Voting Republican Is the Smart Choice for Libertarians

There are liberty GOP candidates on the ballot. Let's not give those up to Democrats by voting Libertarian, says Grover Norquist.

This article is part of a series on the libertarian vote in the 2014 midterm election. Here's the first set of arguments from Democrats, Libertarians, Republicans. Read today's alternative perspectives from the other parties here and here.

You only have one vote. How best to use it to advance liberty?

A libertarian preparing to vote in a House or Senate race this November that features three candidates, a Republican, a Democrat and a Libertarian must make a decision.

Will voting for the Libertarian candidate add one more vote for a losing candidate that may win one or two or five percent of the vote and thereby convince America of the strength of the libertarian movement and the power of its ideas? Will the newscasters announce the libertarian vote and muse on how it grew from one percent to two percent? Maybe.

If the Democrat Senate candidate in North Carolina or Virginia wins by a narrow margin because several hundred or thousands of liberty voters voted for the libertarian third party candidate rather than the Republican Senate candidate how will this be understood by the media and by the national electorate? Will the media announce that the Democrat victories are actually a demonstration of the growing strength of the libertarian movement? Or will they argue the nation voted for big government? What message does your "message" vote send?

Richard Tisei, the gay pro-liberty Republican candidate for the House of Representatives in the 6th congressional district in Massachusetts lost by 3,650 votes in 2012. The libertarian candidate, Dan Fishman, won 16,668 votes. The winner, Democrat John Tierney was a consistent vote for statism for his entire career and the past two years. He just lost his primary to a young self-described "progressive" whom Joe Biden just went to Massachusetts to endorse; fortunately Tisei is running again. This time the Libertarians have decided not to field a candidate; in fact, Fishman is supporting Tisei, who may win this November. What lesson did Massachusetts libertarians learn from 2012?

In 2006, Montana's Republican Senator Conrad Burns lost to his Democrat opponent Tester by 3,562 votes. The Libertarian Candidate Stan Jones captured 10,377 votes. Tester's win meant that Obama had 60 votes in December 2009 and could pass Obamacare. That one vote passed a bill designed to fail into single-payer over time. Did the "too cool for school" libertarians advance liberty when they voted that day?

"But I want to advance liberty as rapidly and as powerfully as possible. Isn't voting for the Libertarian candidate sending a stronger signal that there is a real demand in the electorate for greater liberty than voting for the 'lesser of two evils' Republican?"

Well who is getting this message? When you watch the TV commentators on election night the tally they put up on the board is either, one, Republicans win and the nation wants lower taxes and spending and an end to Obamacare or two, Democrats win the Senate and the nation wants Obama's growing government. We don't get to write the script.

Liberty activists should remember that voting is only one political act. Speaking with your siblings, co-workers, neighbors, children and parents provides daily opportunities to advance liberty and multiply the voice and power of the liberty movement. Call your grandparents. Speak with the waitress. Don't whine that Republican candidates do not talk about liberty. You talk about liberty to everyone who will listen. Whining about other people is not work. It is whining. The struggle against statism is a great deal of work and the only person you control is you. Be the calm, coherent voice for liberty you wish the Republican candidate for Senate was.

Hollywood producer Sam Goldwyn used to tell writers, "If you want to send a message, use Western Union." Not every political message had to be jammed into "his" movie. Liberty activists know that the Internet now allows us to share tweets, Instagram pics, Facebook posts, simple e-mails, and whatever was invented last week and I haven't heard of yet.

I would argue that if the election is close or might be close the smart move is to vote for the Republican. The corollary of that is that if a particular election is not close—and every election day has a number of elections at the same time (congress, Senate, state legislature, governor, mayor)—then "send a signal" with a vote for the Libertarian. And if you are a potential libertarian candidate, organize your campaigns so that you can honestly look any liberty voter in the eye and accurately assert that there is no opportunity cost of casting a "message" vote for you on this particular ballot this year.

Comments

[The Late P Brooks]

No kidding?

[Swiss Servator, spare a franc?]

Gah, this isn't going to stop until after Election Day, is it?

[Heroic Mulatto]

Well, I say those concerned about taxation, deficit spending, and the gentrification of Burning Man should vote Libertarian.

How do you like them apples, Norquist?

[Gordilocks]

+1 Mutant Get-Out-The-Vote Art Car.

[Florida Man]

Here is the thing. I started out life as a republican. They had my vote and lost it by never once shrinking government or deficits or expanding liberty. I didn't get the things I wanted by voting GOP so I might as well vote my conscience and still not get what I want.

[AlmightyJB]

They say they going to do those things if you vote for them and then they don't so fuck them. Tina Turner I ain't.

[Heroic Mulatto]

Good.

Cuz, we don't need another hero! We don't need to know the way home! All we want is life beyond the Groverdome...

[Florida Man]

I didn't think you ran barter town.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Conrad Burns as his example? Really. Tester's awful, but so was Burns.

[Leo]

I'm sympathetic to this argument if the Republican candidate is at all decent, but the Republicans are going to have to try a hell of a lot harder than Ed Gillespie.

[Drake]

Yep. I'll vote for Scott Garrett, but don't fucking think about nominating another Bush.

[Florida Man]

I'd vote for Randolph Scott

[Warren's Strapon]

Randolph Scott?!?!

[Slammer]

Whatever happened tgo randolph Scott?

[Swiss Servator, spare a franc?]

*removes cowboy hat, look reverently toward horizon*

[some guy]

Ha! Gillespie or Warner. Choose the form of the destroyer. For Grover's argument to work the Republican candidate needs to have at least one redeeming quality.

[Ken Shultz]

Legislating libertarian is the smart choice for Republicans.

[Ken Shultz]

Meanwhile, establishment Republican treat their own--Tea Party Republicans who are serious about spending cuts--like they're the lunatic enemy.

As a libertarian, I don't think the Tea Party people want to go anywhere near far enough on spending cuts, and I'm supposed to think establishment Republican are going to treat libertarians better than their own Tea Party people?!

How stupid do they think we are?

[bassjoe]

Very, is the answer.

[wareagle]

and there it is- Grover hopes you will notice the massive chasm between GOP candidates and the entrenched old guard.

[LynchPin1477]

So much this. The Tea Party started out as a fairly libertarian-friendly movement. They sent people to Washington.

I'll vote for an individual Republican candidate if they are good. I'll vote for an individual Democrat candidate if they are good. What I won't do is buy into the team bull shit that has done nothing to advance liberty over the portion of my life that I've been old enough to pay attention.

[derpules]

Why does the GOP think it has a claim to Libertarian votes? We don't get this shit from the Dems.

[Florida Man]

Because we are radical right wingers? The GOP doesn't send mailers to communist.

[some guy]

The GOP pretends to support liberty, so they think we should support them. They don't understand why we judge them based on their deeds rather than their rhetoric. The Dems openly deride liberty and so they openly deride us.

[The_Millenial]

Well, I'll definitely never vote for a Republican in the mold of McCain or Lindsey Graham. The GOP hawks remain a huge problem. After all, they essentially want an activist American government to solve many of the world's problems via violence. What could go wrong...

[bassjoe]

They want an activist American government in foreign affairs which, invariably, leads to a domestic activist government.

And, even though it's incredibly expensive to go to war every 4 months halfway around the world, they also want tax cuts...while not substantially cutting non-military spending.

It's truly mind boggling.

[The_Millenial]

Also, incredibly destabilizing at home and abroad.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

What Norquist should be doing is writing articles to the GOP faithful that they should support more libertarian Republicans like Amash and Paul.

[Wicked Skin]

Exactly, it is not up to us to cave for the GOP, it is up to them to EARN our votes. Period.

[Bill Dalasio]

Actually, Bo, he kind of does...
http://www.againstcronycapital.....hes-right/

[AlmightyJB]

It's a trick!

[Swiss Servator, spare a franc?]

"Its a trap!"

[Ken Shultz]

"It's a cookbook!"

[PM]

"It's a floor wax AND a dessert topping!"

[Wicked Skin]

Like voting actually even matters. Government only grows, liberty only shrinks, picking one douche bag over another douche bag changes nothing, well, it may make you feel like you have a voice, but that's all you get, a feeling, cause your vote means shit.

[The_Millenial]

It is easy to be cynical, but we must remember that economic prosperity and liberty (a bit harder to pin down) have steadily increased over time. It is an international phenomenon as well. There have been major hiccups, but I remain optimistic.

[Ken Shultz]

"We must remember that economic prosperity and liberty (a bit harder to pin down) have steadily increased over time."

That is largely true despite the politicians we've had--not because of them.

[Sevo]

"That is largely true despite the politicians we've had--not because of them."

People continue to trade regardless of the political pressure; YAAA!

[some guy]

People continue to trade regardless of the political pressure; YAAA!

And I think this will become easier over time. In the past leaders controlled people by controlling the flow of information. That got a lot harder over the last generation.

[The_Millenial]

I made no mentions of politicians though.

[Ken Shultz]

What you were responding to was all about how voting for politicians doesn't really matter one way or the other.

I don't think he's being cynical, exactly.

To whatever extent we've continued to grow economically, it's been despite, certainly, what Bush and Obama have done.

And the biggest threats to our liberty come from politicians--if we have more liberty than we used to (and debatable over the 14 years), again, that's despite what our politicians have done--not because of it.

[The_Millenial]

I was approaching the issue over the long-term and with a global perspective, so that likely has something to do with the mix-up.

I agree that the vast majority of politicians are not worth voting for, but there have been and still are some exceptions. An active and vigilant citizenry will always be more important though.

[Ken Shultz]

Yeah, there is something weird about saying that the world would be a better place if we all got to make choices for ourselves (instead of having politicians make our choices for us) out of one side of our mouths--and then saying, out of the other, that the world would be a better place if only we had more Republican representatives, too.

I always found that argument really appealing. ...and then Obama took office. ...and now it looks like Rand Paul will run for office.

I think I've carved out an exception out of that idea that when we vote, our participation only serves to legitimize the horrible shit the winners want to do to us. Sometimes, the asshole in chief is so bad, you gotta do something different. ...and Obama is one of those assholes.

Furthermore, if Rand Paul somehow got into the White House, I think it really would strike the biggest blow for liberty we've seen since the Soviet Union collapsed and China abandoned total central planning. There must be some exceptions to the general rule.

[Florida Man]

Why would rand Paul be a blow to liberty Ken?

[The_Millenial]

He said that he would strike a blow for liberty.

[Ken Shultz]

Thank you.

[Florida Man]

That is why I asked. I thought I was misreading him.

[Vjklander]

Rand Paul is still a radical religious extremist. If you think the Taliban in Afghanistan is a danger to the world, I submit that the Evangeliban running the USA is worse. Q.E.D.

[Redmanfms]

Hey look everybody, an idiot.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Will the media announce that the Democrat victories are actually a demonstration of the growing strength of the libertarian movement? Or will they argue the nation voted for big government? What message does your "message" vote send?

The question is what message it will send to future GOP candidates. The Democrats aren't going to move away from big government. Your only hope is that the GOP will.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

There we go - the very fact that Norquist is here making these arguments shows that he is aware of how libertarian movements can sabotage the Reps. This gives him talking points with the Reps to be the Jeff to you guys' Mutt. "Look, those libertarians won't listen to reason, they're so extreme, they won't vote for you just because they're scared of the Democrats, you'll just have to do something credible about the deficit, war on drugs, etc., if you don't want them to throw the election to Democrats!"

[Bill Dalasio]

While I'm a registered and modestly active Republican, and generally respect Norquist, I think he's grossly oversimplifying this one. The fact is that there really are Republicans who just aren't good for liberty. And libertarians refusing to vote for them is the optimal choice. If the Republicans run a Rick Santorum, you're simply not advancing libertarian ideals by voting for him, no matter who the Democrat is. Moreover, you're probably not sending trying to send a message to the newscasters. You're probably trying send a message to the Republican party leadership. And yes, they'll notice that the margins could have put them over the top.

Bottom line, to me, is that I'd suggest libertarians vote with their libertarianism as a screen. Is the Republican candidate acceptable to you, given your libertarian beliefs (even if he's not as libertarian as the Libertarian)? If so, vote for him. Otherwise, I don't think the Republicans deserve a lock on the libertarian vote.

[Jima]

Man, you hit the nail right on the head. The Republican party leadership needs to keep getting that message.

[Citizen Nothing]

My problem is that here in Ohio, the Republican candidates are NEVER acceptable given my libertarian beliefs. That is not hyperbole.

[Citizen Nothing]

Conversely, the Dems are usually not so bad (I don't live in Cleveland) as to force me to vote against them defensively.
In fact, one of the best Ohio politicians is the technocratic Dem mayor of C'bus.

[Citizen Nothing]

But to clarify, I never vote Dem, either.

[Bill Dalasio]

Then my advice is to keep voting Libertarian until they do.

[creech]

"You only have one vote. How best to use it to advance liberty?"

One vote means nothing. It may mean something if you persuade your friends to vote too, or lead a group that is going door to door, or whatever. But one vote means nothing (maybe in a local dog catcher race it does). Libertarians votes only mean something when they are accumulated in a fashion that can be measured and seen: as Libertarian Party votes. Otherwise, they are lost unseen in and among the GOP or Dem votes. The best way to advance libertarian principles is to keep building the LP vote higher and higher.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

In my community, I never see "Dog Catcher" in the ballot. Is that still a thing?

[AlmightyJB]

"You only have one vote. How best to use it..."

How many bit coins you offering?

[sarcasmic]

IT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION OF OUR LIFETIME!

YOU CAN'T THROW YOUR VOTE AWAY!

MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION EVER!

AAAAAAAUUUUUGGGGHHHHH!

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Sort of on-topic:

Slate has an article about 'how the GOP turned a Democratic stronghold (WV) into a Red State.' Apart from how it frames this (the Democrats, especially Obama, have turned that state Red by giving its citizens the back of their hand for so long). But check out the smarmy lack of empathy and overall jerkiness of this 'top comment'

"Pardon me for thinking it's a bad idea for a state's economy to be so dependent on a limited natural resource that's quickly being supplanted by cleaner, more efficient energy sources. And pardon me for thinking that such a state should work on diversifying its economy and training its workforce for jobs that will be relevant well into the 21st century, instead of concentrating their attacks on the boogeyman in the White House."

http://www.slate.com/articles/.....=230267549

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Translation: 'People like me have worked to destroy the economic opportunities West Virginians have and choose, how dare they be so backward as to not just work around our coercions.'

[wareagle]

it's not the party's "liberty candidates" that are the issue; it's the party's anti-liberty incumbents.

[Pro Libertate]

Want my vote? Run more libertarian candidates, make your platform more libertarian friendly, and, above all, do things to drastically cut spending, reduce the size and scope of government, and free Americans, our businesses, and our market.

[Sevo]

^ + 5 votes (from me and my dead grandparents)

[wareagle]

and there's the cognitive dissonance - GOPer candidates often talk about doing those things and people respond by electing them. Then in office, they don't do those things and wonder why people get skeptical.

[sarcasmic]

They can't do those things. Those things are political suicide. Cut wealth transfer programs and people stop getting free shit. You just lost votes. Cut regulation and now people who enforce and write the regulation just lost their jobs. They will be voting for someone else. Cut government programs and now the recipients lose their free shit while the people who administer the programs lose their jobs. They certainly will not vote for you.

Only someone with no plans of be reelected will be willing to cut government, and chances are they will be replaced by someone promising to undo the cuts.

[LynchPin1477]

But as a libertarian, I don't need someone to run a platform of completely eliminating welfare programs and regulation. I can support a candidate that is serious about reforming those programs, and there are viable ideas for doing so. A party that made that case intelligently could be successful. Yes, you'll piss off hardcore progressives and people who directly work for government, but if you do it well, you can make up for that by attracting others.

[Catatafish]

The exception I'd take from this are supposed "conservative" Baby Boomers on up. They'll be plenty pissed off by just means testing Medicare and SSI.

[wareagle]

then stop telling me you're going to do those things and just be the free shit magnate you aspire to be. At least Dems do not insult my intelligence by pretending they'll cut any of this stuff. They do it by saying someone else's problems are my fault. In other words, if you have no intention of being the party of limited govt, stop with the bullshit.

[Idle Hands]

What does Arnold think about this?

I get to vote libertarian in VA for senate. And considering this fucking wack job for my congressional district. How the fuck does siderodromophiliac get on the ballot?

[Heroic Mulatto]

Conductors' unions?

[Idle Hands]

Priorities in Virginia:
New Tracks, More Trains, More often for VRE and Amtrak
Light rail around the Beltway at 1/5 the cost of those deadly tollroads.
Light rail to Fredericksburg and Silver Spring
Rail along I-395, I-95, I-81
Doubled passenger rail capacity in Virginia within five years.
Double-stack, double track Virginia Avenue Tunnel
Connect Washington Metro Area with Nationwide High-Speed Rail Corridors
High-speed rail across Virginia. To Richmond, Virginia Beach, Roanoke, Bristol. Keep Virginia businesses and workers competitive: innovate with Rail. We need more Rail. We need high-speed Rail nationwide: reliable, clean, efficient, quiet, safe Rail service. Make Virginia safer for families: 34,000 Americans die every year on our highways. 1,000 are Virginians. 330,000 are injured every year in auto accidents. Rail service is safer and cuts our dependency on foreign oil. Rail can provide jobs and access to jobs and shopping.
Effect government that is fiscally conservative and socially responsible.
Cutting our addiction to oil by building rail enables us to, have cleaner air, cleaner water and spend less time commuting.
To move comparable ton-miles a vehicle would need to get over 300 miles to the gallon.

[LynchPin1477]

That all sounds great to me! I would happily support his business.

Oh wait...

[Tonio]

Wow, she's totally obsessed with passenger rail. But there's a disconnect between more track and more passenger rail. Who is to build and own those tracks? Will they be dedicated to passenger trains? Where will the land come from?

Sounds like a well-meaning but naive whack-job.

[toolkien]

http://www.nationalreview.com/.....h-goldberg

From 2001. The beginning of the marginalization of libertarians within the "right" ranks. By the time we got to the "Contract with America" rehash circa 2004, the libertarians were cast from the party. And all one has to do is see how shabbily the Tea Party is treated, how Ron Paul has been treated, to see that Republicans are just trying to get the votes and then re-kick the Libertarians back to the curb.

[LynchPin1477]

Liberty activists should remember that voting is only one political act. Speaking with your siblings, co-workers, neighbors, children and parents provides daily opportunities to advance liberty and multiply the voice and power of the liberty movement. Call your grandparents. Speak with the waitress. Don't whine that Republican candidates do not talk about liberty. You talk about liberty to everyone who will listen. Whining about other people is not work. It is whining. The struggle against statism is a great deal of work and the only person you control is you. Be the calm, coherent voice for liberty you wish the Republican candidate for Senate was.

That was the only useful paragraph in this load of crap.

If you want libertarians to vote Republican, then get the Republican party to advance liberty when they have power, or at least try to. It really is that simple. But don't tell us to ignore what Republicans actually have done with power when they have it. It's insulting.

And if you are a potential libertarian candidate, organize your campaigns so that you can honestly look any liberty voter in the eye and accurately assert that there is no opportunity cost of casting a "message" vote for you on this particular ballot this year.

What the fuck is this supposed to mean? Libertarians should only run if the Republican can't lose? Yep, that is a great way to show Republicans that they should get serious about liberty.

[Scruffy Nerfherder]

What the fuck is this supposed to mean?

Give in to the Dark Side Young Skywalker....

[wareagle]

Be the calm, coherent voice for liberty you wish the Republican candidate for Senate was.
------------

and why would this person still be my candidate? This sounds more like Team fapping than anything else.

[Anonymous Coward]

Norquist's plea for libertarian votes is about as credible as promising a drunk bimbo that you'll still respect her in the morning.

[Florida Man]

Well I would respect any woman who had sex with me cause she has nerves of still to get in my airboat piloted by my monkey Python hybrid.

[Florida Man]

Steel.
/self derp

[Swiss Servator, spare a franc?]

Monkey Python's Flying...Boat?

[Florida Man]

I stole the monkey from the circus, so... Close enough?

[LynchPin1477]

import monkey as m

p = m.Pilot('airboat')
p.start(mode='commandeer')

[antisocial-ist]

I agree with what pretty much everyone here is saying. If republicans want my vote, they should run a candidate I approve of. Along that line of thinking, would it be possible for REASON to write an article in which(if any) major party candidates are friendly to liberty? Would've also helped in primary season. I realize that we the article might take up space earmarked for a millenial poll, but we'll manage somehow.

[Robert]

Well, there;s li'l ol' me, Robert Goodman, running as Republican & Conservative for NY assembly, 80th dist. vs. Gjonaj.

[Scruffy Nerfherder]

LOL WUT?

[Warty]

Jesus Christ. Fuck no.

[Rob]

So few words, so much wisdom.

A+

[Notorious G.K.C.]

This time round, I support Republicans for substantive reasons - the libertarians are AWOL on a key human rights issue - the rights of the unborn - and Reps at least *sometimes* do something on that issue.

But if you're a choicer, there's no particular reason to support Reps unless they're libertarians (cosmos).

[Tonio]

"key human rights issue - the rights of the unborn"

Totally oblivious to the fact that others don't quite see things your way.

[kbolino]

Are there any LP candidates who are pro public funding for abortions? I honestly don't know, but I would be surprised if there were very many of them (as opposed to simply "pro-choice" LP candidates, of which I am sure there are many).

Apart from that, the state is not violating "the rights of the unborn". Not banning drugs is not the same as endorsing their use, and not banning abortion is not the same as endorsing it.

In a world full of constant abuses of liberties by the government, you're going to decide your vote based upon your desire for the government to step up its domain in positive "rights"?

Sure, you're not a libertarian, and I get that. But unless you think you bear some responsibility for someone else performing an abortion (in which case you're not even a rational person), I can't see the case for this issue being the sole deciding factor.

[Swiss Servator, spare a franc?]

I will, occasionally vote for an Elephant... but only if they are "l"ibertarian enough to earn my support. I skipped a lot of Elephants (and Donkeys) on my early voting this year, because they were not worthy of support.

[Jim Smithy]

SO vote for a Republican. Republicans: love big government, hate individual rights, hate freedom, loves unending war, love corporate welfare, etc.... Yeah that makes sense. By this stupid logic, might as well vote for a Democrat.

How about voting for the person who best represents your beliefs. If they don't win so be it.

[Warren]

Fifty years of dry fucking libertarians up the ass and you're our best friend? I don't think so.

[JPyrate]

^^^^^^^ THIS !!!!

[Walter Peck]

A real friend would dry fuck you up the ass for at least 51 years.

[nuffcedmcgreevey]

I will vote for Republicans who are actually pro-liberty, and will not vote for ones who aren't. I wouldn't vote against a legitimate pro-liberty Republican candidate just to "send a message" or act "too cool for school," but neither will I pull the lever for every statist loser the GOP sends down the chute. This really isn't that complicated.

Vote for the "lesser of two evils" and you're just authorizing and encouraging more evil. If you want the Republican Party to change, the answer is not to vote for every Republican as they are, but to withhold your vote until they earn it.

[Bramblyspam]

I'll vote for Rand Paul, if he gets the republican nomination. I'd happily vote for Amash or Massie if I lived in their districts. But I will *not* vote for a steaming piece of crap just because it carries an "-R" label.

Voting for libertarians in non-close elections makes no difference, so it doesn't send much of a message. The difference comes from voting libertarian in the close elections. When republicans realize that they're losing elections because they nominate anti-liberty candidates, that's when they'll start nominating better candidates.

My votes aren't just about who will win in the current election, they're about the future election cycles as well. Even if booting out a Conrad Burns means a democrat wins office, it will free up room for a better republican candidate in the next one.

One of the best things about the tea partiers is that they're happy to boot out crappy republicans. If it weren't for that, the establishment would just ignore them instead of fearing their impact.

[Robert]

I will *not* vote for a steaming piece of crap just because it carries an "-R" label.

Even though so many votes in legislatures are party line votes where the Republican vote is incomparably better than the Democrats'?

When republicans realize that they're losing elections because they nominate anti-liberty candidates, that's when they'll start nominating better candidates.

Not if they realize they'd lose more badly if they moved their positions in your direction. People are on both sides of every issue, so whenever you switch positions you gain some votes & lose others. How do you know your side has more winning positions?

[Bramblyspam]

I reject your premise. A pile-of-crap republican's votes are *not* "incomparably better" than the democrats'. Pile-of-crap republicans have proven that, time and time again.

As I see it, voting for candidates that I deem unacceptable is a *guaranteed* way to go wrong. If I vote my principles, then at least someone out there will know that there are libertarian-minded votes for the taking in the next election cycle. That improves the odds of getting a better candidate the next time around, if only ever so slightly.

[An Innocent Man]

I'll be doing what I do every election: Writing in my own name. I'm the only person who is right on every single issue!

[Robert]

I don't have to write mine in, I'm on the ballot on rows/columns B & C.

[christinecarbinoeta]

my classmate's half-sister makes $77 every hour on the internet . She has been without a job for 9 months but last month her paycheck was $15558 just working on the internet for a few hours. read more....

????? http://www.netjob70.com

[Mitch Connor]

GOP Is the Smart Choice for Libertarians

Libertarians are so-called social-liberals and fiscal-conservatives
Conservatives are s-called social-conservatives and fiscal-conservatives

As the GOP is Big Brother, Big Military Spending, Big Fans of Police State, Anti-gay, anti-minorites, etc. et. etc. I would say that Libertarians voting GOP means that Libertarians willing to live with social-conservatives policies in order to get fiscal-conservative policies applied.

Libertarians, please VOTE LIBERTARIAN. I'm a liberal and i voted for Gary Johnson because this Obama and other Democrats were not going to get my vote.

Stand Up Libertarians, the Republicans are just as GOD-AWFUL and the Democrats.

[SQRLSY One]

"The libertarian candidate, Dan Fishman, won 16,668 votes." Ah Say again? "The libertarian candidate, Dan Fishman, won 16,668 votes."
See, right there, the libertarian candidate has been "Marked" by the "Mark of the Beast", "X6,66X" votes! Case closed, vote Rethugglican instead!

[Chipperoni]

stfu puswah

[HahahahaWaitWhat]

I have just one thing to say to Grover and his contemptible Republican friends:

Fool me twice, ya can't get fooled again.

[HahahahaWaitWhat]

I have just one thing to say to Grover and his contemptible Republican friends:

Fool me twice, ya can't get fooled again.

[SQRLSY One]

But? But? BUT! But what if I patiently explained to you that the reason for all the droughts out there in Californicator-land is due to their GAY-ness, that all that them thar illegal Mehixicans are all illegal Islamofascists bringing Islamofascist ebola-cooties with which to infect all of that them thar innocent kids of ourn, AND, that the abortion doctors like to, in secret rituals, DRINK THE BLOOD of all of our best and brightest, blonde-haired and blue-eyed white children?!?! And that the WITCHES are behind mind-robbing pot-smoking habits? THEN would you PLEASE vote Republican?

[Vjklander]

Well, the Bible says its so, so its so.

[SQRLSY One]

Amen & Awomen, Bro or Bro-ess! That's what I meant to say! ? Especially (in my translation of the Bible at least) where The Lord says, "Treat other people the way that you like to be treated, except if they are illegal humans, who cannot properly answer the question that starts and ends with 'Papers Please!', in which case you shall treat them like the dirt that they are".

[SQRLSY One]

I forgot to add, my translation of the Bible is the one which is Officially Authorized by the Republican-Neanderthal Church, 666th-Edition.

[gaoxiaen]

After the shit they pulled on Ron Paul, he's got to be joking. If Norquist was standing in front of me I'd kick him in the balls.

[Vjklander]

I'd rather shoot a Republican than vote for one.

[Marc St. Stephen]

Acknowledging that there is no hard and fast answer to the question of whom to vote for in a tight race, the libertarian or the republican, I can think of a better question to ask:

If republicans want the support of libertarians, why not, where a good libertarian candidate is running, simply not field a republican candidate in that race? And why not, where a good liberty-minded republican candidate is running, would not the libertarian party not run a candidate in that race?

If republicans and libertarians want to get along, a bit of election collusion could go a long way to bridging that divide. It sure as hell would be better than letting the democrats sit back and smirk as republicans and libertarians "spoil" each others chances endlessly.

[Mildred111]

Can you have some spare time to sit back in your chair having your laptop with you and making some money online for some interesting online work said Jenny Francis in the party last nightsee more what is for you there to increase your pocket money??.

http://shorx.com/clickforsurvey

[tonidraperipo]

My neighbor's mother-in-law makes $88 hourly on the laptop . She has been out of work for 8 months but last month her check was $21643 just working on the laptop for a few hours.
Have a peek at this website. ????? http://www.jobsfish.com

[some-yahoo]

I voted for Daniel Fishman against Tisei and Tierney and I'd do it again!

I know what I want and it's not more war-mongering big-government republicans who want to ban gay marriage, abortion and marijuana.

I also don't want gun-banning democrats who favor universal healthcare, bigger government and higher taxes.

Nope, libertarians are my cup of tea.

[Heroic Mulatto]

Go away, Grover. Because whatever it is you're selling, I do not want any."

[Heroic Mulatto]

I remember when Sesame Street was real as fuck.