In my 20 years as a libertarian, I've repeatedly seen unnecessary
emotional pain and discouragement experienced by hard-working,
well-meaning, LP activists. I'd hate to see this repeated with the
LPSF.
Here's the typical scenario: A wonderful, articulate, energetic, LP
candidate devotes every ounce of his energy to conducting a stellar,
well-received, election campaign. In the final weeks his supporters
predict--usually based on no reliable polls--a ground-breaking showing
(for a libertarian) in the election. (Harry Browne and
Carla Howell's 2000 and Don Ernsberger's 1994 supporters' high hopes
serve as recent examples). When the meager results trickle
in, many involved with the effort get demoralized, devastated, and
burned out.
Given the brilliant job Mike Denny has been doing, many of us have
been predicting--or at least dreaming of--5% of the vote. It's easy to
get buoyed up by Mike's own wonderful enthusiasm and the enthusiastic
response he's been receiving.
However, there are many harsh realities worth considering: approx.
250,000 tend to vote in SF mayoralty elections. To break the 1%
barrier, Mike would need 2,500 votes. (Has he even spoken to that many
people?) Of those left who actually do entertain voting for him, a
great majority get overcome by the "wasted vote syndrome" and vote for
their favorite lesser of two evils. Even worse, in Mike's case, he's
running against eight other candidates, not the usual two, three,
or four.
According to Richard Winger, in 1975 Ray Cunningham ran a vigorous
libertarian campaign for SF mayor, in many ways comparable to Mike's.
He ended up with only 973 votes or .46%.
Let's continue our enthusiasm and support for Mike's campaign while
tempering it with a more realistic reading of what libertarians are up
against--especially here in San Francisco.