should we elimiate ballots?

[Jake]

Why?

If your as libertarian as I hope you are, you should know that we have many stuggles in getting on the ballots in every state.  Once the resources are used for getting on every ballot are used, we hardly have any money to spend on ads.  However the Democratic and Republican candidates for President get free access plus something like $75 mil from the government to help with campaigns.  Heck even if we have problems, like Alcon points out, it's better than my taxpayer money going to finance John Kerry and George Bush.

When the Libertarians win automatic ballot access, the can get on the ballots for free also.

[Jake]

be much easier if you guys didn't hold us back.  What are you afriad of extra competition? Afraid we might appeal to more people, if they knew more about us?

The thread in Political Debate shows why I'm not in the least afraid of your party being on the ballot. Badnarik was on the ballot in how many states and preformed pitfully in each one.

[Jake]

No, we will destroy you like the Democrats did to the Greens and Nader.

[Jake]

You're frankly wasting resources on stuff like Badnarik's TV ad last October. I can only imagine how many local candidates that one TV ad could've supported and considering the fact that Badnarik failed to top half a percent, I think it's safe to say it failed as well. Concentrate on local races and you might get lucky and get noticed. Because for all his attempts, Badnarik got zero mainstream media coverage for any of his stunts last year and failed at getting the LPs message out there.

[Jake]

No, but if the Libertarians are the cause of a Republican losing a big race (Congress or President), the LP will find that it will have a very difficult time of getting on the ballot the next election in those states. It will be like the Greens in '04 and their pledge only to campaign in states that don't matter.

[Jake]

Obviously, because we'd rather keep power firmly collected in our hands and because we favor stability in the system. There is a reason why there hasn't been a strong third party movement recently in America. It would totally destroy our political stability by forcing drastic changes in the Electoral College and all popular vote elections. I much prefer the status quo.

[Jake]

By third party movement I mean they actually won a number of state house, state senate, Senate, and House seats. Pulling 19% and 8% in two elections is hardly a success.

[Jake]

A success would be continuing to get that vote total election after election. Instead, Reform fell away a few years later eventually nominating Nader, a candidate who shares few of their positions. Reform is the most successful third party since the Progressives, but ultimately never achieved any real change in the political process in the US.