After an excellent presidential debate last night, the national Libertarian Party once again proved its irrelevance and nominated another republican as their candidate for president in 2016. According to the official results from the second and final round of voting, there were only two states whose delegates voted for the best two candidates in the race, Free Keene blogger Darryl W Perry and John McAfee. Those two states were New Hampshire and Vermont. Perry and McAfee’s combined votes were higher in NH and VT than the combined votes of the worst two candidates, Gary Johnson and Austin Petersen. In every other state, Johnson and Petersen’s combined votes were higher.
It’s a continuance of a sad trend of the LP delegates selecting republicans – people who do not understand or advocate libertarian ideals – that has been going on since the 2008 presidential election where the LP chose Bob Barr, a republican former US representative (and former CIA boss) from Georgia as their nominee. Then in 2012 they chose Gary Johnson, a republican former governor of New Mexico as their candidate. Johnson was better than Barr, but not by much. He’s not a principled libertarian like Darryl is. Now Johnson’s won the party’s nomination again for 2016 despite the valiant efforts of the “radical” wing of the party.
The party’s been dead, but now it’s even moreso.
The national LP is hopeless, yet activists across the country toil away trying to wrest control of the organization from the hands of the republicans who have had control of the party for about a decade. To those remaining principled libertarians I implore you:
GIVE UP ON THE LP! Your party is dead and has been for years. Your efforts are being wasted on the national and even your state LP. Start planning your move to New Hampshire to get involved with the only proven successful strategy in the liberty movement: concentrating activists in one geographic area.
In New Hampshire we’ve had more political successes in a decade – meaning people being elected who are principled libertarians – than the LP has had in forty years. If you want to keep losing, stay where you are. If you want to see liberty advance, you have to get together with like-minded people and get active here in the Shire.
On February 19, the Libertarian Party New Hampshire filed this 58-page brief in the First Circuit in Libertarian Party of New Hampshire v Gardner, 15-2068. The issue is the 2014 law that made it illegal for a group to circulate a petition for recognition as a party in an odd year. The U.S. District Court had upheld the law.
Thanks to Ballot Access News for this report.
Presidential season is in full swing — and what better way to celebrate than by indulging in the latest episode of AKPF #1? In this week’s installment, ‘BarnStorm‘, we tour the vile underbelly of modern political figure’s social media ventures. Primarily focusing on Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump (also known as Barnie Sandlers and Dolan Tramp), we are also treated to appearances by lesser candidates such as a metal version of Ben Carson and DWP. Stay tuned to the very end for a sneak preview of the newest colorful coins in circulation.
The New Hampshire Union-Leader published an editorial, expressing disappointment that the Libertarian Party’s ballot access case lost in U.S. District Court on August 27, and suggested the prohibition on collecting petitions before the year of the election be repealed.
It is very likely the Libertarian Party will appeal.
In 2014 the New Hampshire General Court passed a new restriction on minor party access to the general election ballot by prohibiting a political organization from collecting petitions before the election year. The Libertarian Party of New Hampshire filed a lawsuit challenging this new law. A similar law in Rhode Island was struck down in 2009 because the sole claim by the Rhode Island government was “reducing the number of ‘false positives’.” In New Hampshire, that was the initial reason given for passage of the new law, however William Gardner changed the reasoning the rationale to prevent ballot clutter and to ensure that political parties have a current modicum of support. (more…)
Today is that special day of the year, where fiction becomes fact, and the truth becomes questionable. However, the following is a very real story first reported by Ballot Access News:
“the Republican National Committee asked a U.S. District Court to intervene in Libertarian Party of New Hampshire v Gardner, 1:14-cv-322. The issue in the lawsuit is the 2013 change to the New Hampshire election law that it made it illegal for a newly-qualifying party to circulate a party petition during an odd year.
The Republican National Committee’s motion says, “This lawsuit challenges a recent New Hampshire amendment to its election laws regarding ballot access by political organizations. The RNC proposes to intervene for the purpose of defending constitutionality of that amendment (sic)…The Republican Party has qualified for access to the New Hampshire general election ballot in 2016. Accordingly, it has a vital interest in New Hampshire’s election regulation in general and, specifically, the requirements for ballot access…the defendant (the Secretary of State) cannot adequately represent the RNC’s interests in this litigation.”
As far as is known, this is the first time any major party national committee has intervened in a constitutional ballot access lawsuit at a time remote from a presidential general election. The Democratic National Committee intervened in some lawsuits involving independent presidential candidate Eugene McCarthy in 1976, John B. Anderson in 1980, and Ralph Nader in 2004. But those interventions were on how certain ballot access laws should be interpreted, not over their constitutionality.”
In the RNC’s “answer” to the LP’s complaint, is laughable. Almost everything is “The allegations in paragraph [x] consist of legal arguments to which no response is required. To the extent that paragraph [x] contains factual allegations, they are denied.” or “The RNC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a response to the allegations in [y].” In other words, the Republican Party is seeking to intervene in a ballot access law case, and they don’t know enough about the law or the fact to form opinions; or they simply claim every fact provided is false, without explanation!