Libertarians May Co-Nominate Rand Paul in 2016

[francisco]

U.S. News & World Report says:


Libertarians May Co-Nominate Rand Paul in 2016
Members of the large third party brace for a fight.

By Steven Nelson Oct. 27, 2014 | 3:10 p.m. EDT + More

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., may follow in his father’s footsteps not only by seeking the Republican presidential nomination, but also by receiving the Libertarian Party’s ballot line.

Members of the Libertarian Party are bracing for an internal struggle over whether to back the libertarian-leaning senator if he appears poised to win the Republican nomination in 2016.

Paul is unlikely to directly seek the third party’s support, but could win it anyhow through the work of eager activists like those who worked the campaigns of his father, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a GOP presidential contender in 2008 and 2012 and the Libertarian nominee in 1988.

A co-nomination from one of the nation’s most significant minor parties could help Paul - if he’s the Republican nominee - avoid losing hundreds of thousands of votes to an ideological ally. In some states, his name would appear twice on ballots.

read more:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...nomination-too

[dannno]

could help Paul - if he’s the Republican nominee - avoid losing hundreds of thousands of votes to an ideological ally. In some states, his name would appear twice on ballots.

Ya that's a good idea.

Curious, though, if somebody votes for him as a "Libertarian" does that mean the vote doesn't count towards the Republican Party nomination? Would we have to educate people to vote for him as "Republican" so he can win the nomination?

[Christian Liberty]

I'm conflicted on this. On the one hand, if it would help him win, I'm OK with it, but on the other hand, I don't really want to see the word "libertarian" watered down further. If the term "libertarian" can include those who want to bomb foreign countries to any degree or for any reason, the term has lost any meaning and I'll just use "voluntarist" and "anarcho-capitalist"... which I mostly do anyway but its still kind of annoying to see libertarian watered down so much.

I'd much prefer, if the results would be the same, for the LP to just not select a candidate. Encourage your guys to vote for Rand, sure, but don't pretend he's an actual libertarian. He isn't.

But then, Gary Johnson and Bob Barr never were either, so I guess it doesn't really matter. I'd love to see the anarcho-capitalists and true minarchists take that party back from the moderates.

[Inkblots]

Ya that's a good idea.

Curious, though, if somebody votes for him as a "Libertarian" does that mean the vote doesn't count towards the Republican Party nomination? Would we have to educate people to vote for him as "Republican" so he can win the nomination?

Votes are counted for individuals, not parties. If he appeared on the ballot twice in a state, he would win that state if the total of the two votes exceeded that of any other candidate.

And I agree, this is an excellent idea. I hope it happens, should Rand win the nomination.

[specsaregood]

Votes are counted for individuals, not parties. If he appeared on the ballot twice in a state, he would win that state if the total of the two votes exceeded that of any other candidate.

And I agree, this is an excellent idea. I hope it happens, should Rand win the nomination.

I don't think you are correct about that. They aren't voting for individuals or parties, but rather a slate of electors. Since the 2 parties would have different electors having his name on the ballot twice would be a bad thing as it would split his vote.

[Inkblots]

I don't think you are correct about that. They aren't voting for individuals or parties, but rather a slate of electors. Since the 2 parties would have different electors having his name on the ballot twice would be a bad thing as it would split his vote.

All a state's electors - except for a few exceptions like Nebraska - are awarded to the winning candidate, not the winning party. The total of his individual vote is what matters, as whether a Libertarian or Republican elector is chosen, they will be expected to vote for the candidate who won the state.

[specsaregood]

All a state's electors - except for a few exceptions like Nebraska - are awarded to the winning candidate, not the winning party. The total of his individual vote is what matters, as whether a Libertarian or Republican elector is chosen, they will be expected to vote for the candidate who won the state.

I'd like that to be true; but I still doubt it being factual. Got any type of citation for that?

[Inkblots]

I'd like that to be true; but I still doubt it being factual. Got any type of citation for that?

I'll try to dig up the relevant election law when I get home tonight.

[Uriah]

All a state's electors - except for a few exceptions like Nebraska - are awarded to the winning candidate, not the winning party. The total of his individual vote is what matters, as whether a Libertarian or Republican elector is chosen, they will be expected to vote for the candidate who won the state.

Political parties choose their electors. Here in Iowa the candidates name is essentially a substitution for the electors that will actually vote for president. Theoretically, the electors could vote for anybody they choose. Unless I am wrong about this I don't like this idea as it would dilute Rand's vote total and quite possibly allow the Democratic candidate to win in a few states.... like Florida, Ohio, or Iowa.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[NIU Students for Liberty]

I'm with FF on this one. The LP should provide an actual libertarian alternative, not continue to water down the message. Then again this is the same party that nominated Bob Barr, so, yeah.

[jllundqu]

Dafuq?

[TaftFan]

The Constitution Party should consider this too. I think they are in 40+ states, though not all 50.

[Rudeman]

I'm conflicted on this. On the one hand, if it would help him win, I'm OK with it, but on the other hand, I don't really want to see the word "libertarian" watered down further. If the term "libertarian" can include those who want to bomb foreign countries to any degree or for any reason, the term has lost any meaning and I'll just use "voluntarist" and "anarcho-capitalist"... which I mostly do anyway but its still kind of annoying to see libertarian watered down so much.

I'd much prefer, if the results would be the same, for the LP to just not select a candidate. Encourage your guys to vote for Rand, sure, but don't pretend he's an actual libertarian. He isn't.

But then, Gary Johnson and Bob Barr never were either, so I guess it doesn't really matter. I'd love to see the anarcho-capitalists and true minarchists take that party back from the moderates.

Take it back? When have they ever had control of the Libertarian party? The Libertarian party will do whatever gets them the most votes. I think it's a little naive to think a party cares about purity like you think they should. They are just like a business, they look at what gets them the best result.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Take it back? When have they ever had control of the Libertarian party?

When Ron Paul and Harry Browne were their candidates.

[Working Poor]

I don't think you are correct about that. They aren't voting for individuals or parties, but rather a slate of electors. Since the 2 parties would have different electors having his name on the ballot twice would be a bad thing as it would split his vote.

I don't think so either couldn't the libertarians just endorse him instead?

[Crashland]

My understanding is that when the same candidate is nominated by multiple parties and appears more than once on the ballot, then they are added together. It is fairly common in my state for a candidate to appear twice, as the nominee for both the Democratic Party and the Working Families Party. According to several local news sources I am reading, the votes are reported separately, but they are ultimately tallied together for the candidate, not the party. I'm not sure what the implications are for the electors. Perhaps they are allocated proportionally.

I would love to see the Libertarian party nominate Rand, though it would only do any good if he also gets the GOP nomination.

[William Tell]

The Constitution Party should consider this too. I think they are in 40+ states, though not all 50.

Yeah they should, we won't know how many States ballots they will be on until 2016 though. The same goes for the LP actually, Johnson was not on in OK and MI.

Virgil Goode was on the ballot in 26 States, and had write in status in 16 States:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil...#Ballot_Access

[William Tell]

The LP could nominate Rand Paul for president with a different running mate than the GOP. That would make things even more weird, I doubt a Rand GOP VP would be as good as he is.

[Brett85]

All a state's electors - except for a few exceptions like Nebraska - are awarded to the winning candidate, not the winning party. The total of his individual vote is what matters, as whether a Libertarian or Republican elector is chosen, they will be expected to vote for the candidate who won the state.

What if the VP candidate is different on the ballot? What if the Libertarian Party nominates a different VP for Rand than the one that Rand picks to be on the GOP ticket? They wouldn't actually be able to have Rand's VP pick on the ballot since their convention is in May and Rand wouldn't have a VP picked by that time. Does a different VP being on the ballot make any difference as far as the vote totals are concerned?

[LawnWake]

If this happens, let's hope the RNC doesn't conjure up some bogus rule to have it keep him from receiving the Republican nomination. The Libertarian and the Constitution party should focus on either nominating him, or if that's impossible, refrain from running their own candidate.

[Crashland]

I don't think the Libertarian Party would nominate Rand with a different VP. That's just asking for trouble. If they are going to bite the bullet and do it, might as well show some solidarity and go all in.

[Brett85]

I don't think the Libertarian Party would nominate Rand with a different VP. That's just asking for trouble. If they are going to bite the bullet and do it, might as well show some solidarity and go all in.

But their convention is in May, and they wouldn't actually know who Rand's VP pick would be. Unless they decided to just postpone their convention and have it later.

[torchbearer]

I don't believe party by-laws would allow for the delegates to vote for someone who isn't registered libertarian. but then again, the delegate could vote for whoever he wants.

[Peace&Freedom]

I'm conflicted on this. On the one hand, if it would help him win, I'm OK with it, but on the other hand, I don't really want to see the word "libertarian" watered down further. If the term "libertarian" can include those who want to bomb foreign countries to any degree or for any reason, the term has lost any meaning and I'll just use "voluntarist" and "anarcho-capitalist"... which I mostly do anyway but its still kind of annoying to see libertarian watered down so much.

I'd much prefer, if the results would be the same, for the LP to just not select a candidate. Encourage your guys to vote for Rand, sure, but don't pretend he's an actual libertarian. He isn't.

But then, Gary Johnson and Bob Barr never were either, so I guess it doesn't really matter. I'd love to see the anarcho-capitalists and true minarchists take that party back from the moderates.

If Rand welcomes getting the LP nomination, and openly embraces it upfront, it would be evidence that he really wants to win. The big negative about it is, yes, by his rhetoric he has not been running like he is a libertarian. It would have been much more logical if Ron had done this, as his views are substantively and rhetorically in harmony with the LP. But even Rand's watered down version, if his father carried water for him in the run up to 2016, would be enough to get the LP nod if he went for it. Since most of the 'conflicts' would be on the Republican side, it's a workable trade-off for LP members to accept, especially compared to Barr and Johnson.

This would be a total game changer as far as the Republican primaries were concerned. It would be impossible for the media to not cover Rand if he was, credibly, going for two party nominations at once, as it would impact the election. It would not only deflate attempts to paint establishment GOP contenders as "electable" while Rand was "not," but would arguably make Rand the ONLY Republican who was electable in '16, as he would be the only GOP choice that would not split the anti-Hillary vote. The media would be mousetrapped by the circumstances, as they couldn't even begin to marginalize Paul from primary coverage, knowing he would be a factor for the whole election year.

There would be minor problems, such as bylaws issues (fixable, in both parties, especially if worked on in advance), sour grapes laws in a few states, or in selecting an VP that would work for both the LP and the GOP (my suggestion, Napolitano, or Ron Paul). But the establishment-busting, historic nature of the double candidacy makes it an irresistible option---Rand needs to do this to win the GOP nomination.

[Bastiat's The Law]

The Constitution Party should consider this too. I think they are in 40+ states, though not all 50.

That would be pretty unprecedented if the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party both endorsed Rand. Talk about uniting the clans!

[Bastiat's The Law]

Take it back? When have they ever had control of the Libertarian party? The Libertarian party will do whatever gets them the most votes. I think it's a little naive to think a party cares about purity like you think they should. They are just like a business, they look at what gets them the best result.

True. Gary Johnson opted for matching federal funds for his campaign.

[Tywysog Cymru]

The Constitution Party should consider this too. I think they are in 40+ states, though not all 50.

They also go by Taxpayers Party and Independent Party in some states.

[Rudeman]

When Ron Paul and Harry Browne were their candidates.

And what happened? I know the Cato people (I was confusing the LP with Cato)/Koch were the ones pushing moderation but that was at the start.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx