I agree that we should work together, to continue to break down those barriers created by the two major parties - but we need a few good people in office.

I noted the article at BAN about political party membership increasing while independent registration is down for the first time in over a decade. I read into that the Reptile and Demogogue nuts are going to be TOUGHER to crack as people become more emotionally invested in those parties (footbal team syndrom), institutional barriers notwithstanding.

As long as we use the first-past-the-post voting, we will remain a two-party system. Some form of ranked voting is the only hope short of trying to displace one of the others. The LP has been advocating IRV, but a Condorcet method would benefit us more, as the R's & D's both are likely to prefer us to each other, potentially propelling us into power as soon as it is implemented.

Where's Hammer of Truth and Liberty Mix, you know the blog with Stephen Gordon on staff that received donations of over $10,000 to support it (after prompting by a mass e-mail from Badnarik); then a week after stating Liberty Mix was ready to go (5 months late as it was), it disappears for three weeks and counting?

Maybe we're going about this the wrong way. Instead of shoving our entire platform down people's throats right away, how about coming off as the moderate party. People are familiar with the straight line left to right political spectrum. Most Americans consider themselves to be in the middle of that spectrum (even if in their heart of hearts they'd be libertarian if they knew what that meant). One third of registered voters probably consider themselves as moderates.

How about a "stuck in the middle with you" themed ad campaign.

It will take many libertarian representatives in Congress to make any of the changes we seek, so infiltrating as a moderate party can get us in the door and then we can bring the country back to the Constitution. It wil never happen over night, so despite our dreams for it, we should try something more compromising, at least short term. We can't save the nation in one election. Not the ideal scenario for us, but probably more realistic.

Nick, why would "wolf in sheep's clothing" not tick off the voters we fooled? If we change their minds, their votes will follow. It doesn't work the other way around.

Moderate party? Not me. I'm an extremist. And that's a good thing. Do you want your spouse to be moderately faithful or extremely faithful? Do you want your airline pilot to be moderately sober or extremely sober? As Barry Goldwater said, in the defense of liberty moderation is no virtue and extremisim is no vice.

What I WOULD go for, and have long advocated, is a return to 2 documents: A shorter-scope, incremental program on a few key current issues AND a manifesto with a bottom-line, principle-based position on all issues. The LP USED to do this, with the PLATFORM and the PROGRAM.

The program was a great outreach tool and an alternative to "shoving our entire platform down people's throats right away" and something candidates could run on - but the platform was still there for when the going got down to philosophy.

I agree that the two party system is caused by our first past the post voting system. In my estimation, IRV would not change things all that much either. (Australia still has two dominant parties despite using a form of IRV.)

I agree that Condercet is better than IRV and may help alliviate the two party system, but Approval Voting is an even simpler system that would be a positive boon to candidates that can appeal to both sides of the current political divide.

Yeah, I took the new advocates quiz and the result was "Radical Libertarian." I guess I just want to succeed in changing our government and I'm trying to think of realistic ways to do that. I think some compromise is necessary. Maybe the term "moderate" is off our path but people recognize the term and that's more than we can say about "libertarianism." Being an extremist isn't going to accomplish anything. It won't give us the liberty we seek because it turns people off and in a democracy it takes a majority of people to make changes. You are all correct, but it doesn't change the fact that we need help in this fight and that help can come from the middle. I don't think it's "wolf in sheep's clothing" if we actually do what we say we plan to do. We don't have to hide the fact that we are legitimately targeting moderates.

Range voting is a major step up from either approval or Condorcet. Range voting handles clones better because you give cardinal vs. ordinal information. For example, with a 1-10 range vote and candidates Al Gore, George Bush, John Mackey, T.J. Rogers, I would vote something like:
Gore 4
Bush 1
Mackey 10
Rogers 9

Unlike IRV or Condorcet, I am able to put a much bigger gap between Rogers and Gore, than between Mackey and Rogers.

And range voting is something everyone is familiar with: it is used for such things a judging diving, gymnastics and figure skating.

I honestly don't think it makes much difference to most voters where we come from philosophically. It's that mental block against third parties. I've opposed IRV in the past because in plurality states a "minor" candidate could theoretically win with 34%. But we will never know what the real effect of alternative voting systems will be until some states adopt them and we have the experience to look at. We need a lot more third-party office holders to change the mindset.

Another option is to work for non-partisan elections for all offices and remove any "official" standing for parties. That would probably require vilifying political parties in the same wau corporations are being vilified now - "Washington is POT - Partisan Occupied Territory." George Washington had some thoughts on that topic.

And it may just be that electoral politics is not a viable tool for gaining freedom. What people have ever voted themselves free?

Like most of you, I'm frustrated and don't know the answers.

Who ever voted themselves free? History provides the answer! Our founding fathers like Washington,Jefferson, Adams and Madison and many others voted themselves free by voting in favor of the constituition of the U.S. And making it the law that government on any level cannot take certain rights from the people. People continue to vote themselves free by voting for strict eminent domain restrictions on state and local ballots as well as against banning gay marriage as we did in Arizona. It is a matter of money being given by those who want cahange for the better to libertarian candidates or libertarian themed organizations like the NRA, The Bill of Rights Institute and National Right to Work Foundation that is working to preserve first amendment association rights against labor unions that want to violate it and force people to join them and give money for socialist politics against their will. There is always more than one way to defend freedom just like their is always more than one solution to every problem. People of all third parties and independents need to be encouraged to support libertarians and help them get elected to overcome egregrious ballot signature laws and oppresive campaign finance laws. The LP and its members need to start an advertising campaign in this respect. The sooner we do, the more lp candidates will have chances for success in 2008. John Stossel for the lp nomination in 2008!!!!

People of all third parties and independents need to be encouraged to support libertarians and help them get elected

the LP cant even agree who a "real" libertarian is, for god sakes. Many people who would support the party and share it's general direction are not 'principled' enough and never either get the chance to support it or get hounded out by others who think they are.

Until the party accepts a wider definition to what makes a libertarian and welcomes more "immigrants" into the LP and quits abusing those that dont measure up by the non force principle, it wont matter. You'll never get enough of a support base to matter.

I agree with Timothy that we have to be more open minded to "libertarianism." There are ideal situations but they only lie with the individual that thinks their way is best and are uncompromising. They gain nothing.

America is not the kind of country that embraces extremism because we have many freedoms (or at least the myth of it) as well as money (even if we don't control our money as much as we'd like). Voters accept a risk/reward mentality. They prefer the devil they know, so it is important not to shun Reps and Dems that are part of the Liberty caucuses just because they are Reps and Dems. They may be an asset if we are to gain the public trust. People accept them as safe Congresspersons only because of their current party affiliations, but perhaps they can speak out against the Reps and Dems if they are united in a strong tax reduction initiative and limitation of government spending. We can piggyback and at the same time gain something for our other causes if we are smart and careful.

"Our founding fathers like Washington,Jefferson, Adams and Madison and many others voted themselves free"

No they didn't - they had to fight a long, bloody revolution.

Where's Hammer of Truth and Liberty Mix, you know the blog with Stephen Gordon on staff that received donations of over $10,000 to support it (after prompting by a mass e-mail from Badnarik); then a week after stating Liberty Mix was ready to go (5 months late as it was), it disappears for a month and counting?