1. unequal ballot access laws
2. minority rule gerrymanders — half the votes in half the gerrymander districts = about 25 percent minority rule
3. partisan elected executive officers and judges
4. major violations of separation of powers.

Obvious remedies -
1. equal ballot access laws.
2. proportional representation — total votes / total seats
= equal votes for each seat winner
3. nonpartisan nominations and elections for all elected executive officers and all judges.
4. abolish the veto — a carryover from the Dark Age and divine right of kings.

Unfortunately the LP Bylaws have many of the above defects — result the nearly invisable LP since 1971.

For some reason, Ls seem to equate “principle” with “advocating obscure theory.” I shake my head ruefully when I see that. It takes all kinds, but the compulsion to display a kick-me sign seems pronouncedly dysfunctional, no?

I did not “sit out” the 2008 LP presidential campaign.

As an individual, I voted my conscience and am content with having done so.

As a member of my county’s LP central committee, chair of that committee for the last three months of the campaign cycle, and an LP candidate for Congress, it’s very likely that I handed out, or hung on doors, as many or more Barr/Root brochures as anyone in my county or, for that matter, my state.

Additionally, I ran my own congressional campaign with an eye toward heavy use of the Libertarian brand — yard signs, robocalls, print and online advertising, etc. — so as to hopefully benefit other candidates including Barr/Root.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

* Example: Tom Sipos, the then-editor of California Freedom, which is surely second only to LP News itself in terms of circulation, expense, and staff compensation — over $4K/yr for Sipos alone. He used the pages of CF to announce to LPCA dues-payers that he voted against the LP’s candidate.

Example: Tom Knapp, who is asking LP convention delegates to choose him as their 2012 nominee. He says openly that he voted against their 2008 choice for nominee.

It’s been sitting in my in box a few days.

It seemed pretty straightforward to me. There was a poll question about the changes the Committee suggested.

It boiled down to: ‘do you like the old or the new language better?’

They also had a comments field for every question if the ‘thumbs up or down’ format didn’t suit you exactly.

Puhleeze.

Nothing going on there Miss Susan H Troublemaker.

Move along.

the infighting renders us impotent and the duopoly of the Dems and GOP are laughing their asses off. as long as we are divided , we are conquered.

If we are heading in the same direction cant we overlook the nuances??

Even though I’m a new poster, I’ve been visiting IPR for some time now because I am passionate about my libertarian beliefs and ALSO because I am passionate about dismantling the two party system. I enjoy reading peoples thoughts on issues and thoughts on how to get independents to win elections. I think it is all valuable to read and to learn. But not everything that is said is positive, and while there is nothing wrong with being in disagreement with someone else on policy, sometimes, there is a lot of hate. I think wolfefan hit the nail on the head when he said that “any discussion a party chooses to conduct in public will affect the public’s perception of that party and it’s fitness to govern.” (though Brian makes a great counter point as well)

Susan @42 Your right, absolutly. But remember, after the 2008 platform was created there was still plenty of heated arguments AFTER the fact. Despite the fact that radical and moderate libertarians have similar goals of decreasing the size, scope, and power of government, because they have different ideas of HOW small, they never agree, get mad at the end result, don’t help campaign for candidates in the party and sit out yet another election.

No matter what seems to be done or who is in charge, people get angry and don’t work together. I think this needs to change. This blog contains only a tiny smidgen of activists in the party, but I think it still encapsulates the many different views that many different people hold.

Not quite, as it depends on when they joined. The SoP was allowed to be changed by merely a 2/3 vote in 1974. That allowed the Rothbardians to remove the original SoP statements that

* “the sole function of government is the protection of the rights of each individual”
* “government has only one legitimate function, the protection of individual rights”

Of the two, I’d say the SoP is actually damaging to the party’s prospects. The ability to survey members is neutral to positive. Yet, we soldier on….

Hell we have a government that is way out of bounds and it is going to costs us a great sum of money and people are spending time on the little stuff.

I’m not sure what equivalence you’re fantasizing there. If it’s an application of “my logic,” it’s such a convoluted one that I can’t see it.

There’s no getting around the fact that there will be things in the LP that someone will most likely object to in some form. Deal with it, I’d suggest.

In 1980, Tom, I agreed that “cult of the omnipotent state” was insightful language, as I found most everything MNR wrote to be. I wasn’t aware of the 7/8ths protection, which, even then, I’d of disagree with Murray and Bill.

By your logic, Tom: I suppose you could say that Susan agreed to Alicia’s survey, too, when Susan joined the LP, since there’s no *specific* prohibition against such a communication in the Bylaws.

Every last member of the LP has input on the SoP. They are free to consider its merits and amendability when deciding whether or not to join, as well as when considering whether or not to remain members, pay dues or contribute to the party. They’re free to attempt to amend it by the same rules that existed for amending it when they joined.

By definition, anyone who’s in the LP either supports the SoP or is willing to live with it.

Of course, virtually none (or perhaps very few) of the current membership had any input on the 7/8ths protected SoP, either. Three-quarters of convention delegates tried to expunge some of the SoP’s loopiest language…oh well, we gave it a good-ole college try. I guess that’s the nature of nature of voluntary collectives…we accept what we can live with.

I have a problem with her issuing a report with absolutely zero feedback from the Committee, absolutely zero indication that such a report would be issued by her (after I’d repeatedly asked), and absolutely zero idea of who got the report, who will tally the responses, and how they will be used.