What's the point?

Clay,

The point involves, IMO, educating the public on the depredations of Govt and the benefits of liberty. In addition, informing them about the libertarian movement, in particular the LP and LPSF.

Best, Michael
www.ThreeMinuteTherapy.com
DrEdelstein@...

of Govt and the benefits of liberty. In addition, informing them
about the libertarian movement, in particular the LP and LPSF.

Getting this absolute rubbish out of your head is an essential first
step for our party. I'm not sure how you could have read the article
I linked to and still believe this, but let me be a bit more clear,
since you aren't going to face reality until it hits you in the face
like a splash of ice cold water.

Almost every country in _history_ that has used plurality voting has
ultimately achieved two-party domination. All four countries that
use Instant Runoff Voting have seen two-party domination in all posts
that use IRV (e.g. the Australian house of representatives).

But of the 27 countries that use top-two runoff, 21-23 have _escaped_
from two-party duopoly. So the difference is the voting method. And
the reason for this is what is called Duverger's law. In other
words, there are precise mathematically expressable properties that
most voting methods have, which cause them to result in two-party
domination.

So WAKE UP. Every third party in U.S HISTORY has eventually
dissolved. That's reality, and you need to come to terms with it if
you don't want the same thing to happen to our party. Plurality
voting will NEVER allow us to break up the two-party strangle-hold on
politics, because of the spoiler phenomenon. You vote for the
Libertarian, you make the GOP candidate lose. This is reality!!!

So if you particularly have ANY DESIRE to see this party ever have
any place at the table in our real political system, beyond an
occasional school board or mayoral election, you had better make it
your NUMBER ONE PRIORITY to get Range Voting.

And delusions you have that you will change the fundamental math of
plurality voting by evangelizing Libertarianism are just that -
delusions.

http://rangevoting.org/ForLibs.html

I believe Clay's point is that education is not traditionally the
primary purpose of a political party. Education can be, as Clay
says, carried out by foundations such as the Cato Institute, etc.

BTW, welcome back, Clay!

Marcy

Clay,

The point involves, IMO, educating the public on the depredations

of Govt and the benefits of liberty. In addition, informing them
about the libertarian movement, in particular the LP and LPSF.

Best, Michael
www.ThreeMinuteTherapy.com
DrEdelstein@...

From: brokenladdercalendar
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 3:27 AM
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] What's the point?

I'm just curious what most of the people here think there is in

having

the LP be a political party, that runs candidates. If you think
that's important, then it's a bit baffling to me why so much time is
spent on things other than working to change the voting method. If
you aren't investing at least 99% of your political action energy
working to get Range Voting, you're effectively saying that you

don't

really take concern in having the LP be a political party; you just
care about Libertarian issues, so it would be fine to you if the LP
just stopped running candidates, and functioned like the NRA.

If you want the LP to be the NRA, then great. Just admit it.

If you want to be a political party, read and start making phone

calls

and writing Op-Eds.

Start your education here.

http://reformthelp.org/issues/voting/range.php

Sorry to sound so stern, but this is the life or death of this

party -

Well, Clay. You are entirely correct that a third party has little
chance of major victories without some form of "range voting." And
you are entirely correct that the traditional purpose of a political
party is to win seats. But, the Libertarian "Party" is a strange
animal, an educational entity with all the benefits of a political
party! Thus, those who want to educate, can; those who want to run
for office (and work on ways to increase their chances of winning),
can. I believe our Party's founding parents intended this dichotomy.

Marcy

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "brokenladdercalendar"
<thebrokenladder@...> wrote:

>
> Clay,
>
> The point involves, IMO, educating the public on the depredations
of Govt and the benefits of liberty. In addition, informing them
about the libertarian movement, in particular the LP and LPSF.

Getting this absolute rubbish out of your head is an essential

first

step for our party. I'm not sure how you could have read the

article

I linked to and still believe this, but let me be a bit more clear,
since you aren't going to face reality until it hits you in the

face

like a splash of ice cold water.

Almost every country in _history_ that has used plurality voting

has

ultimately achieved two-party domination. All four countries that
use Instant Runoff Voting have seen two-party domination in all

posts

that use IRV (e.g. the Australian house of representatives).

But of the 27 countries that use top-two runoff, 21-23 have

_escaped_

from two-party duopoly. So the difference is the voting method.

And

the reason for this is what is called Duverger's law. In other
words, there are precise mathematically expressable properties that
most voting methods have, which cause them to result in two-party
domination.

So WAKE UP. Every third party in U.S HISTORY has eventually
dissolved. That's reality, and you need to come to terms with it

if

you don't want the same thing to happen to our party. Plurality
voting will NEVER allow us to break up the two-party strangle-hold

on

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Amarcy D. Berry" <amarcyb@...>
wrote:

I believe Clay's point is that education is not traditionally the
primary purpose of a political party. Education can be, as Clay
says, carried out by foundations such as the Cato Institute, etc.

No, that's not my point at all. Educating about your party's ideas
should be paramount to the success of a party. But all the education
in the world won't matter without a voting system that will give third
parties a chance in elections. So for third parties, especially in
this country, the deal is you get Range Voting, or you are virtually
powerless in the political process. You WILL NOT win elections.

It would be nice if we'd try to get proportional representation in our
Congress, but that's both federally illegal and apparently
unconstitutional - something the two parties in power will never vote
to change by a 2/3 majority. So the deal is, you have to first get a
single-winner method (which IS Constitutional) into effect, and then
hope that PR is eventually made legal.

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Amarcy D. Berry" <amarcyb@...>
wrote:

the Libertarian "Party" is a strange
animal, an educational entity with all the benefits of a political
party!

Oh yeah, like the benefit to spoil the election for the candidates
most like ours. Brilliant!

Thus, those who want to educate, can; those who want to run
for office (and work on ways to increase their chances of winning),
can. I believe our Party's founding parents intended this dichotomy.

You don't seem to grasp - and most third parties don't - that this
HURTS your cause, rather than helping it. When all you do is spoil
elections, you are actually helping the main opposition. So unless
the LP can work with Greens and others to first change the voting
method used for our public elections to Range Voting, running
candidates is suicide for our cause. It literally hurts us FAR more
than it helps us.

So I, like Bruce Bartlett, propose that the Libertarian Party stop
running candidates altogether, and change to a PAC. But with one
caveat - we can still run candidates IF we are willing to put forth
the effort to get Range Voting. If we can make Range Voting the
number one issue for the LP, then we have a chance. Otherwise, we are
doomed. Period.

Dear Clay,

Ok, I'm in. I'll be right behind you herding all those cats.

Marcy

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "brokenladdercalendar"
<thebrokenladder@...> wrote:

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Amarcy D. Berry" <amarcyb@>
wrote:
> the Libertarian "Party" is a strange
> animal, an educational entity with all the benefits of a

political

> party!

Oh yeah, like the benefit to spoil the election for the candidates
most like ours. Brilliant!

> Thus, those who want to educate, can; those who want to run
> for office (and work on ways to increase their chances of

winning),

> can. I believe our Party's founding parents intended this

dichotomy.

You don't seem to grasp - and most third parties don't - that this
HURTS your cause, rather than helping it. When all you do is spoil
elections, you are actually helping the main opposition. So unless
the LP can work with Greens and others to first change the voting
method used for our public elections to Range Voting, running
candidates is suicide for our cause. It literally hurts us FAR more
than it helps us.

So I, like Bruce Bartlett, propose that the Libertarian Party stop
running candidates altogether, and change to a PAC. But with one
caveat - we can still run candidates IF we are willing to put forth
the effort to get Range Voting. If we can make Range Voting the
number one issue for the LP, then we have a chance. Otherwise, we

are

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Amarcy D. Berry" <amarcyb@...>
wrote:

Dear Clay,

Ok, I'm in. I'll be right behind you herding all those cats.

Marcy

That's a funny joke. So do you not really care much about your
libertarian aims? Because by running candidates in a plurality
election system, your "party" hurts them. Truth sucks huh?

Clay,

I admit that my response was cynical, and I apologize. However,
although very poorly phrased, what I meant to say still holds a) It is
difficult to get Libertarians to focus on one issue, b) I urge you to
bring this item to the next LPSF meeting and see if you can organize
some action. Perhaps you could also write an article about the
subject in the LPSF Newsletter. Yes, the issue is important, and all
of us are aware of the difficult position of third parties in the U.S.
What is left to do is work on change.

Marcy

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "brokenladdercalendar"
<thebrokenladder@...> wrote:

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Amarcy D. Berry" <amarcyb@...>
wrote:

Clay,

I admit that my response was cynical, and I apologize. However,
although very poorly phrased, what I meant to say still holds a) It is
difficult to get Libertarians to focus on one issue, b) I urge you to
bring this item to the next LPSF meeting and see if you can organize
some action. Perhaps you could also write an article about the
subject in the LPSF Newsletter. Yes, the issue is important, and all
of us are aware of the difficult position of third parties in the U.S.
What is left to do is work on change.

I thank you for this response, and I apologize if I seemed to be
berating you. I always coddle Greens and the like, but I guess I feel
like my own people are thick-skinned enough that they can handle a
little vigorous shaking, as I am wont to do.

I am very busy now with getting re-established in the city, finding a
place to live, etc. I'll be in touch, and hopefully we can talk about
this at our next meeting. Maybe we can use Range Voting to vote on
whether to talk about Range Voting more.

Oh and...I encourage you all to join the RangeVoting discussion group
and join in with your thoughts/concerns/questions.

CLAY

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "brokenladdercalendar"
<thebrokenladder@...> wrote:

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Amarcy D. Berry" <amarcyb@>
wrote:
>
> Clay,
>
> I admit that my response was cynical, and I apologize. However,
> although very poorly phrased, what I meant to say still holds a)

It is

> difficult to get Libertarians to focus on one issue, b) I urge you to
> bring this item to the next LPSF meeting and see if you can organize
> some action. Perhaps you could also write an article about the
> subject in the LPSF Newsletter. Yes, the issue is important, and all
> of us are aware of the difficult position of third parties in the

U.S.