The Volokh Conspiracy

How clear is it that the libertarians would have voted republican if no libertarian candidate were available? I resent that personally.

-dk

Libertarians fantasize endlessly about being kingmakers, but that doesn't alter the reality that they are marginalized and irrelevant.

In that case, if Allen had gotten a few more from his base to the polls in Virginia, would we be talking about the role of the Green Party as kingmaker?

As Steve said, the existence of these smaller parties is a reflection of the dissatisfaction of parts of the electorate with the current structure. The point is that this election was about the strategic choices (and perhaps errors) of the existing major parties, not the power of political tendencies which some might prefer to gain greater prominence.

I voted for the blueman (Stan Jones.) I have always voted libertarian where I can, and republican when I can’t. But this time around I was so disgusted (with both sides),that I just left it blank where there were only two choices. I know of other libertarians who would have voted for Burns this time around had he not run horrific ads in support of his leader (pro-patriot act and such).

King-maker or spoiler, I guess it depends on where you stand....

To say libertarians "robbed" or stole vote is just bad English or a distortion. You can only steal something if it is not yours. If libertarians cast their vote for the man in the moon it is their vote to cast. My vote does not belong to a Democrat or a Republican unless I want to give it to them. And the Republicans are particularly unworthy this time. Any libertarian who voted his or her conscience did the right thing and no one was robbed. They might have been denied power but then power is not a right. And if I lived in Montana I would have voted Tester. First, he was good on the Patriot (sic) Act. Second, he is not a Republican. I would not vote for Jones after seeing his bizarre remarks about the 9/11 government conspiracy and tin-foil hate nonsense like that.

In addition to the GOP's lack of fiscal restraint in recent years, I also have to believe that many libertarians were turned off by the GOP's legislative activism on social issues of personal liberty. Most libetarians don't want the Christian Coalition dictating government policy on such issues as medical marijuana, partial birth abortion, or a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage any more than they want the AFL-CIO dictating government policy on the WTO or free trade agreements, or the Social Democrats/Greens writing national tax policies.

I had noticed and blogged about it earlier today.
It's not that we should assume L votes detract from candidate A or B. The assumption in parent post is an assumption arguendo, one that is just required to make the argument work - he isn't claiming L votes would always go R.
The point I raise is that the mainstream candidates can cooperate with a spoiler candidate. Candidate A can fund mail to likely B voters about candidate L, if that's more productive than trying to talk B's voters into voting for A or staying home. (I used to be involved in nuts and bolts Libertarian strategizing - these days I just do a little election litigating

But it seems like Big "L" Libertarian candidates are so dumb that they run against not just bad Republican officeholders but also relatively good ones.

You mean like Conrad Burns?

The Economist's blog picked this up this morning.

I love how so many Republicans think they own the libertarian vote and become outraged when those kooky, fringey people stray, due to silly little details like out of control spending, absurdly destructive foreign policy, the rollback of the Magna Carta, and increased moralistic panty sniffing ("no sex until you're married, or 30!").

They seem to think they don't have to earn my vote. Here's to hoping that this election is an educational moment.

Re: At least the Republicans have a kernel of the limited government philosophy.

You definitely need to change that to past tense "had". That "kernel" of small government philosophy is more dessicated than the grain offerings they dig up with Egyptian mummies.

Being a reformed Libertarian from the 80s, I cannot remember any self-respecting Libertarian even thinking of voting Democrat
I was going to say that, as a self-respecting L, I voted for a Democrat for county clerk. I have issues with her, but we discuss them civilly. Her opponent was a tyrant.
But then I remembered the Republicans refused to let me vote.
I was given a provisional ballot which they will throw away.

The claim is that if the Republican party had been more libertarian-friendly in recent years, that the Republican candidate would have gotten the Libertarian candidate's votes and won.

No, that's not the claim of the original post, although it might be a more interesting claim. The claim is that the Libertarian Party played a "kingmaker" role, suggesting that the election would have turned out differently if the Libertarian Party hadn't run a candidate.

If you want to argue that there are enough small-l libertarians in Montana to swing an election this close, that probably goes without saying. But then we get into all sorts of definitional issues.

Former Majority Leader Armey had more than just a kernel of limited government philosophy in him. He was a true believer that actively worked to trim back the reach of government in bills when he could. I miss him.

I think it depends on the race. In my district (TX-20) the Libertarian got 13% of the vote, including mine. Considering that my only other choice was the spendthrift Democrat Charlie Gonzalez I suspect the vast majority of those Libertarian votes would have gone to a Republican if one had run. (I think this is his official site. You should look at it just for the entertainment value, to see how not to design a webpage, and reflect that this person still got 13% of the vote for congress)

If we libertarians could have given the Republicans a loss without giving the Democrats a gain, don't you think we would have?

What about instant run-offs? If the Republicans were sure that they would be Libertarians' second choice, they could have instituted instant run-offs allowing the Libertarian 3% to have their votes go the Republican. This, however, would strengthen third parties by allowing people to vote their conscience rather than worry about wasting their vote. This becomes a double-edged sword. If they don't, the 3%s can cost elections; if they do, third parties can become viable. Of course, Montana Democrats have no incentive now if Libertarians will continue to drain from Republicans (which I think is a shaky assumption this year).

In Illinois, the Green Party candidate for Governor received around 10% of the vote, but a Democrat still won. Although Illinois is now a blue state, it has recently had a lot of Republicans in power. I think before Blagojevich, Republicans held Governor for over 20 years. The ruling Democrats might have the proper incentives now to institute instant run-offs so that the Green Party won't cost them election next time it's close.

Porlock: I think if the Libertarian Party were going to accomplish anything, it already would have: thirty six years is long enough.

The Prohibition Party ran its first presidential candidates in 1972 and prohibition was not the law until 1920, 48 years later. So the Libertarian Party should have at least 12 more years to see what it can do.

You'd think libertarianism would be easier to sell than prohibition, but maybe we need to wait a couple hundred more years. A lot of Americans seem to like rules and laws,

Lucia, Protest votes for third-party candidates can hurt major-party candidates just as much as sincere votes for third-party candidates. The Green Party will have easier ballot access in future elections and will probably get at least a few percent in the next governor's race. In a close race, they may draw more than the margin of victory. Instant run-off elections can prevent the whining that "they (whether Green, Libertarian, or Perot) cost us (whether Democrat or Republican) the election."

As an (almost) unrelated aside, I wonder who would have won the Texas governorship with instant run-offs.

The reason Libertarians (and Greens) are marginal is that the two-parties bar them from accessing the ballots by imposing higher signature requirements and bar them from public debates because they have less than 5% support (even though they often end up, altogether, with around 3%-5%, and can decide the election!). Both Libertarians and Greens each have a few issues that enjoy majority support.

I voted Libertarian for the first time the other day. Not because I'm a fringe-weirdo, but because I wanted the Republicans to get the message and there's no way I was voting for a Democrat. If Republicans were more friendly to Libertarian values (and, frankly, adopted one or two Green positions, too, e.g., drop-off proportional voting, or whatever it is called, and energy independence), they would almost always win narrow elections by eliminating spoilers from the right (limited government/ballot access) and peeling off potential Democrat voters from the left (energy independence/proportional voting).

Truth Seeker:

You'd think libertarianism would be easier to sell than prohibition, but maybe we need to wait a couple hundred more years. A lot of Americans seem to like rules and laws,

My problem isn't with libertarianism, which I largely agree with and which I think reflects many Americans' beliefs, but with the LP itself. After thirty six years, a party which has a childish accident whenever one of its candidates wins even the most minor office (and that's all any of them has yet done) still isn't ready for Prime Time. I doubt it ever will be.

Just to make a broad generalization, I would imagine many of the Montana "Libertarians" would be of the dope-smoking variety, and may very well have voted for Democrats in the alternative.

"Libertarians fantasize endlessly about being kingmakers, but that doesn't alter the reality that they are marginalized and irrelevant."

as a LOWERCASE libertarian (kind of a right moderate with strong libertarian tendencies), i find this silly.

Green party voters basically gave bush an election (see: nader) and now it appears libertarian voters may have given dems the senate. it is far from an assumption that libertarian votes = republicans in the absence of a libertarian candidate, but third parties retain their "spoiler" potential in numerous races.

many dems still seethe over nader, instead of considering that many of their policies drove those people from their party.

i hope strong libertarian showings (as well as their complete trouncing in this last election) will move repubs back towards their libertarian roots, as opposed to their tendency to play the same nannystate games as dems do.

As a Montana native who now lives in Virginia, I felt really engaged by the late-night election coverage this year.

Now that that's out of the way, let me address "election-stealing" and "kingmaking." As a sometime voter for Libertaran candidates (I would characterize myself as a "Goldwater Republican" if there were still any Republicans like that), I object to what I see as the underlying premise of the entire discussion. The fact that we have two dominant political parties does not place a duty on anyone to choose between them. I may decide to hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils, which is, unfortunately, the choice I see all too frequently. But I don't have a duty to do so -- I may find them equally repugnant and choose to vote for a third-party (or independent)candidate simply to show my distaste for the major party candidates.

To be sure, the major parties are unlikely to care why I voted as I did or to change their policies as a result, but I still have the right to cast my ballot and mutter "A pox on both your houses" as I do it.

Both parties want to be the engineer on the train of government. If you think that a trainwreck is imminent, however, it really doesn't matter which engineer is in charge -- you need brakemen. I suspect that most Libertarian or Green (or Socialist Worker or Reform or independent) voters are utterly indifferent as to which of the major party candidates actually wins. If they weren't indifferent, they would vote for the one they deem less harmful out of rational self-interest.

To some extent, I think that it is likely that in the absence of a Green Party candidate, a Green voter who shows up at the polls is more likely to vote for a Democrat than a Republican through general affinity of positions on issues. But in the absence of a Green Party candidate, can we assume the voter would have showed up at all? I don't think so.

The same argument can be made with respect to Libertarian voters and Republican candidates, but for the reasons discussed above, I suspect that the affinity may be weaker than the Green-Democrat affinity.

This isn't the first time the Libertarians have cost the GOP control of the Senate

Right, there is a divine right for political offices to go to the GOP. How dare we not vote for them?

In addition to the GOP's lack of fiscal restraint in recent years, I also have to believe that many libertarians were turned off by the GOP's legislative activism on social issues of personal liberty. Most libetarians don't want the Christian Coalition dictating government policy on such issues as medical marijuana, partial birth abortion, or a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage any more than they want the AFL-...

Unless I am very much mistaken, it was the Liberals on the Supreme Court who overturned California's medical marijuana law and the Conservatives went with States Rights and voted that the the people of Calif. should have the right to make up their own minds. And, the Liberals went for extending Emminent Domain Laws making the taking of private property much easer. Hardly Libertarian positions, I would think and hardly demonstrating that Liberals will protect anyone's rights or keep their noses out of your business.

I voted for the Libertarian candidate in the New York Senate who I know nothing about reluctantly just because I had no interest in giving Hilary Clinton an even wider majority of victory in New York nor do I particularly like her policies (plus I still think it was wrong that she just cherrypicked a state to run in) although she is quite competent and although I am Republican could stomach voting for John Spencer who always struck me as low-class and who I always questioned his motives for running.

So it wasn't just me.