Then guess what. There’s a simple solution isn’t there? Stop calling yourselves a party.

“And I believe in the LP’s educational mission.”

No reason you can’t be successful AND educate at the same time. How successful has the LP been at “educating”?

“I keep hearing the “vote getters” whine as if the educationists are preventing electoral success. We’re not.”

The last 30 years history seems to prove you wrong there, buddy. Whenever someone wanted to run a candidate that could bring in mainstream members so they could then be educated, they were chased out of the party. “Educationists” didn’t stop them on the way out, that much is true. They just openly denied their attempts.

“You wanna win an election, Spence? Go win a U.S. Senate seat in 2010. Do it. I won’t do a damn thing to stop you. Prove me wrong.”

Happily. Though 2010 might be a bit pushing it. And I won’t be doing so under the failed brand the LP is either.

So in conclusion: Happy “partying”, Tom.

As Knapp said–they DID grow and prosper, now they’re on the downswing.

They prohibited drinking in the US by Constitutional Amendment, passed and held onto many local and state levels (until the 90s this was true), elected the Sydney Catts governor of Florida in 1916, elected Charles Randall to Congress for 3 terms from California’s 9th District (that was 1910s area I believe).

-In 1884 their Presidential candidate was John Pierce St. John,a former State Senator and Governor from Kansas.
-In 1888 their Presidential candidate was Clinton B. Fisk, whom had a University named after him (while he was living). He was a senior officer in the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands and was commissioner of the Bureau in Kentucky and Tennessee. He also served on the Board of Indian Commissioners, having been appointed by Ulysses S. Grant.
-In 1898 their Presidential candidate was John Bidwell, a former Republican Congressman from California.
-In 1916 their Presidential candidate was Frank Hanly, the former governor from Indiana.
-In 1934 their Presidential candidate was William D. Upshaw, a former 4-term congressman from Georgia.

I already answered that in my post, but here it is again: I’m in the LP for the same reason the vast majority of members are in the LP. It’s a good social club.

And I believe in the LP’s educational mission.

Don’t delude yourself. I’ve followed the LP for some 30 years. Most of its members are in it for personal validation, identity, socializing, etc. They many not admit it, even to themselves, but it’s so.

First thing I did when I came to L.A., and didn’t know anyone, was join the local LP, for the socializing. Some admitted to me of doing the same, for the same reason.

So I’m in the LP for the people, and for the educational mission. Both are great reasons to join the LP. I recommend the LP to anyone looking for a good social lodge, or who wants to educate people about liberty.

And if you, Spence, want to “win elections,” guess what — nobody’s stopping you.

I keep hearing the “vote getters” whine as if the educationists are preventing electoral success. We’re not.

You wanna win an election, Spence? Go win a U.S. Senate seat in 2010. Do it. I won’t do a damn thing to stop you. Prove me wrong.

They’ll probably never go away completely. Hopefully, they’ll never be greatly successful again either.

Except that the party has had 37 years already to do that and rejected every opportunity to. It should die.

Only problem is the idea that all third parties are. what did you say? “Third parties are in reality social clubs with educational missions”?

I reject that statement completely. If that’s what you believe, why are you even part of the LP?

Just because a bunch of failed socialites can’t make real policy change on their own doesn’t mean that’s how the whole concept should be viewed.

I agree that today’s third parties are a joke, but honestly, both current parties started out as third parties before. Were they “clubs” then, too? You might as well broaden your definition then, cause in essence, that’s the only way that it will work.

“In 2007, the two separate Parties held separate nominating conventions. The Dodge group again kept secret their low attendance, perhaps some three or so. The public was not invited. In contrast, the historic Party welcomed the public, and had over ten times the attendance.”

Excuse me, but isn’t ten times three just thirty? If that isn’t “going away” what is?

Amondson, their nominee this year and in 2004, got all of 378 votes in Colorado. Their party was founded in 1872. If it were going to grow and prosper, one would think it would have done so by now.

Kudos! In any event, government should be the last place people look to to solve problems. For now, there’s an election, with some candidates closer to my principles than others.