Libertarian Candidates Test America's Growing Discontent With the Two-Party System
These two campaigns won’t break the system—but they hint at a country finally ready to try.
As frustration with the American political establishment continues to soar across the country and public trust in the two-party system reaches historic lows, independent and third-party candidates are moving to fill that void in state races nationwide.
In New Jersey, residents are preparing to vote in what is one of the most competitive gubernatorial races of the year's election cycle. The race's two frontrunners, Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D–N.J.) and former state Rep. Jack Ciattarelli (R–Hillsborough), are locked in a head-to-head race to succeed incumbent Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy.
Sherrill maintains a six-point lead over Ciattarelli, according to a new poll from Quinnipiac University, but Libertarian Party candidate Vic Kaplan is hoping to disrupt the race.
"I am different from other candidates," Kaplan told WHYY, Philadelphia's NPR affiliate. "I offer proposals that would improve the lives of the people of New Jersey."
Kaplan, who is polling just over 1 percent according to the Quinnipiac survey, emphasizes a pragmatic slate of reforms centered on decentralization and municipal autonomy, arguing that local governments—not state bureaucracies—are best equipped to meet residents' needs.
Kaplan's platform includes energy deregulation, repealing the state's Certificate of Need laws, which force health care facilities to receive government permission before they begin construction or renovation, and supporting legislation that limits local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. He also seeks to expand affordable housing by easing zoning laws and strengthening private property rights by ending the government's practice of using eminent domain to seize property without the owner's permission.
While lowering taxes is central to his campaign—he calls for phasing out New Jersey's income and sales taxes within four years and replacing them with local revenue and user fees—Kaplan diverges from conventional libertarian views in his support for safety-net programs like Medicaid, which could appeal to some moderate and liberal voters.
Over 1,000 miles away, Thomas Laehn, another Libertarian Party candidate, is running for Iowa's open federal Senate seat, hoping to tap into voters' growing distrust of both major parties.
Laehn, who describes himself as a "populist" on his campaign website, was elected as the attorney of rural Greene County in 2017—and again in 2021—and is the first Libertarian Party candidate to hold a partisan office in Iowa history. He's running on a platform that includes decriminalizing marijuana, ensuring a secure and humane border policy, reducing the national debt, and strengthening private property rights by opposing eminent domain.
To Laehn, the campaign isn't a traditional partisan challenge but an effort to disrupt the American partisan paradigm. "Both parties have worked tirelessly to take power away from the people and concentrate it into their own hands," he states on his website. "I am not running against a Democrat or a Republican; I am running against the two-party system itself."
Both Laehn and Kaplan face steep structural hurdles, such as limited fundraising networks and the enduring belief that third-party votes are wasted. Kaplan must stand out in New Jersey's crowded field, while Laehn confronts Iowa's entrenched partisan loyalties, shaped by decades of Republican control in rural areas and Democratic strength in cities. Still, both are betting that widespread frustration and the rise of independent voters will help them break through the noise and surpass the Libertarian Party's typical 1 percent to 2 percent ceiling. Both candidates seem less concerned with winning their elections than with turning voter disaffection into a lasting political force.
Their campaigns also reflect a quiet shift within Libertarian Party politics. After years dominated by ideological purity—intensified by the party's 2022 Mises Caucus takeover—Kaplan and Laehn represent a turn toward running candidates with a more voter-focused approach. Their brand of libertarianism appears to emphasize civic empowerment and local reform over abstract theory, meeting disillusioned voters where they are. Though their chances of victory are slim, their performance could signal how third-party politics might evolve in an era when voters care less about loyalty and more about limiting centralized power.
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.
Please to post comments
Third parties, their candidates, and their supporters can bitch and moan all they want about their votes being wasted, because their votes are wasted under the current system. This is another reason why we need to go to proportional representation. Third parties will be able to get seats without winning the majority of the votes in any election.
The Constitution was not designed, and as we are seeing, fails under a two party system.
Let me guess, your PhD is in entomology? That would explain your reported expertise in buggery.
Tony is the belle of the ball at his local bathhouse.
"Proportional" representation is a cure that's far worse than the disease. Proportional representation wrongly assumes that voters are voting for parties instead of representatives. Proportional representation works in comparatively small parliamentary systems. The US is neither small nor parliamentary.
I would not call India, Germany, Indonesia, Japan, and Mexico comparatively small populations. And people do vote party instead of individual. The vast majority of Americans don't know who their representative is. The US system is so broken it has brought us fascism. That is a pretty bad disease.
Dr retard argues most people are as retarded as he is to push political desires.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."
You are not smart.
"Molly is retarded"
Tell us again how you are more wise than Elon Musk.
No, we rejected fascism when Trump was swept back into office.
YOU are the fascist you stupid faggot.
You’re falsely assuming such a system works in those countries, Doc.
That was nearly a century ago. We have gotten better.
Third parties will be able to get seats without winning the majority of the votes in any election.
There it is.
A proportional representation system would put political parties in direct control over who actually serves in those seats. Democracy requires getting to 50%+1 at the voter level or at the parliamentary level. It is unclear what problem you are "solving" with such a system.
The Constitution was written juet when the first formal political parties were being formed in Britain. Previously, Parliament was dominated by more informal factions, usually under a specific leader. The debate over the Constitution created the USA's first political parties. The nature of our voting system is conducive to two party system, and anything else is unlikely to be stable.
Observe that no success stories of sloppy seconds voting are ever offered. The whole gimmick was dreamt up AFTER the 1972 debut of leveraged libertarian spoiler vote clout. The other fraud, Nixon's looting of tax money to fund entrenched Kleptocracy campaigns, was adopted by Brazilian politicians the year Atlas Shrugged was translated. Brazil now has 16 communist and 16 fascist parties, all 32 of them subsidized by taxation. Note also that the communist 16th Amendment and Christian 18th Amendment were added by small party spoiler votes. The tax can be repealed the same way.
If the LP runs another inexperienced Obama twink that bent the knee to covid fascism then socially messaged he did so, it will remain a two party system.
Vic Kaplan.
Immigration
Vic will enforce the US Constitution on New Jersey soil by making the presence of ICE null and void (Article I, Section VIII of the US Constitution only mentions "naturalization" (citizenship) as a federal power). Vic supports the passage of the Immigration Trust Act in the State Legislature that codifies the State government non-cooperation into law. Due process rights for all people on New Jersey soil have to be protected. Learn more
Vic opposes the collectivism of bigotry that comes from the targeting and scapegoating of undocumented migrants.
Open borders nut.
Vic will protect the environment by enforcing the "polluter pays principle" and property rights to control pollution. Learn more
Eco nut.
Housing
Vic supports the idea of using the abandoned residential and commercial buildings to provide housing for the homeless. Affordable housing will lead to less homelessness. Learn more
Ummm..
https://www.ballotready.org/people/vic-kaplan#housing
Where does he stand on castration of minors? Chemicals only or is surgery cool too. Chase articulated the Big L party line but it's a tent
A field hospital surgery tent?
When he thought about the kids, he pitched a tent.
So basically just another democrat cosplaying as a libertarian. No wonder Reason likes him.
Didn't the green party candidate outperform you in '24? The libertarian party is a sad, leftwing me-too joke now.
Trump (R): 77,302,580
Kamala (D): 75,017,613
Stein (G): 862,049
RFK Jr (I): 756,393
Chase (L): 650,126
Why yes, Chase did come in the rear.
Thanks to anarco-looter infiltration, the LP is now a Nazi Bunker with no votes or donors.
There's really only two opposing discontents out there.
1) Those who believe Gov-Guns are for defending Liberty & ensuring Justice for all.
2) Those who believe Gov-Guns are for STEALING sh*t from those 'icky' people.
Spare me all the complexities of gangster-loyalty and excuses-confusion.
Anything beyond those two ideologies is massively insignificant in today's political environment.
Laehn seems better.
https://laehn4iowa.org/issues
From your link:
That sounds like a terrific position. I would vote for that. Would you?
The standard Trump defender strawman is that if you don't like Trump's immigration policies then you want completely and totally unrestricted immigration. They are incapable of even imagining anything in between. Their brains simply cannot grasp the concept. So if you detail some policy idea that is not Trump's policies and not zero border enforcement, their brains break and they start shouting "Liar, liar! This is what you want because this is what I practiced arguing against!" Fucking retards.
You and jeff dont just want open borders but also welfare based open borders. You'd cry about anyone who complains about their costs. You've cried about deporting criminals and those with final orders of removal. You deny what the word temporary in TPS means. You two are full of shit.
What you've done yet again is project yours and jeffs own behaviors. Because youre both leftist retards. More in common with Marxists than libertarians. Incapable of understanding an argument longer than a bumper sticker.
Even in your own post crying about strawman you made a strawman. In your own post ending with declaring what you think, ot comes after what you claim your enemies think.
Standard hypocrite leftist argumentation.
Even in your own post crying about strawman you made a strawman. In your own post ending with declaring what you think, ot comes after what you claim your enemies think.
They learned it from watching you, OK!
Retarded retards are retarded.
Yes, yes you are.
Poor sarc
NOT sending DEA goons and deadly SOCOM stormtroopers to Latin America is the alternative BOTH looter parties blank out as Thoughtcrime. Until their teeth hit pavement after Gary's 2016 candidacy, commie Dems were still as okay with shooting kids over weed as they were with keeping black kids out of white schools in 1968. Looters only learn after spoiler votes get them fired.
https://libertariantranslator.wordpress.com/getting-their-attention-with-spoiler-votes/
Oh please. The second that “secure border” translated to apprehending people who decided to not follow the loosened legal immigration process, you’d be here calling him a xenophobe.
When the LP enters a race it might actually be able to WIN, instead of being spoilers, that's when I'll believe that the LP is a serious political party and not a debating society.
What a weird formulation.
oh FFS. The GOP had wide open primaries in 2016 and 2024. Trump won both times. It wasn't for lack of options.
According to Trump defenders, Libertarians are leftists for opposing Trump, but they're also spoilers who steal votes from Republicans.
More evidence that Trump defenders are retarded.
Did you look up a single position either of these people hold before your projection?
Actually, that part about taking votes away from communo-fascist looters so they can be tossed teeth-first into the street he got right. The God's Own Prohibitionist solution was to get J6 ku-kluxers to invade the LP as the Jesus Caucus girl-bulliers and set the illiterate ones to anonymously schaißtpost hate shrieks in the Reason comments. So far, LP vote share, membership and financial support are all converging on zero as a result.
In our two party system, and how it's set up, the only way a third party candidate will win is if that third party colludes with either team blue or team red so that team blue or team red does not run a candidate. Democrats and Socialists understand this (Bernie Sanders is a good example), why can't Republicans and Libertarians? Really is the only way that Libertarians can become a known quantity that is electable.
Then again, Libertarians at large have fallen so far from fighters for meaningful freedom and common sense that maybe it doesn't matter anymore.
I think a more plausible path would be a libertarian running under the banner of one of the two parties. Rand is far more libertarian than anyone who works at Reason (or Chase), and he's pretty fucking powerful.
The duopoly is certainly a huge hurdle, but the dogshit quality of our third parties is at least as much of a problem. The LP is no exception.
After seeing how the Republican Party treated Ron Paul, I wouldn't bet on it. It was disgraceful and embarrassing.
The Democrats would be no better either as they are actually more authoritarian.
Then again, Libertarians at large have fallen so far from fighters for meaningful freedom and common sense that maybe it doesn't matter anymore.
It should be, pretty clearly at this point, that they're farting in the bathtub and laughing their asses off at best.
Lincoln was third party. Roosevelt created a third party to greater success. Perot created a third party to greater success. Trump arguably overtook one, if not two, parties to more success than any 3rd party ever. Hitler was 3rd party. Mousilini was one of two candidates in a multi-party system. There are plenty of stable, historical, explicit diarchies in history.
The idea that the two party system is what's preventing libertopia is like the idea that the only two factory options for your car's interior are microsuede and pleather is what's preventing you from owning your dream car. If you really believed in the free market, after market, getting what you want without the government or anyone else dictating it to you, the solutions are numerous and relatively easy to implement. The only reason it doesn't, couldn't, or wouldn't happen is because you don't really want your dream car, you just want to futz over microsuede vs. pleather. And as I note below, considering that the idea was created by a fervent socialist, it seems almost like that's the intent.
"...Libertarians at large have fallen so far from fighters for meaningful freedom and common sense that maybe it doesn't matter anymore."
Ain't it the truth. The solution:
1) Drum out the leftists in libertarian skin-suits.
2) Assert the actual "meaning and common sense" libertarian goals. With clarity, support for libertarianism could (and should) be massive. Hint: wide open borders and pro-crime it is not.
3) NEVER run a presidential candidate. Instead, challenge the major parties to adopt libertarian goals, and throw all support to the winner. Make the two-party system work as intended by honing down the choices. Libertarians should win big as candidates would be forced to compete to be the most libertarian.
Christian National Socialists tip their hands by endorsing the leftanrite standard for socialism while hissing at those OTHER looters across the aisle. That way they seem less identical.
independent and third-party candidates are moving to fill that void in state races nationwide.
But then they shoot themselves in the foot by filling it with nonsense.
Republican: "I'm so sick of all the crime and illegal aliens! And don't even get me started on the economy!"
Libertarian: "Let me offer you an alternative: drug addicts, LGBT Pedo, prostitution, and open borders."
Republican: "WHAT!?!"
Democrat: "We love Marxism, simp for China, and want to live under a communist dictatorship!"
Libertarian: "So do we, but stop saying it out loud!"
Democrat: "NO!!!1!!!1!!!!"
Maybe if you want libertarians to have a chance against R's and D's, you should remember that libertarianism - like the Constitution - is supposed to be liberty tempered with morality. THAT'S what you're not offering people. You're offering 100% of the liberty, but 0% of the morality.
That's a shaky bet with the Democrats (because they hate morality and liberty), and a guaranteed losing proposition among a good, moral, and religious We The People (which, admittedly, is less and less Republicans).
And right on cue, the Christian National Socialist gloating over how --starting in 1982--Republican child molesters, Dem energy-haters, Freeze Surrenderists, Comstockists, barbiturate bozos and Sharknado warmunists and Millerites all infiltrated the LP, packed thousands of words of moronic nonsense into the platform and brought forth Peevish and Boothead as the Brain-Damaged caucus to make Jesus Nazi infiltraitors look good by comparison. If the 1972-76 platform and vote growth hadn't scared both looter gangs, why would they bother?
Take it up with Reason, Lib.
The Libertarian Party does have a problem delivering its message. I watch Ron Paul's Liberty report and they can't get above a couple thousand. It's really sad that so many Americans have become enslaved to a rotted and corrupt two party system.
How much worse does it have to get before enough people decide that enough is enough and actually vote for a real change.
Rand Paul is Libertarian along with Thomas Massey, whom Trump despises with a passion as Massey rejects having an AIPAC handler. (The real reason Trump hates Massey)
So, what's the substantive or critical difference between an explicit multi-party system and an explicit two party system with *both* parties having at least two not-exactly-implicit factions?
Similarly, if the third party can't gain any traction for decades but, in less than a decade, a relative political outsider completely transforms not just one party but re-orients a/the other party in direct opposition to him, doesn't that belie the false premise(s) and/or self-defeating conceptions of the pre-existing third party? Doubly so considering that the 'relative political outsider' to which I'm referring could be Donald Trump *or* Ross Perot?
After a while, it almost begins to seem like the tiny minority 3rd party is actually closer to a captured peer group or sympathetic psy-op than anything representing a true reformation or reduction of the size and scope of government in pretty much the same fashion that the opposition parties become captured by each other (except much, much less consequential).
One can always hope, but I'm not holding my breath.
Once again Duverger's "Law" - the theory that with single-member districts and the first-past-the-post voting system only two powerful political parties tend to control power, was created and advanced by someone who idolized Stalin and the Soviet Union:
The in-actuality theory, is more rightly understood not as an indictment of single-member districts, two-party systems, or FPTP, but as an nonsensical proclamation of an insane socialist for whom the distinctions between Calvin Coolidge, Teddy Roosevelt, Gerald Ford, and Abe Lincoln was too subtle.
The theory should rather self-evidently be regarded as bunk if not cheap rhetorical or semantic parlor trick. Plenty of tyrants have risen out of multi-party systems and there are several notable historical explicit diarchies whose peace and/or stability and relative autonomy lasted well in excess of the Soviet Union and even the United States.
The idea that limited government is best but that two parties is too few is already at odds with itself and begs the same questions as other similar social commandments like minimum wage: "Exactly how *many* parties are required to achieve liberty?"
Further, to hold Horseshoe Theory and Duverger's Law as simultaneously true requires a dizzying intellect that's quite adept at spinning one's wheels.
Reason’s 1 article on libertarian politicians for the year out of the way. God forbid they do this more often to bring awareness to them
Now they can get back to “reluctantly” schilling for the statists
They LOOK like plain-vanilla shills. Remember when the LP was the new spoiler clout? Instead of George Wallace and Communist Youth partisans, entrenched looters decoyed us with John Anderson pushing vague planks for BOTH entrenched looter parties:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xy6pep263Oc
An later John Anderson almost got it right by suggesting that YOU could win more freedom by voting Libertarian, not cowering.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C17w3A5SH1k
The LP nationwide got about 19 million votes in the 2016 election. Four million of them were presidential and covered the spoiler gap in 13 states casting 127 electoral votes. SMACK upside that mule's haid! Here's the BEFORE picture: Dems reacting to cops looting and murdering people over weed...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YTrrqEdrI8
Bath house Barry Soetoro, student of Bill Ayers, and not a natural born American citizen, one of the worst presidents in the past 50 years.
His aim was to destroy America and he very nearly accomplished that goal.
Senile Joe was merely a puppet while Obama pulled the strings.
F*** the both of them.