Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Second Amendment I will no longer vote Libertarian...

I will no longer vote Libertarian because they aren't serious about winning. Every election, the Libertarians trot out a bunch of candidates to run for the Senate, House, Governor, etc... And every election, they either manage to throw the election to the Democrats or they make no noticeable impact.
<br> This is precisely the opposite of what they should be doing. The libertarians want to hit a home run and instead they end up swinging at air. Instead of squandering the party's money on elections that they have no hope of winning, they should concentrate on winning the school boards, the city councils, the county commissioners, and any of the other local offices. This way, they would build a power base and give the people a chance to see the Libertarians in action.
<br>Here in Oregon, the election went to a tax and spend Socialist-Democrat because the Libertarian candidate specifically targeted the Republican candidate in what amounted to a "If I can't win, then nobody wins!" campaign.
<br> The point of all this being, that until the Libertarians offer me something besides grandstanding (I've voted straight Libertarian since '92), I'll hold my nose and vote Republican.

I think they keep running people to stay on the ballots for whenever it gets serious, or the Republicans who seem hurt the most by them, will take up some of their ideas in order to keep them out of the running!
<br>
<br>Mike

Ed,
<br>
<br>Thanks for the post. You've expressed better than I ever could my concern with voting for Libertarian candidates.
<br>
<br>Norm

I will always vote Libertarian...

That's the beauty of our system; you have the choice. Here in Oregon, the people made a choice too. For some reason, they are in love with government and taxes around here, and the LP managed to ensure that the Dems took control.
<br>I guess I'll just have to learn to like hugging trees...

ebd10,
<br>
<br>I knew Kalifornia had gone red and suspected Washington state was a bright shade of pink.
<br>I am surprised about Oregon. I kind of envisioned
<br>Oregon as a manly state filled with self-sufficient independent thinking people.
<br>
<br>Norm

We still have plenty of independent thinkers, it's just that Portland is infested with Kalifornicators and New York Democrats that think they know better what people need. Personally, I don't think our state can afford anymore government "help".

Ed,
<br>
<br>You are right of course. To bad the Oregonians didn't put up eletrified fences to the north and south long ago.
<br>
<br>Luck,
<br>
<br>Norm

that's a big part of the problem...alot of the Liberal Democraps think that they know better than us..and they think that they need to save society from itself...through some misguided sense of "Noblesse Oblige"...we are "selfish" because we don't want to fund the vast cornucopia of social programs with our tax dollars...I remember Comrade Clinton saying "I would give the American people a tax cut if they knew what to do with it"

Edb 10--- Thanks for getting "it". There has been, are and will always be, TWO politcal ideologies--Liberal and Conservative. Anytime you split one of them, you help the other. I.E. Ross Perot gave us Bill Clinton(a bad thing) and Ralph Nader gave us George W.(a good thing). You recognized a similiar event in your state with a split in the conservative side. It's O.K. to be politcally independant and principled, just don't carry it to the point of being politically naive.--Bill

billg,
<br>
<br>Glad to hear another voice in the wilderness.
<br>
<br>Norm

I will not under any curcumstance vote Republican if I have a Libertarian I can vote for...It's better to light one candle than to curse the darkness.

Logansdad,
<br>
<br>I admire your fortitude. But isn't there an old saying about spitting into the wind?
<br>
<br>Norm

Logansdad;
<br> The problem with your position is this; The Libertarians point out the many disadvantages of living in darkness, they manage to get people to donate a substantial amount of candles, they talk about what a bright future we will have when the candles are burning, but the candles never get lit! Why? Because they don't understand that fire begins with a small spark and grows.

Ed, you hit on exactly why I try to vote libertarian. Enough folks start supporting libertarian ideas, maybe the repubs will take notice.
<br>
<br>You can't trust a democrat, that's all too true. But repubs aren't a whole lot better. Remember, it was John McCain (a repub) who gave us campain finance reform, AKA the incumbent protection program. It was also G. Busch Sr who gave us the last assault weapons ban.
<br>
<br>At least you know where you stand with a democrat. Republicans aren't worried about your rights as much as they are about getting re-elected.
<br>7mm

7mmbuster you said it better than I did..

Here's a guy who says it better than I can. I guess that's why he's the writer.
<br>7mm
<br>
<br>In 2000, I cast my presidential ballot for George W. Bush. It wasn't my proudest moment. But it seemed to me that I didn�t really have another viable option.
<br>
<br> I'm a libertarian who's not all that enthralled with the Libertarian Party. As I saw them, my options at the time were to:
<br>
<br>A) vote for Libertarian candidate Harry Browne, a guy with whom I agreed more than either of the other two candidates, but who couldn�t win and who, I think, most voters see more likely to be outfitted in a tinfoil hat than shaking hands with foreign dignitaries
<br>
<br>B) vote for George W. Bush, a guy who seemed likeable enough, but not terribly bright. But, he promised to be a "free trade president," promised tax cuts, favored school choice and recognized the need to give Americans ownership of our accumulated Social Security taxes
<br>
<br>C) vote for Al Gore, a guy with whom I agreed on almost nothing, and who is to "personality" what Boons Farm is to "wine."
<br>
<br>I chose option B.
<br>
<br>I�m no longer sure I made the right choice.
<br>
<br>Of course, I knew I'd disagree with the president on some issues, and I�m willing to accept the fact that several of those issues have now played themselves out in his policies. But what�s been particularly frustrating is that President Bush has time and again backed down from those issues with which I agreed with him -- the issues that provoked me to vote for him in the first place.
<br>
<br>For example, the president has caved on every school choice measure in his "leave no child behind" plan. The only thing he "won" in the education bill he negotiated with Ted Kennedy was a provision mandating one-size-fits-all national testing, an initiative that would expand, not retract, federal involvement in education.
<br>
<br>On Social Security reform, Republicans have run so far from "privatization," I'm surprised the president hasn't pulled a hamstring. In fact, National Republican Congressional Committee leader Tom Davis and the White House have prohibited the word "privatization" from even being uttered in Republican circles. It�s profanity. Republicans bought into Democrat propaganda suggesting that the issue was a loser in the midterm elections, despite polls to the contrary.
<br>
<br>However, Republican candidates who stood by their principles (Jim Talent in Missouri, John Sununu in New Hampshire, Elizabeth Dole in North Carolina) won. Republicans who ran from privatization (Jim Thune in South Dakota, George Gekas in Pennsylvania, and Doug Forester in New Jersey) lost.
<br>
<br>And what did the White House learn from these results? Apparently nothing. White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card has indicated that Social Security won�t even be on the policy agenda until after the 2004 election.
<br>
<br>The president has been most disappointing on trade. He extended tariffs on steel imports and softwood lumber to earn political points in battleground states. He hasn�t touched protectionist tariffs on textiles or sugar. He increased foreign aid outlays. He signed a massive, pork-laden, wasteful farm subsidies bill that�s likely to motivate trade repercussions for years to come. President Bush has been so bad on trade that conservative/libertarian columnist Steven Chapman, writing in Slate, declared "if you want free trade, elect a Democratic president."
<br>
<br>In a New York Times op-ed last weekend, National Review's John J. Miller criticized libertarians for costing the Republicans as many as four U.S. Senate seats. Miller, like lots of Republicans, see libertarians as extremists, hell-bent on "all or nothing" politics -- either we get privatized sidewalks and heroin on the playground, or we're going to vote for Ralph Nader.
<br>
<br>Of course, that's the furthest thing from the truth. My gripe with Bush and Republicans is not that they haven't moved quickly enough to reduce the size and scope of government, or even that they haven't moved at all. My gripe is that they've moved backward. Bush and his comrades in Congress passed a campaign finance "reform" bill that will restrict American political speech. They're preparing to add yet another Cabinet-level department to the executive branch. They've assigned a renowned liar and privacy opponent to oversee a massive database capable of monitoring almost every transaction made by anyone in the country.
<br>
<br>What's most infuriating is that John J. Miller and like-minded Republican cheerleaders blame libertarians for the GOP's lack of backbone. He writes:
<br>
<br>"Yet Libertarians are now serving, in effect, as Democratic Party operatives. The next time they wonder why the Bush tax cuts aren't permanent, why Social Security isn't personalized and why there aren't more school-choice pilot programs for low-income kids, all they have to do is look in the mirror." (Note how Miller avoids the word "privatized.")
<br>
<br>Nonsense. The corollary to Miller's statement is that if the Republicans had won the four Senate seats he claims were lost to libertarian "protest" votes, the next two years would have seen the installation of "personalized" Social Security accounts, school choice and a fairer tax code. Is Miller really na�ve enough to think any of these things would have happened? Republicans aren't interested in limiting the influence of government. They're interested only in getting re-elected, as Democrats are.
<br>
<br>Libertarians will vote for Republicans when Republicans give them reason to. Republicans aren't "entitled" to my vote any more than Democrats are "entitled" to the votes of African-Americans, or of Greens.
<br>
<br>Bush today has a rare opportunity. He is a popular president whose party controls both houses of Congress. He's coming off a midterm election that validated his standing with the American people. His next election is a full two years away. If ever there were a time to eschew politics for principle, that time is now.
<br>
<br>You want libertarian votes, Mr. President? Start earning them.
<br>
<br>Radley Balko is a writer living in Arlington, Va. He also maintains a weblog at www.theagitator.com.
<br>

It's not the Libertarian philosophy I disagree with, it's their methodology. Harry Browne & Co. suck up a huge portion of the treasury so that they can lose. What I want to see is more serious action at the local level. Forget the Senate and the Presidency, concentrate on school boards, city councils and other local offices. Places where individual votes can make a difference. Then, when we've had the opportunity to see the Libertarians in action, and they reveal themselves to be something other than just another mob of statist looters, they will have a real base of power to launch candidates into larger races.
<br>Their current system of running people that have no support, no track record, and no name recognition just won't cut it in today's political arena.

Statist Looters ?

Suck up a huge portion of the treasury ?

Correct. Statist looters. Theyloot my paycheck and use it to expand the state's power. As for using up the treasury, I should have said "campaign fund" The Libertarians waste the majority of their campaign funds on races they can't win. Political campaigns are expensive. Especially when the money is spent on races that there is no hope of winning.

I don't know how to respond to somebody who doesn't know the difference between liberal democrat and libertarian.. without being rude anyway...

I submit as proof of the dumbing down of America someone who does not know the difference between Libertarian and Liberal Democrat...If you would like to learn more click here
<br>http://www.lp.org/

Whose the one that doesn't know the difference?

ebd10

I am perfectly aware of the difference between a Liberal Democrat and a Libertarian. If you had read my post more carefully, you would have realized that the statist looters that I refer to are the Republicans and the Democrats.
<br>As to the wasting of campaign funds by the Libertarians; I stand by my statement. The fact is that Libertarians DO NOT and WILL NOT EVER have a track record as long as they continue to to use the current failing strategy.
<br>What few offices they hold nationwide are either insignificant or are offices that it's difficult to find candidates for in the first place.

we're gaining ground every election...Republican'ts want your guns almost as bad as the Dumbocrats want them.. who signed the 1989 Assault Weapons Ban ?

Gaining ground??? You're living in a dream world. The Libertarians are the armchair quarterbacks of politics. They have a thousand ways that the government could be run better, cheaper, and more efficiently. Unfortunately, no one will ever know whether they're right or not because they have exactly NO chance of winning any important elections. Why? Because they continue to believe that the American people will just suddenly "see the light" and vote for them.
<br>The Libertarians have had 30 years to build a constituency. Instead, they chose to repeat year one, 30 times. They took the easy way out.
<br> See, if they buckled down, built a base of power, and managed to snare some important local offices, they might have a shot at making some real changes in our country. That's where the problem lies. If they WON, then they would have to PRODUCE RESULTS! It's far easier to beat your chest and play the "lone voice in the wilderness" when you don't have anything to lose.
<br> Hey, I like their platform. I believe in almost everything they stand for. If they ever showed any indication that they wanted to be anything but a spoiler for the Republicans, I'd reconsider. But for now, they're a fart in a windstorm.
<br> As for the Republicans wanting our guns, no kidding! Unfortunately, until the Libertarians get off of their butts and do something besides waste time, our choices are the Republicans Incremental Socialism and the Dems Socialism Express. THAT"S why I'm so disgusted with the Libertarians. They have a great platform, great philosophy, and LOUSY strategy! The definition of insanity is using the same method repeatedly, each time expecting a different result. The only logical conclusion is not that they CAN'T win, it's that they don't WANT to. Don't believe me? Ask around your local chapter and find out why they don't switch strategies (since their current method is a failure many times over).

You won't change my mind...I won't change yours...we agree to disagree.. I am still a Libertarian...I will always be a Libertarian 'til the day I die...

I had no illusions about changing your mind. I simply wanted to express why I'm not voting Libertarian anymore. I'm hoping that somehow, somewhere, the LP will see what's wrong with their strategy and fix it.

ebd10, take my advise and give it up. He isn't trying to understand what you said. Some people just enjoy stirring a pot.

Ebd10, I hope you are right and the Libertarians change their game plan.
<br>
<br>We are at war and I will continue to support Bush as far as the war goes.
<br>
<br>But when it comes to the republicans and the upcoming elections in 2004, I'm going the other way.
<br>
<br>For over thirty years now (starting with Nixon) a mistake, I have voted republican for national offices and for the last ten to twelve years I voted for Libertarians for as many state offices I could.
<br>
<br>I couldn't stand the thought of doing anything that would allow a democrat to win a national office.
<br>
<br>However, a political party that wins will not reform.
<br>
<br>They will always repeat the formula that gave them the win. The party then will add more of the ingredient that they believe helped put them over the top.
<br>
<br>Their mentality will not allow them to change a platform that gave them a win at the polls.
<br>
<br>The only time a political party will consider reform is after a big loss.
<br>
<br>In our political past we have had multi party elections for many years. Some years there were three or four different flavors of socialist and populist candidates along with the democrats and republicans for president. What happened to them? Their ideas were picked up and championed by the democrats that wanted their votes in much the same way we are witnessing republican candidates promising more republican flavored socialist programs today.
<br>
<br>The party that wins will never reform. The losing party will either retreat to past platforms that brought them a win or change directions to try and gain the votes they didn't get. In the case of the democrats reforming after their loss in the last presidential election, they will try to appeal to the one million voters that voted radically for the green party. That is what they believe cost them the last presidential election along with not being able to cheat as much as they wanted to in Florida.
<br>
<br>The aftermath from this last midterm election has the democrats moving even farther to the more radical left and the republicans digging in and continuing to offer expanded socialist programs.
<br>
<br>The republicans will run on expanded socialist programs in the next election. Our midterm elections had republicans unashamedly promoting socialism. Only a major loss at the polls will change that. Winners don't change, they repeat the winning formula. They will never reform without a loss.
<br>
<br>If we look at the reality of what has happened over the last two years it would be hard to deny the damage done by our republican president.
<br>
<br>He waffled on his education platform and did just the opposite of what he promised.
<br>
<br>He signed the campaign finance reform that effectively kills our rights to political free speech. He campaigned against it.
<br>
<br>Read the Patriot act.
<br>
<br>Read about the new homeland security act and the measures allowed.
<br>
<br>Klinton was the worst POS to ever infest the Whitehouse, but the republican I voted for and helped put in the Whitehouse has done more damage to the Constitution than the POS klinton did!
<br>
<br>Klinton was a scoundrel, liar, traitor and thief, but how many laws did he actually sign that damaged the Constitution? He sidestepped lawmaking in favor of regulations and executive orders. Did he do damage? Of course he did. But Bush did not use executive orders to reverse the damages done by klinton's executive orders. It would have been just that simple. But he didn't do it.
<br>
<br>Now look at the damaging laws have been signed in the last two years. On this basis alone Bush doesn't look too good without being compared to the worst.
<br>
<br>All of this damage was done when the democrats had only one elected senator more than the republicans.
<br>
<br>Don't forget, Lincoln was an alternative candidate in his first election and then was reelected as a unionist candidate for his second term.
<br>
<br>I put together a list detailing all of our elections from the Washington on. It has all of the candidates I could find. We have only been a two party system a couple of times. I'll post it if I can find it again.
<br>
<br>The argument to continue voting for the slower socialists just doesn't work if we take a realistic look at the damage winning republicans do.
<br>
<br>Something strange happens to republican politicians when they are elected. They don't know what to do with power when they have it. They become spineless ineffective eunuchs. With a democrat in the Whitehouse they fight.
<br>
<br>Remember the great contract with America. They fought and won!!!!!!
<br>
<br>When republicans win it all, they set aside their principles and make concessions instead of governing according to their principles.
<br>
<br>The republicans don't need a Jeffords to lose control. When we held both houses during the klinton regime, Trent Lott instituted "power sharing".
<br>
<br>We managed to survive eight years of the worst the socialist democrats ever had to offer and we can do it again if our constitution survives Bush
<br>
<br>Again our present unreformed republican party has done more direct damage to the constitution than any democrat regime I can remember. I am talking of loss of Liberty, not inane bone headed democrat programs or bad executive orders, just direct damage to Liberty and Freedoms signed into law.
<br>
<br>red

Red, I couldn't agree more. When Republicans get into positions to actually move this country in the right direction, they always screw up. I don't think that most of them are serious about being conservative. They just talk that way to get elected. It is a fact that candidates who talk conservative will win in national election, and that's why they do it. They have no intention, for the most part, of actually stemming the tide of socialism.

Here's the list. I had posted it elsewhere on the net too.
<br>
<br>Notice what happened to the republican party before Lincoln and after Lincoln.
<br>
<br>We may not like the immediate results of third or more parties spoiling elections, but we will survive,
<br>
<br>Here is the list of past candidates for president:
<br>
<br>1789 before we had recognized political parties
<br>George Washington
<br>John Adams
<br>John Jay
<br>R. H. Harrison
<br>John Rutledge
<br>John Hancock
<br>George Clinton
<br>Samuel Huntington
<br>John Milton
<br>James Armstrong
<br>Benjamin Lincoln
<br>Edward Telfair
<br>
<br>
<br>1792
<br>George Washington Federalist
<br>John Adams Federalist
<br>George Clinton Democratic-Republican
<br>Thomas Jefferson
<br>Aaron Burr
<br>
<br>1796
<br>John Adams Federalist
<br>Thomas Jefferson Democratic-Republican
<br>Thomas Pinckney Federalist
<br>Aaron Burr Antifederalist
<br>Samuel Adams Democratic-Republican
<br>Oliver Ellsworth Federalist
<br>George Clinton Democratic-Republican
<br>John Jay Independent-Federalist
<br>James Iredell Federalist
<br>George Washington Federalist
<br>John Henry Independent
<br>S. Johnston Independent-Federalist
<br>C. C. Pinckney Independent-Federalist
<br>
<br>1800
<br>Thomas Jefferson Democratic-Republican
<br>Aaron Burr Democratic-Republican
<br>John Adams Federalist
<br>C. C. Pinckney Federalist
<br>John Jay Federalist
<br>
<br>1804
<br>Thomas Jefferson Democratic-Republican
<br>C. C. Pinckney Federalist
<br>
<br>1808
<br>James Madison Democratic-Republican
<br>C. C. Pinckney Federalist
<br>George Clinton Independent-Republican
<br>
<br>
<br>1812
<br>James Madison Democratic-Republican
<br>De Witt Clinton Fusion Party
<br>
<br>
<br>1816
<br>James Monroe Republican
<br>Rufus King Federalist
<br>
<br>
<br>1820
<br>James Monroe Republican
<br>John Q. Adams Independent-Republican
<br>
<br>
<br>1824 No real distinct party affiliations
<br>John Q. Adams
<br>Andrew Jackson
<br>Henry Clay
<br>W. H. Crawford
<br>
<br>1828
<br>Andrew Jackson Democratic
<br>John Q. Adams National Republican
<br>
<br>1832
<br>Andrew Jackson Democratic
<br>Henry Clay National Republican
<br>William Wirt Anti-Masonic
<br>John Floyd Nullifiers Party
<br>
<br>
<br>1836 Note that the Republican party just disappeared this election
<br>Martin Van Buren Democratic
<br>William H. Harrison Whig
<br>Hugh L. White Whig
<br>Daniel Webster Whig
<br>W. P. Mangum Anti-Jackson
<br>
<br>1840 NOTE NO REPUBLICAN PARTY AGAIN
<br>William H. Harrison Whig
<br>Martin Van Buren Democratic
<br>
<br>1844 NO REPUBLICAN PARTY AGAIN
<br>James K. Polk Democratic
<br>Henry Clay Whig
<br>James G. Birney Liberty
<br>
<br>1848
<br>Zachary Taylor Whig
<br>Lewis Cass Democratic
<br>Martin Van Buren Free Soil
<br>
<br>1852 STILL NO REPUBLICAN PARTY
<br>Franklin Pierce Democratic
<br>Winfield Scott Whig
<br>John P. Hale Free Soil
<br>
<br>1856 LOOK A NEW REFORMED REPUBLICAN PARTY
<br>James Buchanan Democratic
<br>John C. Fr�mont Republican
<br>Millard Fillmore American
<br>
<br>IN 1860 the ALTERNATIVE PARTY CANDIDATE WON..... ABRAHAM LINCLON!!!!! A REPUBLICAN
<br>
<br>1860
<br>Abraham Lincoln Republican
<br>John C. Breckinridge Southern Democratic
<br>Stephen A. Douglas Democratic
<br>John Bell Constitutional Union
<br>
<br>1864
<br>Abraham Lincoln Union
<br>George B. McClellan Democratic
<br>
<br>
<br>1868
<br>Ulysses S. Grant Republican
<br>Horatio Seymour Democratic
<br>
<br>
<br>1872
<br>Ulysses S. Grant Republican
<br>Horace Greeley5 Democratic/Liberal Republican
<br>Charles O'Conor Straight Out Democratic
<br>Thomas A. Hendricks Independent-Democratic
<br>B. Gratz Brown Democratic
<br>Charles J. Jenkins Democratic
<br>David Davis Democratic
<br>
<br>
<br>1876
<br>Rutherford B. Hayes Republican
<br>Samuel J. Tilden Democratic
<br>Peter Cooper Greenback
<br>
<br>1880
<br>James A. Garfield Republican
<br>Winfield S. Hancock Democratic
<br>James B. Weaver Greenback-Labor
<br>Neal Dow Prohibition
<br>
<br>1884
<br>Grover Cleveland Democratic
<br>James G. Blaine Republican
<br>Benjamin F. Butler Greenback-Labor/Anti-Monopoly
<br>John P. St. John Prohibition
<br>
<br>1888
<br>Benjamin Harrison Republican
<br>Grover Cleveland Democratic
<br>Clinton B. Fisk Prohibition
<br>Anson J. Streeter Union Labor
<br>
<br>1892
<br>Grover Cleveland Democratic
<br>Benjamin Harrison Republican
<br>James B. Weaver People's
<br>John Bidwell Prohibition
<br>Simon Wing Socialist Labor
<br>
<br>1896
<br>William McKinley Republican
<br>William J. Bryan Democratic A SOCIALIST POPULIST MASQUERADING AS A DEMOCRAT
<br>John M. Palmer National Democratic
<br>Joshua Levering Prohibition
<br>Charles H. Matchett Socialist Labor
<br>Charles E. Bentley Nationalist Prohibition
<br>
<br>1900
<br>William McKinley Republican
<br>William J. Bryan Democratic
<br>John G. Woolley Prohibition
<br>Eugene V. Debs Socialist
<br>Wharton Barker People's
<br>Joseph F. Malloney Socialist Labor
<br>
<br>1904
<br>Theodore Roosevelt Republican
<br>Alton B. Parker Democratic
<br>Eugene V. Debs Socialist
<br>Silas C. Swallow Prohibition
<br>Thomas E. Watson People's
<br>Charles H. Corregan Socialist Labor
<br>
<br>1908
<br>William H. Taft Republican
<br>William J. Bryan Democratic
<br>Eugene V. Debs Socialist
<br>Eugene W. Chafin Prohibition
<br>Thomas L. Hisgen Independence
<br>Thomas E. Watson People's
<br>August Gillhaus Socialist Labor
<br>
<br>1912
<br>Woodrow Wilson Democratic
<br>Theodore Roosevelt Progressive
<br>William H. Taft Republican
<br>Eugene V. Debs Socialist
<br>Eugene W. Chafin Prohibition
<br>Arthur E. Reimer Socialist Labor
<br>
<br>1916
<br>Woodrow Wilson Democratic
<br>Charles E. Hughes Republican
<br>A. L. Benson Socialist
<br>J. Frank Hanly Prohibition
<br>Arthur E. Reimer Socialist Labor
<br>
<br>1920
<br>Warren G. Harding Republican
<br>James M. Cox Democratic
<br>Eugene V. Debs Socialist
<br>P. P. Christensen Farmer-Labor
<br>Aaron S. Watkins Prohibition
<br>James E. Ferguson American
<br>W. W. Cox Socialist Labor
<br>
<br>1924
<br>Calvin Coolidge Republican
<br>John W. Davis Democratic
<br>Robert M. La Follette Progressive
<br>Herman P. Faris Prohibition
<br>Frank T. Johns Socialist Labor
<br>William Z. Foster Communist
<br>Gilbert O. Nations American
<br>
<br>1928
<br>Herbert C. Hoover Republican
<br>Alfred E. Smith Democratic
<br>Norman Thomas Socialist
<br>William Z. Foster Communist
<br>Verne L. Reynolds Socialist Labor
<br>William F. Varney Prohibition
<br>
<br>1932
<br>Franklin D Roosevelt Democratic
<br>Herbert C. Hoover Republican
<br>Norman Thomas Socialist
<br>William Z. Foster Communist
<br>William D. Upshaw Prohibition
<br>William H. Harvey Liberty
<br>Verne L. Reynolds Socialist Labor
<br>
<br>1936
<br>Franklin D. Roosevelt Democratic
<br>Alfred M. Landon Republican
<br>William Lemke Union
<br>Norman Thomas Socialist
<br>Earl Browder Communist
<br>D. Leigh Colvin Prohibition
<br>John W. Aiken Socialist Labor
<br>
<br>1940
<br>Franklin D. Roosevelt Democratic
<br>Wendell L. Willkie Republican
<br>Norman Thomas Socialist
<br>Roger W. Babson Prohibition
<br>Earl Browder Communist
<br>John W. Aiken Socialist Labor
<br>
<br>1944
<br>Franklin D. Roosevelt Democratic
<br>Thomas E. Dewey Republican
<br>Norman Thomas Socialist
<br>Claude A. Watson Prohibition
<br>Edward A. Teichert Socialist Labor
<br>
<br>1948
<br>Harry S. Truman Democratic
<br>Thomas E. Dewey Republican
<br>Strom Thurmond States' Rights Democratic
<br>Henry Wallace Progressive
<br>Norman Thomas Socialist
<br>Claude A. Watson Prohibition
<br>Edward A. Teichert Socialist Labor
<br>Farrell Dobbs Socialist Workers
<br>
<br>1952
<br>Dwight D. Eisenhower Republican
<br>Adlai E. Stevenson Democratic
<br>Vincent Hallinan Progressive
<br>Stuart Hamblen Prohibition
<br>Eric Hass Socialist Labor
<br>Darlington Hoopes Socialist
<br>Douglas MacArthur Constitution
<br>Farrell Dobbs Socialist Workers
<br>
<br>1956
<br>Dwight D. Eisenhower Republican
<br>Adlai E. Stevenson Democratic
<br>Walter Jones (not a candidate)
<br>T. Coleman Andrews Independent States' Rights
<br>Eric Hass Socialist Labor
<br>Enoch A. Holtwick Prohibition
<br>
<br>1960
<br>John F. Kennedy Democratic
<br>Richard M. Nixon Republican
<br>Eric Hass Socialist Labor
<br>R. L. Decker Prohibition
<br>Orval Faubus National States' Rights
<br>Farrell Dobbs Socialist Workers
<br>Charles L. Sullivan Constitution
<br>
<br>1964
<br>Lyndon B. Johnson Democratic
<br>Barry M. Goldwater Republican
<br>Eric Hass Socialist Labor
<br>Clifton DeBerry Socialist Workers
<br>E. Harold Munn Prohibition
<br>
<br>1968
<br>Richard M. Nixon Republican
<br>Hubert H. Humphrey Democratic
<br>George C. Wallace American Independent
<br>Henning Blomen Socialist Labor
<br>Dick Gregory Freedom and Peace
<br>Fred Halstead Socialist Workers
<br>Eldridge Cleaver Peace and Freedom
<br>Eugene J. McCarthy
<br>E. Harold Munn Prohibition
<br>
<br>1972
<br>Richard M. Nixon Republican
<br>George S. McGovern Democratic
<br>John G. Schmitz American
<br>Benjamin Spock People's
<br>Louis Fisher Socialist Labor
<br>Linda Jenness Socialist Workers
<br>Gus Hall Communist
<br>Evelyn Reed Socialist Workers
<br>E. Harold Munn Prohibition
<br>John Hospers Libertarian
<br>
<br>1976
<br>Jimmy Carter Democratic
<br>Gerald R. Ford Republican
<br>Eugene J. McCarthy Independent
<br>Roger MacBride Libertarian
<br>Lester Maddox American Independent
<br>Thomas J. Anderson American
<br>Peter Camejo Socialist Workers
<br>Gus Hall Communist
<br>Margaret Wright People's
<br>Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. U.S. Labor
<br>Benjamin C. Bubar Prohibition
<br>
<br>
<br>1980
<br>Ronald Reagan Republican
<br>Jimmy Carter Democratic
<br>John B. Anderson Independent
<br>Ed Clark Libertarian
<br>Barry Commoner Citizens
<br>Gus Hall Communist
<br>John R. Rarick American Independent
<br>Clifton DeBerry Socialist Workers
<br>Ellen McCormack Right to Life
<br>Maureen Smith Peace and Freedom
<br>Deirdre Griswold Workers World
<br>
<br>1984
<br>Ronald Reagan Republican
<br>Walter F. Mondale Democratic
<br>David Bergland Libertarian
<br>Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. Independent
<br>Sonia Johnson Citizens
<br>Bob Richards Populist
<br>Dennis L. Serrette Independent Alliance
<br>Gus Hall Communist
<br>Mel Mason Socialist Workers
<br>Larry Holmes Workers World
<br>Delmar Dennis American
<br>Ed Winn Workers League
<br>
<br>1988
<br>George Bush Republican
<br>Michael S. Dukakis Democratic
<br>Ron Paul Libertarian
<br>Lenora B. Fulani New Alliance
<br>David E. Duke Populist
<br>Eugene J. McCarthy Consumer
<br>James C. Griffin American Independent
<br>Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. National Economic Recovery
<br>William A. Marra Right to Life
<br>Ed Winn Workers League
<br>James Warren Socialist Workers
<br>Herbert Lewin Peace and Freedom
<br>
<br>1992
<br>Bill Clinton Democratic
<br>George Bush Republican
<br>Ross Perot Independent
<br>Andre V. Marrou Libertarian
<br>James "Bo" Gritz Populist
<br>Lenora B. Fulani New Alliance
<br>Howard Phillips U.S. Taxpayers
<br>John Hagelin Natural Law
<br>Ron Daniels Peace and Freedom
<br>Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. Economic Recovery
<br>James Warren Socialist Workers
<br>
<br>1996
<br>Bill Clinton Democratic
<br>Bob Dole Republican
<br>Ross Perot Independent
<br>Ralph Nader Green
<br>Harry Browne Libertarian
<br>Howard Phillips U.S. Taxpayers
<br>John Hagelin Natural Law
<br>Monica Moorehead Workers World
<br>Marsha Feinland Peace and Freedom
<br>James Harris Socialist Workers
<br>
<br>2000
<br>George W. Bush Republican
<br>Albert Gore Democratic
<br>Ralph Nader Green
<br>Patrick Buchanon Reform
<br>Harry Browne Libertarian
<br>Howard Phillips Constitution
<br>John Hagelin Natural Law
<br>James Harris Socialist Workers
<br>Neil Smith Arizona Libertarian
<br>---------------------------------------------
<br>
<br>red

What happens is that if a Republican it too conservative, the establishment will raise up a third party candidate who will appeal to the conservatives, thus splitting the vote. This is how, for example, Wilson got elected.
<br>
<br>The solution is to amend the constitution to allow for a run off election after the election, where only the top two candidates will run against each other one month after the general election.

ebd10, Just think what would of happened if Ross Perot had not of ran for president.......... He took a LOT of votes away from Pres Bush.. AND because of that we got Slick Willy instead! Man O Man if only Perot had not ran for President..

To be honest, Perot had struck a chord within the American voters and had a real chance of running away with the election. Then he started having delusions about Cuban hit teams and mysterious plots against his life and he quit. The he re-entered the race and became a spoiler for Bush. It almost seemed choreographed.