On September 29, the Massachusetts Libertarian Party asked voters to vote “no” on Question Three, the top-two initiative. Here is the party’s website recommendations on all statewide ballot measures.
The party wrote: “This question would basically eliminate third party candidates from the general election ballot. California has adopted this election method, and often the two-top vote winners are in the same party, depending upon the district both are Democrats or both Republicans, giving voters no real choice in the general election.”
The brief statement made no mention of the problem that if the Measure passes, and if the Massachusetts Libertarian Party polls over 3% of the vote for Auditor on November 3, 2026, that under the old law, the party would have regained its party status. But under the new law, which would go into effect on January 1, 2028, the party would no longer meet the definition of “party”. The measure says that groups become ballot-qualified if they poll 3% for a statewide office in the September primary. The vote test would no longer apply to the November election. But the Massachusetts Libertarian Party obviously did not have its candidate for Auditor on the September 2026 primary, so it would lose its party status on January 1, 2028.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Israeli_legislative_election
FATAL PARTS – PARTY CANDIDATE LISTS BY MONARCHS/OLIGARCHS
ENTIRE REGIME = ONE DISTRICT
BRIT SYSTEM – LEGIS/EXEC TYRANTS
ZERO LEARNED FROM WW I AND WW II RE EXEC TYRANTS – AKA PRIME MINISTERS
—
PR
APPV
TOTSOP
Which of the dozen or so *Massachusetts libertarian party” competing claimant groups?
If you click on the link, you can see it is “Libertarian Party of Massachusetts (Unified Libertarians of Massachusetts)”.
Ulm, ok. I get them all confused, honesty. All I know is there’s a bunch of them.
“The brief statement made no mention of the problem that if the Measure passes, and if the Massachusetts Libertarian Party polls over 3% of the vote for Auditor on November 3, 2026, that under the old law, the party would have regained its party status. But under the new law, which would go into effect on January 1, 2028, the party would no longer meet the definition of “party”. The measure says that groups become ballot-qualified if they poll 3% for a statewide office in the September primary. The vote test would no longer apply to the November election. But the Massachusetts Libertarian Party obviously did not have its candidate for Auditor on the September 2026 primary, so it would lose its party status on January 1, 2028.”
Doesn’t the old law make it so that if they get 3% it’s harder for them to qualify to run for any office except POTUS under their own party label, to the point that they frequently have to invent new party labels for this purpose whenever they get the 3%?
Is George Phil-Lies involved in this group, especially prominently?
ENTIRE REGIME = ONE DISTRICT
Isn’t that exactly what “PR” is?
No. I don’t know where you got that idea. Puerto Rico has more than one district.
Apartment 5 at the Totsop resort is all in one district, though. Puerto Ricans nickname that district Muy Loco.
How many states currently have more than one group claiming to be the state LP?
Most ever?
Q, yes, existing law makes it very difficult for a member of a small qualified party to get on his or her party’s primary ballot. This is a flaw not only in Massachusetts, but in Maine and Arizona. The Massachusetts law even makes it difficult for Republicans to get on the Republican primary ballot, which is why in most elections, no Republican is on the November ballot for most US House seats in Massachusetts. Massachusetts is the only state in which in most congressional elections, most of the districts have only one US House candidate per district on the ballot. The people who wrote Question Three should have included big reductions in the number of signatures needed for primary ballot access, but they didn’t.
If they had, would it have had any impact on your position on the question?
Mass hysteria
Mass confusion
Mass delusion
Mass Achusetts
Is this the real party or the fake one involving commie Phillies and the tranny?
https://lpofma.org/contact-us/
I do not see Phillies listed. The chair position appears to have been left empty.
As disreputable as pedophiles already are, we can’t afford to have our reputations soiled even further by being ass-posted with the crAZy AZerI Nazi AZ 666 SPAMBOT.
THAT’S WHY it and its programmer, the devil worshipping islamofascist communist troll from Azerbaijan, have been repeatedly informed to cease and desist their nonstop posting of links to woke pedophile Wikipedia.
Even though Wikipedia is nothing but a pack of fart left ridiculous lies, gang trolling, and propaganda posted by child predator scum, we still want nothing at all to do with the artificial anti-intelligence black hole which posts automated trash as the AZ SPAMBOT.
ITS WHOLE MODUS OPERANDI is garbage in, worse garbage out, and somehow that’s possible even with the woke pedophile Wikipedia site.
I am acting chair of the LP of MA(ULMA). To clarify a few questions raised above: We are the only libertarian party now in MA and we are the official affiliate of the national party, the “other” one moved on to join the Liberty(liberal) Party. Since I am only acting, I decided to leave the line for the chair blank. My predecessor is in an elected position and according to the convoluted Mass rules, he cannot also serve as chair so he was forced to step down. Q, we did not get into the weeds on why Question 3 is bad for us because that would appear to be sour grapes and only appeal to libertarians. It is bad for ALL third parties and Democracy in general. I personally would prefer to see ranked choice voting with very low signature thresholds to get on the ballot. Steve, while I do believe he just wants a successful libertarian party in MA, we are not involved with Mr Phillies and most of the more liberal/authoritarian members of LAMA have moved on the the Liberty Party or Democrat Party.
Thank you.