15 votes

Fake Libertarian candidate spoils Virginia governors race

Fake Libertarian candidate spoils Virginia governors race

In a race that was closer than expected, Republican Virginia governor candidate Ken Cuccinelli (who was endorsed by Ron Paul) was defeated by socialist Democrat Terry McAuliffe by one point after fake Libertarian candidate Robert Sarvis managed to garner around 7% of the overall vote.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Now you sound like the GOP,

Now you sound like the GOP, when Gary Johnson and Ron Paul "stole" votes from Mitt Romney making him lose....

There was no difference between Romney and Obama.

There was a BIG difference between Cuccinelli and McAuliffe.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Give it 1 year

Hopefully the ongoing investigations will land them both in jail (Cuccinelli and McAuliffe)...Then their differences will be in stripe only

lol Both of them in jail?

What is Cuccinelli going to be charged with, practicing the Christian faith maybe? You keep this idiotic hyperbole up someone might confuse you for a classical Ancient Roman imperialist with a fetish for persecuting monotheists.

As far as McAuliffe going to prison, unless you can magically cook up something that will land slick Willy in prison for the carpet-bombings in Serbia, I doubt you'll be able to get one of his goofy subordinates for far less aggravated, though admittedly crimes worthy of imprisonment.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton



Never ceases to amaze

I am truly amazed that third parties don't lobby for an IRV (Instant-Runoff-Voting) system. Instead, they constantly spin their wheels trying to be the 3rd player in a 2-player game. Plurality voting doesn't work with 3 players. It doesn't. How silly is it to try and beat the game this way? Why not change the rules, first? It really is surprising third-parties haven't made this their #1 priority. Instant-runoff-voting is the only way out of the 2-player duopoly.

Anyone here follow 2000 when Nader's dark horse candidacy for president allegedly "cost Gore the election?"

People were outraged then, like NJ is now.

But do you really think Gore was entitled to all the votes left of center? Does anyone really think Cuccinelli is entitled to all the votes right of center?

Dust yourself off, and please learn about Instant-Runoff-Voting here:


Send this link to your most active local third-party (libertarian, green, whatever), and ask them to make this their #1 priority.

Because IRV would render them perpetual losers.

This has been proven mathematically.

IRV doesn't remove "strategic voting."

Ranked Approval Voting however DOES remove strategy, or at least renders it ineffective, and it produces a winner that the largest percentage of the voters have the highest preference for, AND that know anything about any of the candidates. This is the only system that allows multiple parties any shot, and doesn't devolve to simply a re-aligned two-headed single party state.

Not possible to be "mathematically" disqualified before running

It isn't even possible to be mathematically disqualified before running. That doesn't even make any sense. What do you mean proven? Third parties even win in the crappy system we use now.

That aside I would like to learn more about "ranked approval voting." I will look into it, but do you have any links that you recommend?

I didn't say anything about being disqualified. Not sure where

you picked that up from.

I was referring to IRV being mathematically proven to NOT benefit 3rd parties any more (perhaps less even) than plurality systems.

And my apologies, but I erred in advocating Ranked Approval Voting. What I should have used was the term "range" or "score" voting. RAV is a special case of range/score, but range/score is superior.

Here is an excellent website on the method: http://rangevoting.org/

It includes critiques of the other methods measured against range/score as well.

what are you talking about it being proven?

of course it would benefit 3rd parties to have an IRV system over the current plurality system (that now considers them the alien in the race.)

I think you are confused and must be thinking about something else entirely.

I will look into rangevoting.

The rangevoting site shows why IRV will fail for 3rd

parties and actually entrench the top two.

Best comment I've seen in months

Troy understands the fundamental problem. "First-past-the-post" elections is the gorilla in the room that no one wants to acknowledge. FPTP allows a small coordinated minority to divide and conquer the majority through the use of a spoiler candidate.

Instant run-off is good, Approval Voting is better, but Direct Representation is best.


Thanks for links

and props.

I will look into these.

Direct representation is too close to Democracy which is vile

and to be avoided at nearly all costs, unless your goal is a socialist state.

Americans will vote libertarian

in aggregate when given the chance. Socialism is what the Republicans and Democrats under the current system have brought us.


I bet they would if they were allowed in the debates....Of course the "what is your favorite election law reform" question does not come up too often from reporters.

Laws are not made by "getting in the debates."

In fact 99.99999% of what is debated during campaigns never becomes law.

You don't have to wait for your rep to do anything for you. You can do it yourself, by starting a petition (as one example), or writing a letter to the newspaper (as another). The more you learn how to make waves the more powerful you become.

Here is a flowchart of how congress does it:

(of course we know this chart leaves out lobbyists/corporations)

Luckily, locally is a lot easier. Start locally with a sympathetic city council member to introduce a measure. Ally yourself with other groups that have a common goal. If anything is going to happen state-wide, it has to happen locally first. Your local parties will know more than you, so seek their help on getting IRV on the ballot. Or don't. And sit around complaining about Republicans or what-not.

No, but if you aren't in the debates, you can't win.

I think that was the point being made.

You are a non-entity, not serious, and a "wasted vote" if you aren't in the debates.

There are only two ways around that and both take at least 1 billion dollars to have a shot.

A) buy the air time to reach the voters
B) organize another party and slowly take over successively higher political offices around the country until your party gets a seat at the table because you are actually winning elections.

Version A has been tried a few times.

Version B, not so much for nearly 100 years.

The LP, CP, GP and others fail because they are doing NEITHER A or B. (B is the more lasting and likely successful route)


So then how do you know they arent talking about it?

The Libertarians pull from

The Libertarians pull from all types. They pose equal danger to Republicans and Democrats. I have not looked at the numbers of this election, but it is a fact, a true fact, that Libertarians generally pull from both the left and right. Visit a few LP functions and you can verify this.
If you want a party that is ready and ripe to take over, it isn't the Democrats or Republicans, it is the Libertarians. And... due to the continuous and patient work of Libertarians across this country for the last 40 years, the name evokes favorable feelings among most people who know about them. This may be interesting to watch.

Well if Libertarians want to take over by electing candidates

like the one they ran in Virginia, then to hell with them.

It doesn't quite work like that.

You see, statewide candidates are needed to secure ballot access because the laws are generally draconian and exclusive.

If it weren't for that problem, the LP could have much more success.

But all is not lost.

The solution is to organize locally, and run locally - as many candidates as possible - REAL candidates - not paper entries.

That takes local organization (step 1).

Supporting candidates takes money - which should be a goal of local organizations - bringing business and community leaders into the party.

It won't happen overnight.

And in the meantime, you have to keep running high-profile races to keep interest in the party up, to show you are still there and relevant, and to retain ballot access.

Do you have ANY idea how hard it is to recruit candidates for even dog catcher much less governor?

Do you have ANY clue what is required to be a 'viable' candidate for such a high office?

I don't live in Va., but I'm thankful for Mr. Sarvis' run even if I don't agree with him maybe even 50%. (I don't know much about him, so I'm playing it worse case here)

He garnered a significant percentage in a very hot and tight race. He managed to do so despite even Ron and Rand endorsing his opponents. That's a hell of an accomplishment.

He elevated the status of the LP and his impact WILL be felt for some time to come - a positive impact. More people will look into the LP because of him. That is a good thing.

People aren't stupid. They know not every candidate is pure to their party. They aren't looking for pure - they're looking for who can be effective to at least make hay in their general direction.

Sarvis is giving meat to the argument that the LP has the potential of viability one day.

That is CRITICAL to actually being so.

why don't

you GOP's join the DEM's and take them over from within? You can teach them how to ignore Roberts Rules when they don't suit you, instruct the bus driver to keep the delegates from the convention, change the rules at the last minute to keep candidates from speaking...

You know, all the cornerstone's of GOP brilliance that has people running away in droves?

Label Jars, Not People!

Have you ever done any research on how Dems do primaries?

Trying to take over the Democratic Party from within would be 5 times as hard as doing it within the GOP. If you think Roberts Rules violations are bad, try getting purged completely out of office through redistricting the way they did with Kucinich, or completely purging everybody from the debates who don't ideologically fit in with what the party bosses want (Gravel and Kucinich in 2008 for example). The party bosses have far more control of things in the donkey party, which is why Ron Paul stayed in the GOP. He still had massive problems with the establishment, but they didn't outright kick him out of the party.

Not to be a jerk, but in addition to having your last name being Wanker, your tend to post like one as well.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

look who's talking

your 0.72 recent reception vs my 3.86

Label Jars, Not People!


And if republican party created a corrupt election system that bars ballot access and awards election winners who get less than 50% of the vote....


Well, I guess that leave the democratic socialists

which I'm sure makes you happy.

As opposed to Republican Socialists? You do know how the GOP

got started right?

The first socialist president was Abe Lincoln.

The GOP was built for socialism.

It was NEVER the party of individual liberty or laissez-faire.

There is NO difference between the GOP and the Dems except name. They are the SAME PARTY. Running candidates under each name is a con game so you remain duped and doped to keep you from asserting your liberty and throwing off their chains. Stay stuck in their false dichotomy, and you are doing exactly what they want you to do.


Silly statement. If the republican party perpetuates a corrupt democratic system, i am not responsible their failures by voting the best person on the ballot. I have no faith in the corrupt activities of the republican party - maybe you do.

the entire libertarian candidacy was corrupted

you can allow yourself to be used by the dems all you want. I will not be used by them.

They are doing enough damage to my life and my freedoms for me to enable them further with my vote.