RoR: Forum

Good article, Ed.

If the GOP had put up a descent candidate, one who was strongly opposed to ObamaCare, and who was NOT a social conservative, I think we would have seen about 50% of the libertarian vote move to the that GOP candidate, and maybe 1% of the McAuliffe vote (representing people who hate religious positions in politics more than big government positions), and about 10% of the woman's vote would have shifted from McAuliffe to the replacement for Cuccinelli.

There would be a loss of intensity that some of the religious right bring to their candidates, and some of the funds they raise, but most would still vote, and most would vote for the more fiscally conservative candidate.

It would have been a landslide for the GOP. They'll learn... or become extinct - soon.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 11/06, 3:18pm)

Post 1

Wednesday, November 6, 2013 - 4:59pm

So, there's been alot of talk like this:

http://www.theglobaldispatch.com/libertarian-candidate-robert-sarvis-was-co-opted-by-obama-operatives-to-ensure-terry-mcauliffe-victory-69590/

Not the only source. Levin was barking about this last night on the radio.

I don't know Sarvis from Popeye.

Real? Spin? Internet noise? The battle of the in-ter-net cut and paste noise machine churns on.

Would I believe it could be done-- propping up a false flag libertarian to split the vote and throw the race?

What would prevent it-- the left's sense of decency and fair play overcoming their win at any cost bloodlust?

An informed and intelligent electorate?

A press corps that is constantly on the lookout for such issues, and that always reports these things fairly?

Suppose he was a legit libertarian candidate. 7% of the vote in VA? At what point do folks start seeing the GOP as taking votes away from the libertarian solution????

Notice that both the Dems and GOP despise the libertarians for pretty much the same reason; they see libs as a threat to the tag team do-nothing gig they've got going for decades.

Post 2

Wednesday, November 13, 2013 - 4:29am

Excellent piece, Ed.

Libertarian candidates can be election spoilers, something which might be referred to as the Ross Perot effect -- but the issue has more than one level (which you effectively outlined). You can't solve a problem on the level it was created. I often look at the scientific research behind human interaction (in pairs, groups, and populations). A common question is: Why do people cooperate with one another? Another way to propose the question is: How could you get people to cooperate with one another? Another, more basic, way to ask the question is: What matters? An even more basic way to study the issue is to talk about "agents" (entities which exercise choices according to goals or preferences).

In one study, it was discovered that agents didn't cooperate well with one another if only 3 strategies of interaction were employed. However, if you added a fourth strategy to the mix, then they did! Did you catch that? With 3 strategies, they failed to cooperate and, under any pressure from competition, would go extinct (not just fail to thrive, but fail to even survive). With 4 strategies, they were off to the races. What happened? The fourth strategy added was called Tit-for-Tat and it is a stand-in for the concept of retaliatory justice (if you cheat, I will punish you; if you don't, I will reward you).

In a similar vein, libertarian candidates can perform this useful -- I was say even vital -- function (when the system is not aimed at justice). You talk about how the GOP needs improvement and you are right. The reason we know this? Because a libertarian candidate can just walk in and upset the election. Now, you say that it didn't fully matter (that the election would still be lost without the libertarian, though by an even smaller margin). But it does fully matter in the conceptual sense. The difference of one degree of heat can fully matter (if you are on the brink of freezing).

People who love freedom should not disparage 3rd Party candidates who upset elections. This is the appropriate outcome when your party sucks. In fact, in order to help the Democrats improve their party, the GOP should fund a Green Party candidate in every election cycle. It is a mistake to think that 3rd Party candidates are preventing the attainment of objective values (e.g., freedom): They are the only thing going right now to steer us in the right direction.

Ed

Post 3

Wednesday, November 13, 2013 - 7:17pm