The September 27 New York Times has this story about independent and Libertarian nominees for Governor and U.S. Senator in close races. The New York Times has a peculiar reluctance to ever mention the Libertarian Party, and this story is rather unusual for that newspaper. However, the reporter insists on assuming that voters who vote Libertarian would be most likely to vote Republican if the Libertarian weren’t in the race, yet in-depth polls this year have generally debunked that assumption.
Races the article does not mention, but could have, are the Arizona, Illinois, and Massachusetts gubernatorial races, and the Kentucky Senate race.
The Fayetteville (NC) Observer has a similar article, discussing the US Senate race here in North Carolina. They say that he has no chance of winning, but could play kingmaker in November.
http://tinyurl.com/jvznsmd
There’s that awful word “Spoiler” again. It’s a shame that major news outlets resort to such language when voters are frustrated with the two parties.
I agree with you Curt. But keep in mind, most of these reporters and writers are pro-Democratic or pro-Republican. They have to find a “nasty” label to attach to a Independent or 3rd party candidate to make a voter have seconds thoughts.
You guys are both correct. These journalists are betraying an assumption that alternative candidates are a priori illegitimate, merely obstacles to be overcome by the “real” candidates, i. e., the Democrats and Republicans.
Nothing wrong with playing “kingmaker” in an election if it eventually gets you what you want. I believe the Libertarian Party is slowly making the Republican Party become a “libertarian” party and less of a “conservative” party. Still may take a generation or two, but its happening.
And when it does happen, the Libertarians should then be content with becoming an “endorsement” party, i.e., being allowed to cross-endorse the libertarian Republican Party and have that Republican listed on the ballot also as the Libertarian nominee – such as they do in New York State, Washington State, and perhaps 2 or 3 more states.
Our winner takes all system is not likely to be changed in our lifetime. So we need to look pragmatically at a means by which we can still accomplish our political and philosophically objectives. Cross-endorsement or cross-nomination is the pragmatic answer.