkish and answers policy questions like the Mercatus fellow he was, not a flame throwing Clicktivist. I dare you to find any statement about installing any device in a car. He mused that current taxes would be better scrapped and replaced with a mileage based charge. He didn’t say anything about a surveillance device. And I don’t think he even said the road owner doing the charging needed to be the government.

  5. I want Libertarians to win elections.

    That won’t happen in national politics until one of the two major parties is destroyed and Libertarians serve as a functional replacement. If you think the LP in its current form can do that — or that if it does change into that, that it won’t start caring more about winning elections than principles — I have a very attractive investment offer from a Nigerian prince you might want to look into.

    1. Yes, TIT, we know, VOTE REPUBLICAN OR ELSE. God, do you guys ever get tired of beating the same drum?

      1. Team Red loves us, NLK. It really does. It only hits us because we make it so crazy sometimes.

      2. WTF are you talking about. I said nothing about voting R, L, or anything else. I am saying a fundamental truth about our system: it is first past the post winner-take-all and thus tends towards a duopoly. The Ls suck, will always suck, and are institutionally incapable of being a mainstream national party — if you want to start a third party with the intention of replacing one of the other two then do that, but realize that the Ls are not the right party to do that with. If you want to vote for the Ls irrespective of whether they will win, or if you have some other reason to vote L (maybe libertarian Jesus told you to), feel free to do that too — just don’t feed me bullshit about a completely dysfunctional party being anything but a place for losers.

        1. Hmm, when you constantly pimp the duopoly and then clearly and openly prefer one party to the other, consistently, I can’t imagine what your agenda might be.

          1. Honest to god, you are just as retarded and terrible at understanding political incentives as progs are at understanding economic incentives. I’m not pimping the duopoly you fucking moron, I’m pointing out its existence as a natural tendency of a FPTP system. I am all for having a system other than FPTP for national elections.

            Seriously, read a fucking book about electoral politics sometime. You might actually learn something. Hell, here’s a link pro bono:

            http://www.electoral-reform.or…..-the-post/

            1. First past what post? You’ll note that McCauliffe won with a plurality of the vote.

              1. A first-past-the-post (abbreviated FPTP or FPP) election is one that is won by the candidate with more votes than any other(s).

                Get a fucking clue.

                1. To expand and give the 15 second overview.

                  In FPTP or “winner take all” races, there’s no point in having small issue oriented parties. They’ll never get elected, and will be mostly irrelevant. (See LP, Greens, Communists, Socialists, Constitution Party).

                  The main reason is psychological. Most people don’t want to vote for a loser, and don’t want to waste their vote. They feel like voting for a candidate that gets single digit percentages is wasteful, and thus either stay home or vote for the least evil “big player”.

                  1. It’s kind of amazing that we’re saying FPTP races render third-parties irrelevant when we’re talking about Robert Sarvis who uh…did what again?

                    1. What would you say Sarvis did? I understand that apparently some Team Red crybabies think he lost them the election, but that is not suggested by the data. He certainly didn’t win an election.

                      So tell me, NK: what do you think Sarvis did, and how was it good for libertarians?

                    2. Raised the visibility of libertarian ideas considerably.

                    3. LOL. The only ad he put out was for gay marriage, and his MSM Chuck Todd interview on MSNBC was mealy-mouthed and unspecific to the point where it could have come out of any R or D’s mouth.

                    4. So we’ve now moved the goalposts where you first said that I didn’t know what he stood for (I did), then you asked what he did (gained national attention and raised libertarian ideas) and now you’re just claiming that he wasn’t specific enough in his interview.

                      Woo, that’s some good argumentation there.

                    5. No, you fucking fool. If your contention is that he “raised libertarian ideas”, the onus is on you to prove it. I am noting that the two points in the campaign where he gained national attention (his gay marriage commercial and his Chuck Todd interview) did not do such a thing.

                      As to your ignorance, you are still asserting that Sarvis was excellent on fiscal issues and far better than McAuliffe or Cooch — which is simply not substantiated by his statements on the campaign trail or by a public record. In fact, during the Chuck Todd interview (am I the only one who actually watched it?) he suggested that we should be concentrating on occupational and licensing laws as a way to maintain current (or larger, depending on how one interprets his remarks on Medicaid expansion) levels of government. This is slightly better your average R’s boilerplate, but not by much and it was certainly thin gruel in the context of that race.

                      Now, go forth and find evidence for your contention regarding “raising the profile of libertarian ideas”.

                    6. Wow, so is the Chuck Todd interview your only source for Sarvis’s views? His positions on his campaign site are crystal clear. It’s pretty obvious to me you know nothing about Sarvis BUT this Chuck Todd interview, which is pretty goddamn convenient.

                    7. No, I’ve looked at what is listed in his “Issues” page (which is quite vague, as most “Issues” pages are), his campaign ads, and statements made to the press. Apparently you have satisfied yourself with reading your views into his vague “Issues” page.

                      I did enjoy this bit from his campaign site:

                      I’m the only candidate for Governor who understands health-care economics

                      LOL

                    8. You looked at all the issues and still determined Ken Cuccinelli is more fiscally conservative? Then you’re an idiot. Scaling back the Drug War is a massive fiscal boon to those states that do it. Eliminating regulations is as well.

                      I did enjoy this bit from his campaign site:

                      I’m the only candidate for Governor who understands health-care economics

                      What the fuck is so funny about that? I didn’t see any evidence either member of TEAM BE RULED knew anything about it.

                    9. You are simply ignorant. Sarvis has a record on fiscal issues, several papers on the a Mercatus website for instance. You are just a dumb, lying hack. Flush.

                    10. Unfortunately he didn’t get automatic ballot access for Libertarians.

                    11. Helped elect a sleazeball from the Even Bigger and More Intrusive Party.

                    12. Is Randian seriously denying that a first past the post system will always tend toward a duopoly? Because that’s just reality. Which is why many libertarians advocate for fundamental election reforms like instant runoff voting.

                  2. Sarvis was more cost effective than Cuccinelli. Sarvis spent $2.60 per vote, Ken spent $14 a vote.

                  3. Sarvis was more cost effective than Cuccinelli. Sarvis spent $2.60 per vote, Ken spent $14 a vote.

    2. Yes you retard but unless the LP is organized and has achieved permanent ballot status and voters know it exists and it has been getting larger and larger shares of the vote, all of which it has been doing, it won’t be there when one of the old parties dissolves.

  6. “Back at the end of 2008, a man contacted me expressing interest in the Libertarian Party. It turned out he was a successful high-tech entrepreneur. One of his comments was along the lines of, “What could the Libertarian Party do if it had a million dollars?” Naturally, I contact this man whenever I think I have a good idea that needs funding.”

    No, no, that was the wrong response. He should have said, “take that filthy Democrat money and begone, sinner!”

  7. “What could the Libertarian Party do if it had a million dollars?”

    Squander it.

    1. I believe there’s a Barenaked Ladies song for that…

      [WARNING: BNL CONTENT IN LINK MAY BE FATAL TO SMALL CHILDREN; PEOPLE WITH GOOD MUSIC TASTE]

      1. Worst band maybe ever. Nothing worse than someone who thinks they are funny but are not.

      2. It was done better 70 years earlier. (Unfortunately, I don’t think it’s on DVD.)

      3. [WARNING: BNL CONTENT IN LINK MAY BE FATAL TO SMALL CHILDREN; PEOPLE WITH GOOD MUSIC TASTE]

        You’re dead to me.

    2. Like the Virginia GOP just did with $14 million you mean?

  8. That said, who really cares about this race. It was an outlier borne from bad candidates running bad campaigns, shutdown politics (IMO this loss was a perfectly reasonable opportunity cost for what we gained), and one incredibly stupid remark on the part of the Cooch.

    It is not truly representative of what we can expect in the future.

    1. It is not truly representative of what we can expect in the future.

      So it was an election decided by idiotic social issues and “gaffes” blown completely out of proportion between two incompetent campaigns?

      Sure you don’t want to reconsider your last statement?

      1. Huh. Point taken…

        We are fucked — thanks, social issues!

    2. Bad candidates? I doubt we’ve seen the last of those.

      Running bad campaigns? Ditto.

      Stupid remarks? Uh-huh.

      “Shutdown” politics? Maybe not, but some close variation of “The Other Team wants to take your free shit away” will be with us always.

      I don’t see why this isn’t a perfectly ordinary election that will be repeated many times.

  9. I blame Bush.

  10. The new governor is going to be made for TV entertainment. And when Virginia is a swing state in 2016 instead of having Cuccunilli piss away two years of competent government by saying something stupid, we will have a Dem governor who is attached at the hip with Hillary and spent the last two years giving it to the Virginia voters good and hard.

    McAuliffe winning was a disaster for small government and nothing to be happy about. But for the national GOP, it is probably going to work out pretty well.

    1. Well for VA it was bad, but I don’t see any downsides to McAuliffe winning for my interests in AZ.

    2. The General Assembly will keep him in check. The House is solid GOP. If the Dem wins the AG recount and leaves the Senate, then that could swing 21-19 in GOP’s favor too. Gun control? No. Tax hike? No. Oh he will try and he’ll do minimal damage through executive order but it will be Kaine’s 2nd term.

      1. The Assembly won’t stop him from stealing.

        1. I can’t wait to see if he gets away with it.

          1. If Hillary wins in 2016, he resigns and becomes her Chief of Staff or takes a cabinet position to keep from getting indicted.

    3. If the Virginia GOP delegates had any brains, McAuliffe would be under investigation his whole term and under indictment before 2016.

  11. On the “pulling votes from Cuccinelli” issue, what makes anyone think that Sarvis voters would have voted for anyone if Sarvis had not been on the ballot? Most likely they would simply have sat home. That is the fallacy of the “pulling votes” argument. It overlooks the fact that third party voters were likely dissatisfied with both candidates. All that Sarvis “pulled” were very likely those voters who otherwise would not have voted at all.

    1. N2: Gillespie and other my colleagues have already dealt with the “pulled from” claim – more Sarvis voters would have gone to Mac over Cooch.

      1. But that doesn’t tell you if they would have actually voted Ron. That is a counter factual we will never know.

        1. Well it actually does if you follow the links all the way through you see this:

          Finally, while it didn’t change the outcome, the third-party candidate in the race, Libertarian Robert Sarvis, may have made it closer for McAuliffe than it would have been otherwise. Had he not been on the ballot, a third of his voters said they’d have supported McAuliffe ? slightly more than twice as many as said they’d have gone for Cuccinell

          That means about half said they would not vote for either. Of course, we don’t know what they would actually have done if Sarvis didn’t exist but that’s the case with any exit poll.

          1. Support doesn’t mean go out and vote. You really can’t tell either way. How many of those Cuccinilli second choice voters would have gone out and voted in a two party race and how many of the McAuliffe second choice voters would have as opposed to just “supporting” one side or another are two numbers we can never know.

            Clearly both groups didn’t like either guy and voted for Sarvis in protest. If the protest option wasn’t there, some or a lot of them just wouldn’t have bothered.

            I don’t see how you can make a judgement one way or another.

            1. I would assume support in the context of an exit poll with somebody who just voted would mean that. In any case I conceded that an exit poll can’t capture what happened in an alternative universe. It’s about the only data point we have, saying about half of them would have stayed home is all we got.

        2. Come on, John

          PWND

          Give it up. Ron PWND you twice. It’s over.

        3. “That is a counter factual we will never know.”

          So is the implication that Sarvis spoiled it for Cuccinelli. If counterfactuals are off the table then shut up about that.

      2. More importantly most of them said they would stay home.

  12. Benedict should be saying, “Yes, I’m trying to make the GOP establishment cry.” Them having a reason to cry would be good for the country.

    1. You Know Who Else wants the GOP Establishment to cry?

      1. Clint Eastwood?

    2. The GOP Establishment had better not be crying. They let their party’s candidate be vastly outspent, and he still almost pulled it off. They should be blaming themselves, not Sarvis.

  13. Ron Paul Speaks At Ken Cuccinelli Rally : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJNuv-NcQM8

    Primary Obama Campaign Donor Paying For Sarvis’ VA Race?

    Read more: http://benswann.com/primary-ob…..z2jzviDZYK
    Follow us: @BenSwann_ on Twitter

  14. ITT Randian becomes an L-Drone and argues with R-drones.

  15. What an appropriate last name he has. Oh the irony!

  16. Who cares about PAC’s? Political action is usually an act of aggression. Voting is always an act of aggression.

  17. If you can’t fathom that the $11,000 of this Democrats money that went to Sarvis is only 3% of the over $380,000 spent on his campaign, can you be expected to do basic math?

    If you can’t grasp that the Virginia LP always gets a gubernatorial candidate on the ballot, with or without a wealthy or Democratic donor, then you are such a low information voter you are doomed to be cannon fodder for consultant class failed campaigns.

    Sarvis spent $2.60 a vote, Cuccinelli $14 a vote, McAuliffe $21 a vote. Its laughable to think Sarvis bought an election. If he had had either of the other candidates money, many people who never even knew he was running would have voted for him. And that is what will be happening in the future.

  18. If you can’t fathom that the $11,000 of this Democrats money that went to Sarvis is only 3% of the over $380,000 spent on his campaign, can you be expected to do basic math?

    If you can’t grasp that the Virginia LP always gets a gubernatorial candidate on the ballot, with or without a wealthy or Democratic donor, then you are such a low information voter you are doomed to be cannon fodder for consultant class failed campaigns.

    Sarvis spent $2.60 a vote, Cuccinelli $14 a vote, McAuliffe $21 a vote. Its laughable to think Sarvis bought an election. If he had had either of the other candidates money, many people who never even knew he was running would have voted for him. And that is what will be happening in the future.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.