On November 1, the Arkansas Secretary of State’s office said the Libertarian Party’s petition has enough valid names, so the party is back on the ballot. The Secretary of State is still working on checking the Green Party petition. Arkansas requires 10,000 valid signatures for party status. Libertarians had turned in approximately 16,000 recently; Greens submitted approximately 14,500.
The 2014 election will be the first midterm election year in which the Libertarian Party has been on the ballot in Arkansas. The state requires a vote of 3% for the office at the top of the ticket, every two years, for a party to remain ballot-qualified. In other words, only the vote for President and Governor counts for retention of party status.
I hope the Green Party does get ballot access. It’d create a bit of a messed up situation otherwise if Fred Smith (the Green Party member that got elected to the Arkansas state legislature in 2012) couldn’t run even though he’d be the incumbent in his state legislature’s district.
It’s just another example of how messed up our country’s election system is, that he has to worry about whether he’ll even be able to run for re-election because of that issue. Then again, one can’t rule out the possibility of him switching to a different party, probably the Democratic Party.
One fun thing I’ve just thought of: If the Green Party does have enough signatures to get ballot access, Rep. Smith won’t have to worry about the Democratic Party using the “spoiler theory” on him. Even the most foolish voters would recognize that that “theory” doesn’t apply if the candidate in question is the incumbent!
From the site:
http://www.lp.org/candidates/elected-officials
“Nationwide, there are 144 Libertarians holding elected offices: 38 partisan offices, and 106 nonpartisan offices.”
Some of the “offices” are:
Prairie Grove Alderman, Arkansas
Van Nuys Neighborhood Council, California
Left Hand Water Board, Colorado
Lee County Soil and Water Board, Seat 5, Florida
Normal Library Board, Illinois
Billerica Town Meeting Representative, Massachusetts
Millbury Library Trustee, Massachusetts
Elmwood Place Village Council, Ohio
Hilarious. But I’ll give them their props – they seem to do well getting on Water and Soil boards, for some reason. maybe has something to do with growing weed.
The party’s website features an article entitled “Libertarian Party to Incumbents: defund Obamacare now – or risk voter backlash in 2014.”
So watch out all you Democrats holding the other seats on the Normal School Board! The nationwide political juggernaut that is the Librtarian Party will lay you waste if you don’t reject the Socialistic jihaad of the Muslim Kenyan despot in DC.
The Libertarian Party…what a freaking joke. A bunch of dopers who, like their Tea Party cousins, just don’t like taxes. All the other “liberty” issues are camouflage.
Thanfully, the party resonates as well with the American voting public as the flu.
Troll harder.
Very easy to be a Communist LOOTER in the Warfare / Welfare regime since 1929 via taxes and borrowed money — see the now 17 plus TRILLION USA national debt with about 40 plus percent of the GDP in USA, State and Local taxes.
i.e. about 30 plus percent of folks get A-L-L of their NET income from STATISM — the New Age Slave masters.
How soon before a 1789 France type Tax Revolt ???
That 1773 Brit Tea Tax merely produced the 1775-1783 American Revolution.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
You’re barking up the wrong tree, Bernie. We believe in reason and facts here, not fear tactics and other anti-democracy nonsense.
Please do feel free to look at some of the articles on here, particularly those about the recent polls showing how voters are becoming increasingly disillusioned with the Democrats and Republicans.
Oh, and if your were to glance at American electoral history, you would see that third parties were able to get a few people elected to Congress quite frequently before 1950. Perhaps the rise of voters who think like you caused the current decline in the democratic nature of our elections.
And I’m not even a Libertarian, but a Green.
Please help Robert Sarvis get elected Governor in Virginia we got basically one day to send emails to everyone we know. Ken Cuccinelli started a smear campaign against Sarvis that is so wrong.
I’m sure water and soil are the keys to change in American politics.
That sounds eerily familiar. William Enyart did the same to Paula Bradshaw, the Green Party candidate, in the IL-12 Congressional race last fall by throwing in the “spoiler theory” card and comparing her to Ralph Nader. She still got enough of the vote (5.6%) to get the Green Party qualified within the district.
I’ve been posting comments to Yahoo in favor of Sarvis for the past several weeks, pointing out the failings of the Democrats and Republicans over the years while showing that Sarvis is the most honest candidate of the three. To be brutally honest, I just don’t see Sarvis winning this. Too many people seem too closed minded or scared of the “greater evil” to give him a decent chance of winning. However, it’s still quite possible that he could get 10+ percent of the vote, and since that would give the Virginia LP major party status, that would be an accomplishment all the same. When people have REALLY had enough of the D’s and R’s in the next few years, The Libertarians and the Greens will be well placed to get at least a few people elected, and try and restore some common sense to this country.
Bernie, You have a point: we Libertarians seem get elected mostly at local offices. However, we are determined and persistent. Our candidate for Governor of Virginia, Robert Sarvis is polling right above 10% in recent polls. If he achieves 10% under state law, the Libertarian Party will become a major party under state law. Then it will not have to petition to get on the ballot for any office for the next 4 years. This will be a major accomplishment. There will also be much media publicity that comes along with that. I remember back in 1980 when I think I was the only Libertarian in my whole Congressional district in Virginia. We have been building slowly but watch out.
I am also really hoping that Sarvis gets 10%. However, if he does, it lasts three years, not four years. If he gets it, though, I think it is plausible the Virginia LP could then successfully lobby to reduce the 10% to a smaller number, and hopefully the party could remain on for many years into the future. The Virginia 10% requirement is tied for the 2nd highest vote test in the nation. Look at Virginia’s neighbors…North Carolina is 2%, West Virginia is 1%, Maryland is 1%, Kentucky is 2%, Tennessee is 5%. The Virginia LP should have been hammering this home all along.
Thanks for the correction Richard. And you make a very good point about the 10% level being too high. Lets keep our fingers crossed and lets keep on working.
Any chance of Sarvis winning? What was the trend in the last polling done?
Sarvis has been consistently anywhere from 8-13%. Winning is unlikely, but any of those numbers would be a great accomplishment for the Virginia LP, which not that long ago was virtually non-existent.
Bernie –
The only possible hope that the Libertarian Party would have for winning a politically contested seat of any significance would be if major campaign finance reform were to be instituted. Until then they and all other third parties are merely havens for those, of any political persuasion, who choose principle over practicality.
But isn’t it ironic that in order for the Libertarian Party in particular to succeed, they need a truly radical government intervention? What we have now is almost a perfectly “free” political market in which cash buys “free” speech and political office, and that’s thanks to a cynical, conservative philosophy of less government involvement in our individual affairs, and that philosophy is perfectly consistent with the Libertarian doctrine.
Ironic, huh?
But without government regulation of our free speech/political “market,” and indeed as the remaining constraints on the outright purchase of “democracy” are weakened or eliminated entirely, only the major two parties will benefit. After all, when you’re betting hundreds of thousands or (now) tens of millions of dollars on a horse race, you’re not going to bet on a three-legged nag with a wood stove strapped to its back.
The Koch brothers and Andrew Soros didn’t get rich by pissing their names into snowbanks.
“But isn’t it ironic that in order for the Libertarian Party in particular to succeed, they need a truly radical government intervention? What we have now is almost a perfectly “free” political market in which cash buys “free” speech and political office, and that’s thanks to a cynical, conservative philosophy of less government involvement in our individual affairs, and that philosophy is perfectly consistent with the Libertarian doctrine”
This is ridiculous. What we have right now is not anything even remotely resembling a free market in politics. There are difficult ballot access restrictions, gerrymandered voting districts, and when it comes to campaign finance, there are groups who benefit from big government donating large sums of money to Democratic and Republican party politicians so they can keep and expand their “benefits” from big government. I’m talking about groups like government employee unions, government contractors, etc… There is a term for this. It is called bribery. This has absolutely nothing to do with having a free market.
Oh, and then there are the debates. They are for public office and utilize public funds, yet they don’t include all of the candidates for office. Suppressing ballot qualified candidates from participating in debates has nothing to do with the free market either.
Andy –
Think you missed my sarcasm, but let me put a duller point on it. The USSC has reduced government regulation of campaign finance. Surely you’ll agree with that assertion. And I think it’s safe to say that there will be further reduction in campaign finance regulation with this court as it is currently constituted. Perhaps you don’t agree with that, but if so…stay tuned.
So when I say that there is a “free” market in American politics, I’m (only somewhat) sarcastically asserting that, ONLY insofar as the money goes, the control that government can exert by regulation has been diminished. Now, that would seem to me to be consistent with a Libertarian point of view. Less government, more individual freedom. Am I wrong?
But…without some government intrusion of some sort, whether it’s limiting contribution amounts, shackling Super PACS, or perhaps some radical sort of public financing scheme, trust me…neither the Libertarian Party, nor the Green Party, nor any other third party is going to gain any traction, because like it or not (AND I DO NOT!), in this country, without money political parties have not and will not thrive.
This, it seems to me, is a conundrum for the Libertarian Party. Or are they OK with a little government intrusion because it might benefit them?
As for the other issues re: voter registration, ballot access, etc. that are discussed on this site, I don’t have any reason to believe that you and I disagree. But my sarcastic reference to a “free” political market was not meant to encompass those issues. Just the move back toward a 19th century form of “free market” American politics when the wealthy freely and openly bought and paid for the politicians who would take orders directly from them.