Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Election 2022

What's Next for Chase Oliver, the Libertarian Who Forced a Runoff in the Georgia Senate Race?

He wants election reforms in Georgia, different priorities for the national Libertarian Party, and plans to challenge Justin Amash—but maybe not how you'd expect.

Eric Boehm | 11.18.2022 12:30 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Chase Oliver, Georgia's Libertarian U.S. Senate candidate, holding a flag that combines Don't Tread On Me with pride | Photo by Eric Boehm, illustration by Lex Villena
Chase Oliver, the Libertarian candidate who got more than 2 percent of the vote in last week's Senate election, pictured here at a gay pride event in Rome, Georgia, in June 2022. (Photo by Eric Boehm, illustration by Lex Villena)

Chase Oliver is having a moment.

Last week, he scored more than 2 percent of the vote in Georgia's closely watched Senate race—enough to force a runoff between Sen. Raphael Warnock (D–Ga.) and Trump-backed Republican challenger Herschel Walker because neither candidate received more than 50 percent. That threw Oliver briefly into the national spotlight and made him a target for partisans on both sides who leveled accusations of spoiling the race for their preferred candidate. He got an interview on CNN, a segment on Fox Business' Kennedy, a neat profile from Vice, and an interview with Rolling Stone. Not bad for a guy who didn't win.

"This is kind of cool. I wanted to make sure that I made a statement and I think with that result, I did," Oliver told me when I caught up with him on Monday night at a divey sports bar tucked away behind a fried chicken joint on the northeastern edge of Atlanta. But even as he's reveling in his spoiler status for the Georgia Senate race, Oliver is already looking ahead to what comes next—for his state, and for the Libertarian Party (L.P.) at large.

"If you look at the amount of positive press that I've gotten out of this race, I think that tells you that you need to have Libertarians running top of the ticket," Oliver says.

Whether it is worth it for the L.P. to run candidates like Oliver in high-profile races where they are unlikely to win—but could play spoiler and hopefully influence other campaigns to compete for libertarian voters—is a major point of contention within the party. At the most recent L.P. convention in May, the party's leadership positions were seized by a faction that believes the L.P. should be focused more on winning local races. "We have a very specific focus. We focus on city council, sheriff, mayor, judge, school board," Michael Heise, the founder of the Mises Caucus, told Reason at the L.P. convention in May.

Oliver, who has been openly gay since high school and describes himself as a grown-up punk-rock kid, is not shy about criticizing the L.P.'s rightward lurch under the Mises Caucus' control—just check his Twitter account—and he worries that the party will kneecap itself by focusing too exclusively on local politics and the hyper-online libertarian audience.

"We should have libertarians running [in] local races, too, but it's really hard to create that brand awareness if you don't have somebody willing to run top of the ticket, win, lose, or draw," he says.

It's not as easy as he makes it sound. Oliver ran his campaign from his suburban Atlanta home while working two jobs and spending only a few thousand dollars—about 10 cents per vote received. Warnock and Walker combined to spend more than $100 million.

Of course, Oliver owes some credit for his recent showing to things beyond his, or the L.P.'s, control. Candidate selection seems to have dogged Republicans in nearly every big race this year, but arguably had the largest impact in Georgia.

There's also the matter of the state's unusual rules requiring a runoff if neither candidate gets to 50 percent of the vote. That might free some voters to follow their conscience in the first round of voting—perhaps by backing Oliver—with the knowledge that they will have a chance to vote strategically in the runoff. In a state with a more typical first-past-the-post system, Oliver may have seen some of his prospective voters reluctantly pulled to Warnock's or Walker's camp in the campaign's final days—a frustrating phenomenon with which any third-party or independent candidate has to contend.

Coming out of an election where so many Georgians rejected the two-party system, Oliver says there might be momentum for additional changes.

"Runoffs are better than plurality voting. Ranked-choice voting is better than runoffs," he says. "That's something that I'm going to be working on."

Oliver has also invited Warnock and Walker to attend a forum that he would host, allowing both runoff candidates to speak directly to issues that matter to libertarians and others who voted for Oliver in the general election.

"If you think you're the best choice for U.S. Senate, you should be able to have a long-form conversation about it," he says.

But now that Warnock and Walker have canceled their plans for a more standard debate in the weeks before the December 6 runoff, it's probably safe to say neither candidate is willing to have that conversation. That's a shame for Georgians caught in the middle of this awful choice.

Even if the forum doesn't come to fruition, Oliver's already got his sights set on what might be a more contentious contest—no, he's not willing to directly engage with my questions about whether he'll seek the Libertarian Party nomination for president in 2024.

"I am willing to go on the record right now that I will debate Justin Amash and Stacey Abrams on why [Deep Space Nine] is the best Star Trek series," he tells me as we head for the parking lot, breaking into a big smile now that we're talking about something even nerdier than third-party politics. "Everything's better with Garak."

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Nancy Pelosi Embodied America's Gerontocracy Problem

Eric Boehm is a reporter at Reason.

Election 2022Campaigns/ElectionsGeorgiaSenateLibertarian PartyLibertarianism
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (87)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Fats of Fury   3 years ago

    What's next? Ignominy, 2% doesn't translate to winner.

    1. Dillinger   3 years ago

      2% isn't even a footnote.

      1. Gaear Grimsrud   3 years ago

        Pretty sure a ham sandwich could get 2 percent. Or maybe I'm just hungry.

        1. juliajohn96   3 years ago (edited)

          Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, i’m now creating over $35000 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job (lmd-07) online! i do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.

          Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.RichApp1.Com

          1. KimSaunders   3 years ago (edited)

            Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit..
            🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)

            HERE====)> http://WWW.WORKSFUL.COM

    2. Brandybuck   3 years ago

      2% translates into "Fuck, we could have won with that extra 2%! Maybe we should try to reach out to those outside our tribe, maybe even be a bit more libertarian."

    3. Old Engineer   3 years ago

      What's next for Oliver? He will return to the oblivion from whence he came. When a candidate emphasizes his sexual preferences or ethnic background, liberty is not his primary concern.

  2. Bill Godshall   3 years ago

    In recent years, the Libertarian Party has primarily served as a spoiler to help left wing Democrats win close elections (which is why Democrats have sued to block many Green Party candidates, while welcoming Libertarian spoiler candidates).

    While I strongly support libertarian values and goals, I only vote for Libertarian candidates in blowout races (as a vote for most Libertarians is now almost always a vote for left wing socialist Democrats).

    1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

      I'd vote libertarian if there were any to vote for.

      Since I'm tired of voting against the worst candidate, I just don't vote anymore.

      Lesser of two evils is still evil. So I'll just sit down and watch the fighting from the sidelines.

      Give me someone I can vote for and I'll reregister.

      1. KristinWolfe   3 years ago (edited)

        I get paid over 190$ per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..

        HERE====)> http://WWW.RICHSALARIES.COM

      2. Liberty_Belle   3 years ago

        True. Voting against the worst person has been the motif for the last handful of voting years.

      3. skeptic   3 years ago

        You forget the best possible candidate of all. You. Who could possibly promote or oppose legislation more wisely?

        If you are too lazy, busy, or lacking in self-confidence to do that, voting against the worst candidate is still a good thing. That applies whether you favor give all to the rich or give all to the poor, or anywhere in between, or favor controlling people according to religious doctrine or allowing people to make their own decisions in their personal lives.

        Voting, and promoting others to vote, tends to promote social unity, and respect for peaceful resolution of disputes. Because in the absence of that unity, a nation deteriorates. The US, in small steps, could be turning in the direction of Somalia or Yemen, starting with a constant dribble violent attacks by those who want political decisions made one way or another.

        You see flickers of the flame in the US, with things such as running a car into a crowd because of what they promoted, or beating an old man in the head with a hammer because his wife promoted or opposed legislation, which the voters of her district elected her to do. If those assailants had been encouraged to see that democracy is a good thing, it is less likely the violence would have happened.

        There are always legal, political, or social things for people to disagree about strongly. Either we decide these things through democratic processes, or we fight them out in the streets, leading to dictatorship to put a stop to it. The cost of freedom is to accept the results whether you like them or not.

        If you do not support the voting process, then you are open to disagreements being decided in some way other than votes, possibly leading to anarchy or dictatorship or both.

        But in the US you are free to vote or not vote, as you choose.

    2. JasonAZ   3 years ago

      ^ This

      Of course, Reason Editors are far left progressives. So they're happy to see those icky conservatives/republicans lose. We need adults in charge, right Boehm? Return to normalcy, right Boehm?

      1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

        Is "I cheer for whoever is playing against the Yankees" support for any particular team?

        1. Super Scary   3 years ago

          Who are the Yankees in this comparison/metaphor?

          1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

            Whoever libertarians are saying "You're not being very libertarian" to.

            1. Liberty_Belle   3 years ago

              That's everybody, including other libertarians.

            2. skeptic   3 years ago

              Libertarians can rarely get anywhere because they cannot agree on what it means or what policies it requires.

              Pure libertarianism (anarchy) could never work, as it would legalize everything. So, someone has to decide what are the exceptions to complete freedom.

              Meanwhile, the public is frightened of libertarians taking away their social security benefits and Medicare, losing them a lot of older voters. When you run, you can label yourself as R or D, which would substantially increase your chances of being elected.

      2. JesseAz   3 years ago

        Well guess saec found his talking point for the day.

        1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

          My talking point of the day is that you're an insufferable prick who puts nasty words into peoples mouths.

          1. VULGAR MADMAN   3 years ago

            More ideas!

    3. Nemo Aequalis   3 years ago

      Voting Libertarian is the political equivalent of a homeless guy taking a dump in the street.

      1. TheReEncogitationer   3 years ago

        Voting as you would is just one time, followed by mowing down everyone in the street.

        Fuck Off, Witch-Burning Nazi!

    4. Carlos Inconvenience   3 years ago

      Which is exactly why left wing socialist Boehm is pimping them.

  3. MWAocdoc   3 years ago

    "If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always gotten." Oliver is wrong that getting a brief moment in the spotlight justifies running for top offices - it will make absolutely no difference in the short or the long run. We've been doing that for the entire time I have been a small "L" and a large "L" libertarian and there has been no measurable progress towards getting either D's or R's to court libertarian voters. In fact, the trend has been in the direction of increasing polarization towards fewer and fewer extremists under the two-party system. The Mises Caucus is likewise wrong that we should focus on local races, building from the base upwards. There IS NO "base" to build upon. We have also been doing that for decades with no discernable trend towards a grass roots libertarian movement. I was the "spoiler" in my 1992 Texas Senate District 11 race with 5 percent of the vote and had a brief moment in the spotlight - and NOTHING CHANGED! The lesson for the LP is that we have to focus all of our resources on terminating the two-party system with extreme prejudice and replacing it with ranked-choice, at-large representative elections to result in proportional representation in all fifty states.

    1. CE   3 years ago

      The high profile races are the ones that introduce the philosophy to new voters. Ranked choice won't matter if no one wants what you're selling.

      1. MWAocdoc   3 years ago (edited)

        Pure bullshit. You obviously didn’t read what I wrote. This is not the first “high profile” race, whoever was introduced to the philosophy by this and all previous high profile races led to no net increase in the number or percent of libertarians and proportional representation would get whatever percent of libertarians there are: 1) representation for the first time in American history; and 2) grow the “base” with actual successes instead of wishful thinking.

        1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

          Sometimes I think the parliamentary system isn't so bad. You know, where you vote for the parties and the parties choose the people. Get 2% of the vote and your party gets a seat. There's pros and cons to everything.

          1. Roberta   3 years ago

            That's not definitive of parliamentary systems. Parliamentary systems have their executives/administrators (often called ministers) selected from among their elected legislators, instead of a separation of those roles as in the USA. This does tend to promote a strong party system, but is regardless of the methods used to elect the legislators. In some parliamentary governments the electorate votes for a party list of candidates or the equivalent, while in others the legislators are elected by a plurality in their district (or "riding"). There's no necessary connection with any proportionality of representation.

          2. MWAocdoc   3 years ago

            The alternative to the two-party system is not limited to parliamentary systems alone. We can keep our current Constitution and elect the Legislative Branch proportionally. Pros and cons to everything but we tried the two-party system; and European liberty doesn't seem to be any better with the parliamentary alternative. Time to insist upon proportional representation in Congress and the fifty state legislatures. NOW!

    2. JFree   3 years ago (edited)

      No we must focus entirely from the top-down on eliminating all silly voting mechanisms (in particular new ones that require lots of explanation about magic boxes) that make things more complicated in favor of my favorite ‘outcome creator’ – which is sortition!

      More seriously I actually like the Mises Caucus purported emphasis on local offices and elections. Even appointed offices and local commissions and such which are far more numerous. The MC problem is that they are basically Leninist in their purity seeking

      1. MWAocdoc   3 years ago

        Been there - done that - got the "Epic Fail" tee shirt. But by all means keep failing massively if it makes you feel good.

      2. Brandybuck   3 years ago

        Agree. The LP needs to focus a lot more on local races. And the local parties DO focus on the local races. I lived in a city where a Big L Libertarian actually got elected to mayor.

        The strategy of sleeping for three and a half years only to wake up and hope for a Hail Mary Pass Miracle is stupid. At the national level they do need to keep running candidates, but the emphasis needs to be on outreach and praying for a miracle.

        That said, the MC does have a purity fixation. That's where they came from, the purity wing that does NOT want to win elections if it means someone who isn't the clone of Murray Rothbard wins a local seat. And gawd forbid someone like Gary Johnson might break 2.5% of the vote! That pissed of the MC types more than anything.

        And it's not even purity, because they're all behind Hoppe and his bizarre anti-liberty ideas.

        1. MWAocdoc   3 years ago (edited)

          Congratulations. Was the Libertarian Mayor you elected able to accomplish anything while in office for liberty in your city? Did the success set off a trend towards more and more Libertarians getting elected in your city and county? Were they successful in rolling back regulations and taxes?

    3. defaultdotxbe   3 years ago

      So what's your plan to terminate the two-party system? Without doing that first RCV is pointless (look at Maine and Alaska, it hasn't helped 3rd parties gain any ground in those states)

      Same with this proportional representation, since it can only reduce the power of the 2 parties it will never happen until the two-party system is eliminated.

      1. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

        The thing is when people scream end the two party system, they act as if it didn't happen organically. The first couple elections there wasn't distinct parties but by Adams-Jefferson in 1796 the two parties had emerged due to philosophical differences. The founding fathers tried to avoid parties but found people naturally organize into parties. Even in parliamentary governments, there tends to be two dominant parties and a bunch of regional or single issue fringe parties. Those fringe parties never win a majority, or leadership roles. About their only power is through forming coalitions with the larger parties when neither party achieves an outright majority. We have a similar system, where Bernie Sanders, a socialist, caucuses with the Democrats, this giving them a majority in the Senate. The people who think you could end two dominant parties are smoking some good shit. It's never going to happen. About the best you can do is make ballot access easier, but even then it's highly doubtful that will help promote alternative parties.

        If you want to get your views paid attention to, you have to either win outright or use the power of endorsements. Running as the spoiler vote isn't going to convince either party to embrace you. The reality is 2% isn't worth going after, if that requires you to embrace ideology that the majority of voters reject. It's far better to turn out your base, while making a play for centrists. Rather the LP admits it or not, they are not the center. The true center is not anywhere close to the LP on social programs and government spending and government power. Maybe on social issues, but even then the center is far more comfortable with using government coercion to achieve those social issues implemented.

        How many libertarians on here brag about how they'll never vote for either party and how both parties suck? Why would either party risk alienating their base and centrists to reach out to people who voice such things? Neither party is homogeneous, the best strategy to get the parties to pay attention is by endorsing and supporting candidates, especially in primaries, that reflect your views. Acting as a spoiler doesn't convince either party to respect your views, instead what happens is Democrats see the LP as a pawn to sacrifice to beat the Republicans in close races, while the Republican party sees you as unobtainable votes, especially when leading libertarians and their media spend more time attacking Republicans for not being pure enough while completely ignoring how much worse Democrats are. The socialist have mostly stopped running candidates and instead have focused on endorsing and working to get socialist leaning candidates nominated in the Democratic party, and they've been successful, much more than the Libertarian Party has. The LP can't even win in Alaska, Montana or Wyoming, and western voters tend to be more sympathetic to libertarian ideals.

  4. Nardz   3 years ago

    I assume he'll continue being a leftist cancer.
    He may or may not keep calling himself a libertarian.

    1. CorinnePotts   3 years ago (edited)

      This year do not worry about money you can start a new Business and do an online job I have started a new Business and I am making over $84, 8254 per month I was started with 25 persons company now I have make a company of 200 peoples you can start a Business with a company of 10 to 50 peoples or join an online job.

      For more info visit on this web Site........>>> onlinecareer1

    2. TheReEncogitationer   3 years ago

      You know who's a Leftist who has cancer and Parkinson's disease?

  5. JesseAz   3 years ago

    Attaboys from media as he fades back to obscurity.

    1. damikesc   3 years ago

      If he, to the media's eyes, cost a Democrat a race --- they would not be covering him positively.

  6. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

    Oliver, who has been openly gay since high school and describes himself as a grown-up punk-rock kid, is not shy about criticizing the L.P.'s rightward lurch under the Mises Caucus' control—just check his Twitter account—and he worries that the party will kneecap itself by focusing too exclusively on local politics and the hyper-online libertarian audience.

    Well, to be fair, the party's leftward lurch didn't help it one bit.

    1. Brandybuck   3 years ago

      It never had a leftward lurch.

      1. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

        Bullshit. Jo Jorgenson was definitely left of Gary Johnson.

  7. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

    Oliver, who said he’s proud of being Georgia’s first statewide LGBTQ candidate, now plans to get involved in the runoff as an activist.

    Oh, drop the identity politics, now. That might get you a "neat profile on Vice" but it's not a good look for a libertarian. It's quite unlibertarian, actually.

    1. Roberta   3 years ago

      I don't think it's libertarian or anti-libertarian, although "non-libertarian" fits. It's anti-individualist, and most radical libertarians are individualists, but I wouldn't say it's inimical to libertarianism to boost "identities"...just a waste of time and effort.

  8. sarcasmic   3 years ago

    Maybe the Republican Party would get more libertarian votes if they weren't so so hostile to liberty.
    They genuflect to law enforcement, support the war on drug users, are hostile to personal liberty, and stopped giving lip service to economic liberty.
    Sure Democrats are worse, but come on. Can you really get mad at libertarians for failing to support people who actively despise libertarian principles and values?

    1. Roberta   3 years ago

      When those are their reasonably effective choices, yes.

      Fault the doctor for delaying your death because s/he's not conferring immortality? Life's full of choices between only bad consequences, just some worse than others. Ever hear of mitigating damages? Failure to choose the lesser evil is stupid or crazy.

      1. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

        People like Sarcasmic and Brandy wonder why Republicans don't work to get their votes but all they ever do is state they'd never vote for either party and both suck. Why would either party work for those votes? The Democrats have calculated that the libertarians are out of reach and that they hurt the Republicans. Republicans have calculated that they will never be pure enough for libertarians, so why bother, especially when even with ranked choice and run off states, the LP rarely ever exceeds 2% of the vote and in those systems they figure the Republican is more likely to be libertarians second choice anyhow. Hell, it is likely ranked choice will make both parties to consider libertarian ideology even less.

  9. Moderation4ever   3 years ago

    I agree with Mr. Oliver on ranked choice voting. If the state insists in have a majority winner then use RCV rather than another whole election. The cost saving alone make it a better option.

    1. JesseAz   3 years ago

      Weird how it is mostly leftists that support RCV.

      1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

        Weird how Trumpists would like to do away with elections and make him king.

      2. Moderation4ever   3 years ago

        Is it any more weird than conservatives talking about less government spending but want to spend more on elections?

        1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

          When conservatives increase government spending it's different.

        2. I, Woodchipper   3 years ago

          I'm opposed to all spending and also want them to waste the money they DO spend on stupid shit.

          It's consistent.

          Endless election shenanigans is a better use of my money than the police state, tax collection, drug war, public schools, etc.

        3. SIV   3 years ago

          So much for "majority rule". Every state and every elected position should require a majority vote and to get that you have runoffs.

          1. Moderation4ever   3 years ago

            The idea of majority rule only applies if you have 100% of eligible voters participate. Georgia had record midterm turnout but still only a participation rate of 66%. The runoff election could well have a lower participation rate. This happened in 2020 where Ralph Warnock won over 50% of a smaller number of voters than voted in the November 3 election.

            No system is perfect, but if your goal is to avoid a plurality winner then a rank choice voting system seem to make more sense.

          2. Roberta   3 years ago

            What kind of "majority rule" is it if, to get to that majority, you have to first go thru a process of knocking out other choices? What's so exalted about a majority under such circumstances?

    2. JFree   3 years ago

      Horseshit. A runoff or runoffs is precisely the best way to handle this situation even if it costs more. Because it allows voters to make that second decision with knowledge that wouldn't have been available if RCV was the magical way of avoiding runoffs.

      1. defaultdotxbe   3 years ago

        What additional knowledge will they have in the runoff that they didn't in the first round of voting?

        1. ElvisIsReal   3 years ago

          Who the decision is actually between.

          1. defaultdotxbe   3 years ago (edited)

            Well, first off, the whole concept of RCV means you don’t need to know “who the decision is actually between” because when it comes down to the final two it tabulates your vote for whichever of the two you prefer, assuming you ranked all your choices.

            Second, the same “knowledge” can be obtained via jungle primary, which most 3rd party advocates oppose because it only puts the 2 major parties (or just one of them) on the ballot anyway.

            Third, do you really think anyone didn’t know the decision was actually between Warnock and Walker?

  10. Dillinger   3 years ago

    if you hadn't put his name in 24-point bold I'd have already forgotten it.

  11. Bubba Jones   3 years ago

    Any 3rd candidate would have pulled enough votes to trigger a runoff in Georgia.

    1. Vernon Depner   3 years ago

      So would "none of the above" if offered.

      1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

        That's what I'm talking about!

        Put "none of the above" onto the ballot, and if it wins the office remains empty until the next election!

        1. JFree   3 years ago

          I like that idea too.

      2. MasterThief   3 years ago

        I really wish that was an option. If "none of the above" wins then the office should be vacant and a new election held with the losing candidates ineligible. Gotta wonder how 2016 would have gone under those rules. I think the outcome in PA would also have been different.

        1. Vernon Depner   3 years ago

          And losing to None of the Above could be a career-ending humiliation for a politician.

  12. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

    What happened to the last libertarian candidate who forced a runoff in a senate race in Georgia? This time he ran for governor and went from getting 115K votes to getting 28K votes, less than one percent.

    https://reason.com/2020/11/10/libertarian-shane-hazel-is-proud-to-be-a-spoiler-in-georgia-senate-race/

    There's the amazing congratulatory story about Shane Hazel, before he bombed.

    So it's less about the libertarian party having "a moment" in Georgia, than it is about the Republican party picking shitty candidates. Perdue was a shitty candidate and Hazel did well in that race because Perdue is not pro freedom. Brian Kemp is pro-freedom and stomped Stacey Abrams and Shane Hazel. Likewise, Herschel Walker is a pretty shitty candidate because the Republican party can't get their shit together, so you get some Chase Oliver votes (mostly from people who paid no attention to him because he's also really shitty).

    I voted for Hazel in 2020 but would not vote for Oliver because Oliver isn't really a good candidate.

    1. SIV   3 years ago

      I voted Hazel for governor because Kemp sux. Kemp's appointment of a robotic Yankee billionaire owner of a lesbian basketball team is the reason we have 2 Democrat Senators in GA. That and Kemp and his successor as SoS caving on every lawsuit brought to change the election laws passed by the legislature.

      I voted Walker for Senate. Herschel's cool even though he played for the Dawgs. He got his mental problems fixed by a Zimbabwe-born witch doctor who exorcised his demons.

      1. Nardz   3 years ago

        I don't get the hate for Herschel. I think people don't like him because the TV tells them not to and he isn't the "proper" sort of Top Man. Otherwise he's a relatively honest, extremely hard working dude who has been through his share of personal struggles.

        Kemp, Hazel, and Abrams are all awful. Kemp does an okay enough job as governor, if you're fine with the corruption and selling out to corporate interests.

  13. Impeccable Compliance Environmental Yeoman (ICEY)   3 years ago

    I was thinking of something rhyming with "admiring quad" but I'm supposed to be a Libertarian Fanboi in this comment section, so what do I know?

  14. I, Woodchipper   3 years ago

    Republicans... if you want the right-libertarian vote in your column then you need to run candidates with right-libertarian positions.

    Hope this helps

    1. SIV   3 years ago

      I wish the LP would refrain from running candidates against libertarian leaning Republicans.

      1. Anastasia Beaverhausen   3 years ago

        A "libertarian leaning Republican" is still a Republican.

        1. defaultdotxbe   3 years ago (edited)

          But is a “libertarian leaning Republican” better than a non-libertarian leaning Democrat?

          If so, its probably better not to split the vote.

  15. Roberta   3 years ago

    The Mises Caucus and its opposition within LP are both wrong. Americans should abandon all effort at activism via a specifically libertarian political party, period. LP is a dead end.

    A specifically libertarian political party might make some sense in some countries where there's a tradition of that sort of organizing's being respectable and even expected. It might even make sense in the USA or some parts thereof for non-libertarians to organize that way, but not for libertarians. Libertarians are bad for each other in that type of organization.

    What we should pursue, for those who want to undertake activism at all, are:

    • non-political means of education and persuasion
    • single issue politics, especially in coalitions on the issue
    • activism within political and non-political organizations that are close to 50% libertarian, 50% authoritarian (or 50% other-than-libertarian) to be the tipping force
    1. defaultdotxbe   3 years ago

      I find that single-issue politics tends to entrench the duopoly, because people ignore all the bad stuff from either party and just vote for the one that's better on their single issue. This is why my wife votes Democrat despite disagreeing with them on almost everything except LGBT issues.

  16. Gaear Grimsrud   3 years ago

    Dude sounds like a rather silly person, apropos for an increasingly silly party. This from a guy who voted Libertarian for 20 years.

  17. CorinnePotts   3 years ago (edited)

    This year do not worry about money you can start a new Business and do an online job I have started a new Business and I am making over $84, 8254 per month I was started with 25 persons company now I have make a company of 200 peoples you can start a Business with a company of 10 to 50 peoples or join an online job.

    For more info visit on this web Site........>>> onlinecareer1

  18. Brad Hobbs   3 years ago

    Ranked choice is not a good idea...

  19. Will Nonya   3 years ago

    I would agree that where the LP could make the most difference is at the local level. Where they're mistaken is in belivlevibg that they'll win those races without having captured enough of the national spotlight.

  20. Anastasia Beaverhausen   3 years ago

    He is exactly what the party needs more of, to help debunk the claims that the party is full of former Republicans and full of straight white guys who can't get dates with women and hate us gays because we get more than they do. I'd vote for Chase Oliver if he ran for President - heck, I'd date Chase Oliver if he were available.

  21. John Gall   3 years ago

    3 + 2 = 2 + 3.

    If a Libertarian 'cost' someone the election, then that peraon 'cost' the Libertaian the election.

  22. mynulled   3 years ago

    MyNulled.in - Nulled Php Script, Php Script Nulled, Latest PHP script Nulled, Download php script Nulled, free Php script Nulled, Download latest Php Application,
    Latest Laravel scripts, Nulled Laravel Script, Php scripts 2022, Scripts and Tools Nulled for free PHP Scripts Nulled ,

    1. TheReEncogitationer   3 years ago

      Izzat chu, Agile Cyborg? 😉

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Brickbat: Who Audits the Auditor?

Charles Oliver | 7.22.2025 4:00 AM

Thomas Massie's New Bill Would Let People Sue Pharma for COVID Vaccine Injuries

Christian Britschgi | 7.21.2025 5:10 PM

Pentagon Awards up to $200 Million to AI Companies Whose Models Are Rife With Ideological Bias

Jack Nicastro | 7.21.2025 4:21 PM

Report Alleges Degrading Treatment and Medical Neglect at South Florida ICE Detention Centers

C.J. Ciaramella | 7.21.2025 3:30 PM

Hunter Biden Walks Free While This Iowa Man Serves 4 Years for the Same 'Crime'

Jacob Sullum | 7.21.2025 3:10 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!