Libertarian Party of Colorado Announces It Will Not Place LP Presidential Ticket on the Ballot in that State

Posted on by June 11, 2024

Here is yesterday’s announcement on X.

The Libertarian Party of Montana has also stated that they will not place the LP presidential ticket of Chase Oliver and Mike ter Maat on the ballot in that state.

Only one time in its history has a Libertarian Party state affiliate placed a presidential ticket other than the national convention-nominated presidential ticket on its ballot. That was in 2000, when the Libertarian Party of Arizona declined to put the Harry Browne/Art Olivier ticket on the ballot, and instead placed L. Neil Smith for President and Vic Supranowitz for Vice President on the general election ballot in Arizona.

Comments

Libertarian Party of Colorado Announces It Will Not Place LP Presidential Ticket on the Ballot in that State — 78 Comments

  1. Huzzah! No doubt, many more states to come!

  2. Good for the Colorado LP, but not as good as the Montana LP, whose chair (to the best of my knowledge) did not endorse totalitarian traitor Trump instead.

  5. IS MASTER PLAN OF FASCISTS TO BLOW UP THE LP WORKING ???

    SEE OLDE 1939-1940 MOVIE —

    CONFESSIONS OF A NAZI SPY – FIFTH COLUMN STUFF

  8. Possibly zero. NOTA may win retroactively via LNC. They’re not there yet, but there’s still time.

  9. The Liberal Party is like saying, « Join us! » which they may end up doing.

  14. Rancid commie voting elects commies and multiplies fraud and confusion / deception / election gaming, which are all already far too rampant.

  20. Gene Berkman is a fucking moron. Never takes things in context. No wonder he supports child abuse like Chase Oliver does.

  22. The Libertarian Party is struggling. As much as I dislike their candidate, the majority of the delegation picked Chase Oliver. They shouldn’t go against that. It should be binding. If you wanted a different candidate, they should have made more compelling arguments.

  25. CO and MT and however many other states join them, with the de facto blessing of the LNC and its Chair, probably won’t place another candidate on the ballot. They’ll be supporting Trump. CO Chair has already said as much, as has McArdle.

    Plus there’s NM, where the qualified party disaffiliated from the LNC a while ago and so Oliver isn’t their nominee, either.

  26. Are you sure? He might be. I read at least one state that disaffiliated wants to put him on…mass?

  27. I wonder if Goodman was upset she wasn’t elected Vice-Chair?

    I see Colorado has eliminated the filing fee option for President/Vice President. A petition has a fairly high threshold (1500 per congressional district) and the deadline is coming up soon (July 11). Write-in is an option.

  28. The write-in only ballot prevents some partisans dictating choices to all voters. Voters individually should control whose name(s) are counted on ballots. Abolish all ballot access censorship laws.

  31. For the states that already disaffiliated from the LNC, it will be their own call if they want to independently nominate him. And, I suppose, if he wants to accept. Harlos has been making nonsense noise about the LP rules prohibiting it, which is absurdly untrue (see: Gary accepting Independence in NY in 2016). Some ex-LNC affiliates might be more inclined than others. It’s understandable that in cutting all ties with the LNC, they don’t necessarily want to put its nominee on the ballot even if they have little objection to Chase himself.

  32. Several of those states, though fewer with ballot status, have already affiliated with the new Liberal Party. So that might inform their decision about it, if their new national party perhaps has an opinion about it.

    But in any event, not a case like CO and MT of a current LNC affiliate refusing to support the nominee, while an acquiescent if not outright encouraging LNC does nothing about it because they don’t really support Chase, either.

  34. L.p. Rescinds nomination, backs NOTA ie Trump , liberal party adopts chase, ballot status 5-10 states?

  35. @Jim Riley
    She is very upset. Sort of understandable given how she is the highest profile of only three out of twenty-two Mises Endorsed Candidates for LNC who did not get elected: https://independentpoliticalreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/1000004556-1-900×582.jpg
    But I don’t know what she expected, given that she has literally everything going against her: she has zero charisma, is rude, unintelligent, morbidly obese, has a horrible accent and a worse vocal pitch, talks too fast, has no dress sense, and is representing the Mises Caucus (the most right-wing major faction of the LP) in the Colorado (the most far left of the Mountain States, where every other party also supports legalizing drugs)… It’s nasty to say these things, but they are the reason there was zero chance of her getting elected as vice-chair.

    @Observer
    I have no idea whether the rules now disallow the LP presidential nominee from accepting other party’s nominations or not, but I believe several amendments have been made to the by-laws since 2016.

    @Theory
    Yeah but so do Trump, Biden and RFK.

  38. A similar strategy didn’t work for the Green party in 2004. They should either push their candidate in 50 states, not run one, or more honorably resign and go work for Trump if they can’t back their own nominee.

    Notably, Angela doesn’t say what to do in battleground states. She needs to be pushed on that.

    Her strategy is flawed – information crosses state lines, and if you’re in deep blue or red state , how enthusiastic the LNC or state LP is or isn’t about Oliver is incredibly unlikely to switch the state between Trump and Biden.

    Oliver is much closer to the “liberal party” than Trump, Biden or RFK are. He’s also closer to it than he is to Moosed LP. Obviously they have much less money or ballot access, but if half of LP states won’t put him on anyway and the LNC may rescind nomination, he may have run in the wrong party.

  40. Good points, Theory.

    You know, Chase Oliver and his campaign have some agency, too. Minor party presidential campaigns can take a life of their own.

  41. What is most significant policy area where Chase Oliver breaks with the Libertarian Party?

  42. It’s not the LP he breaks with but the faction controlling the national committee and many states. He’s in line with other l.p. factions. The “Mises” faction is MAGA leaning and controls Colorado, LNC, and some state parties but not others. As I best understand it.

  43. Bones of contention include abortion, transgender transition choice by parents of children who want to transition, covid response, and immigration.

  44. For some of them, possibly legality of gay sex. But those may be outliers, like those with explicitly racialist perspectives.

  45. CO HAS ONE OF LARGER PCTS OF ILLEGAL INVADERS — IN DENVER METRO AREA.

    HOW MANY OF THEM ARE GOP/MISES FACTION AGENTS ???

  46. CO and MT are creating a tempest in a teapot. All Chase has said is that decisions about sex transition should be made by the the kids, their parents and their medical advisors and not the state. What’s unlibertarian about that? Seems like the same thing we say should have happened with all medical decisions.

  47. Chase Oliver supports child abuse, mandates, and limiting speech. That’s anti-libertarian.

  48. @Dump Chase: Please provide quotes that support the accusations you attribute to Chase. What child abuse? (note that he has NOT said that every child who wants transition should get it, just that the decision should NOT be made by the state. What mandates is he supporting? How has he supported limiting speech?

  49. You’re engaged in debate with a bot, boy, or equivalent. It’s mindless alt right propaganda. Why it posts it here, no clue.

  51. Thanks for the bot warning. Hard to tell sometimes these days. Unfortunately as AI gets better it will get harder to distinguish bots from real people. Note that I, unlike everyone else posting here, used my real name. I stand by what I say and have no need to hide behind some catchy handle. Perhaps we shoul all stop responding to anyone who can’t be clearly identified as human.

  53. There are plenty of reasons not to post real names online. They’re more valid for some than others. The quality of argument is what matters , not who makes it or how many people agree or disagree.

  54. Some sign of intelligence, natural or artificial, is always good. Mindless sloganeering, not so much. I don’t care whether it’s automated or not, it may as well be if it isn’t. Those entities, whether carbon or silicon, will say the same things thousands of more times regardless of any arguments, evidence, questions et. C they get in reply. You can equally well argue with actual bumper stickers or yell at graffiti on toilet stall walls. They could not care less what you say.

  56. And? It’s a company. They should have freedom of association, or not. Trump has freedom of speech, except where gag ordered, and plenty of platforms. No one is obligated to give him another one or decorate his cake.

  57. I’d like to hear some arguments against using your real name. The only one I can think of is that someone is going to come after you with a gun. Hopefully we aren’t Mexico yet.

    I think at some point all open forums are going to need to pre-register usernames and verify they are associated with a real person before it can be used to post. I know I had to provide an email address to post here but was any attempt made to veryify that it is legit?

    The bot that I was conned into responding to was basically issuing slander but some people will still believe its true. Already people want forums like Facebook to be held accountable for misinformation that they don’t remove. Could that happen to something like Ballot Access News? Could Chase claim that this forum permitted a slander to remain posted?

  58. Oh my God you fucking retard. Have you paid any attention to the Twitter files? Government collusion. Chase Oliver supports that.

  60. June Genis is exhibiting natural intelligence and learning to recognise bots and bot imitators quickly, learning through interaction.

  62. June Genis, arguments for online privacy are numerous and easy to find . Here is a partial list:

    Protection against potential government tyranny, present or future. American revolutionaries were among many important historical figures who published anonymous arguments.

    Protection for whistleblowers.

    Protection from cybercriminals.

    Protection from malicious trolls, doxxers, and vengeful people not content with leaving online disagreements online.

    Reasons having to do with employment, business clients, dating, and reputation protection in general. People should have the right to express controversial and extreme views anonymously without it being used against them in entirely different settings.

    Protecting family members etc who could potentially be targeted as a result of angering the wrong internet wacko

    Potentially, personal safety from such

    Avoiding ad hominem arguments

    Having a funny or goofy name irl

    Avoiding stalkers

    It may not be some people’s business when you are or aren’t online or awake

    Trying out views you may not hold to see how well you can defend them and what arguments others can make against them

    Etc etc

  63. No, thankfully fake email addresses are just fine here. I never provide real email addresses to websites which demand them. That’s a great way to get spammed out. These days, I almost never check email anymore any way. Anyone I want to talk to texts me or posts on public fora or I speak to IRL. Rarely ever anymore, voice calls. I think it’s been months since I logged into any email box.

    Only totalitarian regimes hold platforms responsible for what users post. Hopefully that doesn’t happen here.

  64. Every now and again, trial ballooning a view I don’t hold leads me to change my actual view through discussion.

  66. They should mass resign if they don’t support the delegate chosen nominee and especially if they support a competing party’s presumptive nominee, but they won’t.

  68. When you call everyone who is not an alt right Trump supporter communist, you’re like the boy who cried wolf. If I wanted actual communism in power in America, I’d do that, so no one would heed real warning of the wolf at the door when it’s actually there, thanks to all the false alarm prior.

    Kids have been pulling the fire alarm in my building a lot. Almost nobody goes outside when it sounds anymore. If there’s ever a real fire, people could well die as a result. You’re like those kids.

  70. Stock is a troll: No, I am not Stop Trolling or anyone other than myself. I have NEVER used a pseudonym.

  72. Gary: Most likely you have never met a Satanist. Possibly you have seen kids who have watched too many horror movies and listened to mediocre 80s Heavy Metal bands Cosplaying their fantasies. Have you ever met a person who holds a “red card” the membership card of the Church of Satan?

  73. STOCK! You didn’t clean up the puke in the elevator! Guests are angry!

  75. Questions: I have been a member of the Church of Satan founded by Anton LaVey for 11 years.

    I do not troll. I have NEVER used a pseudonym.

  77. I agree with AZ. Eating pets and putting nonpartisan in apartment #5 is the way to go.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.