PDA

View Full Version : Important! LPIN ballot access




bwlibertyman
10-06-2010, 03:16 PM
Mike Wherry is running for secretary of state in the state of Indiana. Mike Wherry needs to receive some good numbers this November. If mike get's at least 10% of the vote Libertarians will be able to have normal primaries just like the democrats and republicans. Currently Libertarians have to have nominating conventions. The people of Indiana do not get to choose. So if you live in the State of Indian check out Mike Wherry at http://mikewherry.blogspot.com/ I have met Mike at a picnic in Bloomington and he is a great guy with some good ideas. He's taking a good route to reforming our districting in Indiana. No more gerrymandering here! So check out Mike Wherry!

erowe1
10-06-2010, 04:47 PM
Mike Wherry is running for secretary of state in the state of Indiana. Mike Wherry needs to receive some good numbers this November. If mike get's at least 10% of the vote Libertarians will be able to have normal primaries just like the democrats and republicans. Currently Libertarians have to have nominating conventions. The people of Indiana do not get to choose. So if you live in the State of Indian check out Mike Wherry at http://mikewherry.blogspot.com/ I have met Mike at a picnic in Bloomington and he is a great guy with some good ideas. He's taking a good route to reforming our districting in Indiana. No more gerrymandering here! So check out Mike Wherry!

Aren't nominating conventions better? Why should the people of Indiana tell a political party who their candidate should be? And why should the government and tax payers be involved in the in-house matters of any private organization, like the LPIN, or the other political parties.

bwlibertyman
10-06-2010, 10:30 PM
Ballot access is better. It's better for the people of the state to elect their representative than a limited group of people who happen to work for the party. We should be involved so we can elect people to represent us. If all the parties had nominating conventions how would we elect the person that close identifies with our views. Voting for representation thought open primaries is much better than nominating conventions.

KCIndy
10-07-2010, 12:22 AM
Mike Wherry has my vote.

Ballot access is one of the reasons I usually vote for the Libertarian candidate unless there's a really compelling reason to to vote for one of the other candidates. In this case (Sec State) both the D and R candidates are "establishment" politicians, as near as I can tell.

erowe1
10-07-2010, 06:03 AM
If all the parties had nominating conventions how would we elect the person that close identifies with our views.

If we want to be involved in doing that, then we should get involved in the parties and participate in those conventions. It's not like it's hard to participate in the LPIN convention if you're a member of the LPIN. But if you're not one, then I don't see why they should give you any say. Why should any group have to let outsiders vote on who its leaders are? Should churches, clubs, and internet message boards also have binding elections that are open to the public? And why should taxpayers have to pay the cost for any groups' in-house elections.

State-run primaries are one of the ways the major parties and the government participate in an unholy alliance to keep them in power. In addition to saving the party money by getting taxpayers to pay for them, they're also the main way the parties get the information for their voter databases. I always thought the Libertarian Party stood against them in principle.

FWIW, I'll be voting for the LP SoS candidate, mainly so that they keep their ballot access for general elections, which I think he needs to get 2% for them to do.

bwlibertyman
10-07-2010, 08:07 AM
Yeah you make some valid points. Typically the party isn't going to nominate someone who doesn't represent libertarian views. Although the whole libertarian ideology isn't so clear cut. It would save money. But I stand by my initial comment. I think there should be open primaries. Although there aren't usually multiple candidates I think it is more fair for our representatives to be a true representation of the people. Although we would essentially vote on the candidate to represent us we don't have the chance to vote on whether he or she should be able to vote for us.

At first I thought you were trolling. I'm sorry. I see the validity in your point. I don't know what district you guys are in but Rebecca Sink- Burris is a pretty good candidate for the senate. Dan Coats is just abhorable.

erowe1
10-07-2010, 08:40 AM
Yeah you make some valid points. Typically the party isn't going to nominate someone who doesn't represent libertarian views. Although the whole libertarian ideology isn't so clear cut. It would save money. But I stand by my initial comment. I think there should be open primaries. Although there aren't usually multiple candidates I think it is more fair for our representatives to be a true representation of the people. Although we would essentially vote on the candidate to represent us we don't have the chance to vote on whether he or she should be able to vote for us.

At first I thought you were trolling. I'm sorry. I see the validity in your point. I don't know what district you guys are in but Rebecca Sink- Burris is a pretty good candidate for the senate. Dan Coats is just abhorable.

Believe me, I know all about Coats, and definitely won't be voting for him. I was heavily involved in the Hostettler primary campaign. Burris and the LP SoS candidate both had my vote locked up long ago.

I'm still against taxpayer funded primaries, though. They don't save money. I'm sure primaries cost many times (maybe hundreds or thousands of times) as much as nominating conventions. They just shift the cost from those who actually participate to the taxpayers.