When questioned on this strategy, these tend to quickly drop to the level of media sound bite or super-simplicity: “mean-spirited”, “tax cuts for the rich”, “Nixon was a republican”, etc.

I can’t tell you how many Republican events I recently attended where my call for liberty and smaller government were
met with blank states. The party of smaller government has become the party of international military socialism, jingoism, and fear.

It might rattle a few cages for them to think they lost by alienating what they saw as their libertarian base.

Democrats and Republicans have successfully characterized all third party bids as “fringe”. As the difference between those two parties shrinks perceptively, the window for a third party to obtain a foothold increases (despite the procedural lock those two parties have established in many states).

The key to the Demopublicans continuing success is based on inertia, and to spin any differences they present as being philosophically and effectively significant. This spin stays effective as long as most potential voters evaluate issues emotionally and situationally. As Gore Vidal says in the film “Why We Fight”, we tend to be the United States of Amnesia.

My own interpretation of low voter turnout is that most Americans are fat and happy enough to not be bothered to vote. When one looks at voter turnout in new democracies, the percentage is much, much higher. It seems that most Americans concentrate on the practicalities of life without much thought towards politics or voting until something directly affects their daily routine – like $4.00 / gallon gasoline. At which point, they support the most immediate perceived solution: tax the bastard oil companies’ profits. Longer term answers like: maybe oil is $137.00 per gallon in part because the dollar is worth so much less, due to inflation of the currency rather than increased taxation in an attempt to fund every goodie any politician can promise from domestic entitlements to international military socialism. Hard to put that on a bumper sticker.

I think there’s probably a “bad enough” line that must be crossed before those types of non-voters seriously consider “risking” their vote on a third party. Until we hit that, I’m not sure how anyone would move those non-voters to the polls. Maybe four to eight years of a McCain or Obama presidency will be enough. I’m sad to say that I doubt it.

I would think that if there ever was a high voter turnout and if a third party candidate had a double-digit showing, THAT would send a message.

Agree?

This delegates the interpretation of your inaction to whoever cares to analyze it. It’s left to the observer to determine whether the 56.4% of Americans who choose this option are apathetic, stupid, practicing ethical abstinence or offering tacit approval.

I’d just prefer to be explicit when possible.

Three strategies I’ve seen for voting:

1. Vote for the person or party that most closely aligns with your philosophy.
2. Vote for the person or party you feel is most likely to win.
3. Vote against the person or party you disagree with most.

Since I disagree with the statist platforms of both major party candidates, option 3 is out for me. There isn’t an evil that’s lesser enough for me, just different. I find option 2 to have all the depth of a high-school pep rally, and cannot vote with the herd simply to claim a seat at the cool kids’ table.

I’m left with option 1 until I find a more functional perspective.

Barr isn’t a born-libertarian, but he stands a better chance of coming closer to it than any other candidate now in the race.

All positions he has since denounced and is activly working against.