Libertarian Rating of States

Many posts have discussed differences among the states, with special emphasis on California and Texas.

William Ruger and Jason Sorens at Cato:

This 2023 edition of Freedom in the 50 States presents a completely revised and updated ranking of the American states on the basis of how their policies protect or infringe on individual liberty.

This edition improves on the methodology for weighting and combining state and local policies to create a comprehensive index. Authors William Ruger and Jason Sorens introduce many new policy variables suggested by readers and changes in the broader policy environment (e.g., universal school choice and state laws that shape local zoning authority).

More than 230 policy variables and their sources are available to the public on this website. New policy variables include a battery of state‐​level land‐​use laws affecting housing, several new occupational licensing measures, a reworked household goods moving company licensing variable that focuses on the “competitor’s veto” element, qualified immunity limitations, and new abortion laws for the alternative indices. In this edition, the authors have updated their findings to

• Provide the most up‐​to‐​date freedom index yet, including scores as of January 1, 2023.
• Retrospectively evaluate how state COVID-19 responses affected freedom during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.
• Refresh their analysis of how the policies driving income growth and interstate migration have changed—before and after the Great Recession and during the pandemic.

In addition to providing the latest rankings as of the beginning of 2023, the 2023 edition provides annual data on economic and personal freedoms and their components back to 2000 and for some variables, back to the 1930s.

To read the full report, visit Free​dominthe50S​tates​.org.

See in particular, the writeups for California (#48), Texas (#17), and Florida (#2) 

 

The Sad State of the Libertarian Party

Andy Craig:

Aside from [Gary] Johnson’s candidacy, the party had mostly drawn attention for antics ranging from the mildly amusing to utterly cringe-inducing, such as running an Elvis Presley impersonator as a perennial candidate, nominating someone who accidentally turned his skin blue by drinking colloidal silver, entertaining the presidential aspirations of the mentally unstable alleged murderer John McAfee, and treating C-SPAN viewers to a man stripping nearly naked on the national convention stage. But now, as Ken White, a criminal defense lawyer and respected commentator known by his online moniker Popehat, aptly observed on Twitter, “bigoted shitposters” have now wrested control from these “mostly harmless cranks.”

Under the direction of the so-called Mises Caucus, the LP has become home to those who don’t have qualms about declaring Holocaust-denying racists “fellow travelers” and who don’t think that bigots are necessarily disqualified from the party. They even went out of their way to delete from the party’s platform its nearly 50-year-old language stating: “We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant.” The caucus is also reversing the party’s longstanding commitment to open immigration policies in favor of border enforcement. The new chair, Angela McArdle, proclaims that the party will now be dedicated to fighting “wokeism.” People with pronouns in their Twitter bios aren’t welcome anymore, but, evidently, white nationalists and Holocaust deniers are.

Ideology: Liberals and Conservatives Outnumber Populists and Libertarians

 

Populists - voters who are culturally conservative, economically liberal, make up 14% of the electorate. In contrast, Libertarians - voters who are economically conservative, culturally liberal - make up 6% of the electorate. pic.twitter.com/sYyNCAEnEt

— Echelon Insights (@EchelonInsights) July 7, 2021

Amash Out

Our chapter on political parties discusses the potentially pivotal role of third-party and independent candidates

Zeeshan Aleem at Vox:

Rep. Justin Amash, the independent Michigan congressman who said in April he was considering running for president as a third party candidate, has announced he’s decided not to pursue a bid for the White House.

“After much reflection, I’ve concluded that circumstances don’t lend themselves to my success as a candidate for president this year, and therefore I will not be a candidate,” he tweeted Saturday.

Amash had said last month that he was seeking the Libertarian Party’s nomination, and that he’d pursue the White House to be a “principled president who will defend the Constitution and put individuals first.”

It was a decision that, as Vox’s Jane Coaston explained, brought an “angry response” from a number of groups concerned Amash would draw just enough votes away from their preferred candidate to cost him victory — as well as some concern from libertarians:

...
And while Amash is popular among libertarians, he has not previously identified with the party, leading some to feel as if the Libertarian Party is, as Reason Magazine’s Matt Welch said, “sloppy seconds” for former Republicans.

“If he wins the nomination, it’s the fourth consecutive former Republican elected official [to win],” Welch said. “It kind of starts making you feel a little bit used.”

Libertarians and Republicans

Libertarians have a highly consistent political philosophy, favoring less active government across the board:  in economics, social policy, and international affairs.

Carl Cannon writes of last night's GOP debate:

Kentucky’s junior senator pounced on Trump’s answer on party unity, but he later tangled heatedly with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie over civil liberties. “I’m a different kind of Republican,” Paul said near the end of the two-hour debate. He may be understating the problem. Paul is actually a Libertarian, and a principled one, be he’s stuck in a binary political system. He did get off one of the best lines of the night, though, while turning a gay marriage question into a question about religious freedom and the Second Amendment: “I don’t want my religion, or my guns, registered in Washington.”

Paul's basic problem is simple:  he is a libertarian in a party that does not have a significant libertarian wing.  In 2014, Pew reported that only about 12 percent of Republicans identified as libertarians, and many of them did not have consistently libertarian issue positions:

Libertarianism is associated with limited government involvement in the social sphere. In this regard, self-described libertarians are somewhat more supportive of legalizing marijuana than the public overall (65% vs. 54%).

But there are only slight differences between libertarians and the public in views of the acceptability of homosexuality. And they are about as likely as others to favor allowing the police “to stop and search anyone who fits the general description of a crime suspect” (42% of libertarians, 41% of the public).

Similarly, self-described libertarians do not differ a great deal from the public in opinions about foreign policy. Libertarianism is generally associated with a less activist foreign policy, yet a greater share of self-described libertarians (43%) than the public (35%) think “it is best for the future of our country to be active in world affairs.”
...

An alternative way to identify libertarians is the process used to create the Pew Research Center’s political typology, released in June (for more on how the political typology was created, read our explainer in Fact Tank). That study used a statistical technique called “cluster analysis” to sort people into homogeneous groups, based on their responses to 23 questions about a variety of social and political values.

None of the seven groups identified by the 2014 political typology closely resembled libertarians, and, in fact, self-described libertarians can be found in all seven. Their largest representation is among the group we call Business Conservatives; 27% of this group says the term libertarian describes them well. Business Conservatives generally support limited government, have positive views of business and the U.S. economic system, and are more moderate than other conservative groups on the issue of homosexuality. However, they are also supportive of an activist foreign policy and do not have a libertarian profile on issues of civil liberties.

Bring Back the Draft?

At The Washington Post, Dana Milbank writes:

Compulsory military service, as old as Athenian democracy and common in countries such as Israel that live under threat, has been in decline in Western Europe since the end of the Cold War. But an exception, Switzerland, is instructive: On Sept. 22, the Swiss voted 73 percent to 27 percent to keep their conscription army. It has less to do with security than with national identity in a land of 26 cantons and four official languages. The government argued that military service teaches people “how to live and work with compatriots from all regions, all linguistic groups and all social strata,” which “contributes enormously to the national cohesion.”

In Switzerland, the sons of bankers and farmers alike do basic training for several months and then are recalled to service for brief periods. But the structure is less important than the service itself. My former colleague Tom Ricks proposes bringing back the draft in the United States but allowing for a civilian national service option — teaching, providing day care and the like — for those who don’t want to join the military.

There’s no mass movement for mandatory service, but the idea has gained a diverse group of supporters, including retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal and Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y). Gun-rights groups would cheer an armed citizenry, and an article published by the libertarian Cato Institute argued that compulsory service “can be a pillar of freedom.”

The costs would be huge. But so would the benefits: overcoming growing social inequality without redistributing wealth; making future leaders, unlike today’s “chicken hawks,” disinclined to send troops into combat without good reason; putting young Americans to work and giving them job and technology skills; and, above all, giving these young Americans a shared sense of patriotism and service to the country.

But Milbank fails to note what the author of the "libertarian" piece later wrote: 

Let me drop the mask. I am not, in fact, a libertarian. You may have guessed that.
I’m not a libertarian, and yet I may be as libertarian as possible without actually being libertarian. I walk right up to that Rubicon, without crossing it. And the reason why I refuse to cross it is ultimately the reason why I am writing here about military service.

The question that is posed to us via the example of military service is: what is citizenship?

What does it mean to be a citizen? Jason Kuznicki hit the nail on the head when he decided to title this issue “What do we owe?” for that is precisely the question that concerns us here. It is one of the key questions of political philosophy, and the answer has a momentous impact on all human life.

If there can be no libertarian case for military service, then it is because libertarianism considers citizenship as, at best, a necessary evil. That no one has duties to one’s countrymen that one does not have to anybody else. That political communities have no value in themselves, and are even inherently evil (even though that evil may, in some very limited cases, be necessary).

Briefs in Marriage Case

Our chapters on interest groups and the judiciary discuss the role of amicus curiae briefs, which provide a way for groups to weigh in on a case.  Fortune reports:

On Thursday, dozens of American corporations, including Apple, Alcoa, Facebook, eBay, Intel, and Morgan Stanley will submit an amicus brief in the landmark Hollingsworth v. Perry case broadly arguing to the U.S. Supreme Court that laws banning same-sex marriages, like California's ballot initiative Proposition 8, are unconstitutional under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.

According to a draft copy obtained by Fortune, the companies argue that such laws "send an unmistakeable signal that same-sex couples are in some way inferior to opposite-sex couples, a proposition that is anathema to amici's commitment to equality and fair treatment to all."

At least 60 companies had committed to signing the brief as of Tuesday evening, according to Joshua Rosenkranz, who is counsel of record on the brief and head of the Supreme Court and appellate litigation practice at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe. That number is expected to rise by Thursday, however, according to Rosenkranz. Others who have already committed to sign include AIG, Becton Dickinson, Cisco, Cummins, Kimpton, Levi Strauss, McGraw Hill, NCR, Nike, Office Depot, Oracle, Panasonic, Qualcomm, and Xerox. (Update: Verizon and Cablevision have now joined.

Slate reports:

Here's a story that's getting a lot of buzz this week, but for all the wrong reasons. A host of "prominent Republicans" signed a legal brief supporting gay marriage. Cool. But of the 82 GOPers on the list, only four currently hold political office, and only two at the federal level.

Among the signers is Gary Johnson, the former New Mexico governor  who ran as the Libertarian candidate for president.

Yet Another Zombie Video!

Zombie videos are big this year. This one is for Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson.

Third Parties in 2012

Our chapter on political parties discusses the potentially pivotal role of third-party and independent candidates. The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports:

"The votes that Ralph Nader received in several states in 2000 would have been enough to give Al Gore an electoral college victory," said Adam Schiffer, a political science professor at Texas Christian University in Fort Worth. "Had even one-fifth of Nader's voters voted for Gore instead, Florida would not have needed a recount."

Nader earlier this year said that third-party candidates play an important role in the electoral process.

"I think it's competition," he told MSNBC earlier this year. "I think it's new agendas, new ideas, that are supported by a large number by the American people.

"And I think, above all, it respects the voters by raising their expectation level," he said. "That's the history of small parties."

Texas billionaire Ross Perot, running as an independent, affected the 1992 presidential race -- which pitted then incumbent Republican President George H.W. Bush and Democratic then-Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton.

Clinton won with nearly 45 million votes to Bush's more than 39 million votes. Perot picked up more than 19 million votes in that race.

"Many observers credit Ross Perot with tipping the 1992 election to Clinton, but the best scholarly analyses of polling data dispute that conclusion," Schiffer said.

What of 2012?  The New York Times reports:

There is one factor in the campaign that has yet to get much attention but could influence the outcome: third-party candidacies in many states, most notably that of former Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico, the Libertarian Party’s presidential nominee.

Mr. Johnson, who argued for free markets, fewer wars and the legalization of marijuana during his brief run for the 2012 Republican nomination, hardly shows up in polls. But he is on the ballot in more than three dozen states and is trying for more.

Mr. Johnson shares some of the cross-party appeal of Representative Ron Paul of Texas, who complimented him publicly last week. Advisers said Mr. Johnson’s potential for cutting into Mr. Romney’s support was greatest in Florida, where Mr. Romney is basically tied with Mr. Obama, but could also have an impact in Arizona, Nevada, New Hampshire and North Carolina.

They said Mr. Johnson’s potential to eat into Mr. Obama’s support was greatest in Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico, Oregon and Wisconsin.

Republican officials have already tried to challenge Mr. Johnson’s place on the ballot or are trying to in states including Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia. Many of the challenges have failed — courts recently rejected efforts to throw him off the ballot in Virginia — and Roger Stone, a Republican Party veteran who is advising Mr. Johnson, said he was optimistic that Mr. Johnson would qualify in all 50 states.

The Republican Party of Virginia also failed in a bid last week to remove former Representative Virgil Goode from the presidential ballot there. He is the nominee for the Constitution Party and could draw disaffected Tea Party adherents away from the Republican Party.

Third Party for Paul?

Ron Paul ran as the Libertarian Party candidate for president in 1988. Might he try another third-party bid in 2012? The issue came up at last night's debate:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor Paul -- Congressman Paul, let me bring this to you. You’re running here in the Republican primary, but you haven’t promised to support the party’s nominee in November. And you refuse to rule out running as a third party candidate if you fail to get the nomination. Why not rule that out?

PAUL: Well I essentially have. It’s just that I don’t like absolutes like, I will never do something. But no...

SANTORUM: You’ve never done it for a debt ceiling.

PAUL: Please don’t interrupt me.
(APPLAUSE)

PAUL: So, I have said it in the last go-around, I said -- they asked me that about 30 times. I think maybe you’ve asked me four or five already. And the answer is always the same. You know, no, I have no plans to do it. I don’t intend to do it. And somebody pushed me a little bit harder and said why don’t you plan to do it? I just -- I don’t want to. So I have no intention. But I don’t know why a person can’t reserve a judgment and see how things turn out? You know, in many ways I see the other candidates as very honorable people, but I sometimes disagree with their approach to government.

Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, who sought the GOP nomination, is now seeking the Libertarian nomination.

Capitalism, Socialism, and Public Opinion, 2011

Our chapter on public opinion looks at political ideologies.  Our chapter on civic culture notes that socialism has never taken deep root in the United States.  The Pew Research Center reports on both topics:

The recent Occupy Wall Street protests have focused public attention on what organizers see as the excesses of America's free market system, but perceptions of capitalism -- and even of socialism -- have changed little since early 2010 despite the recent tumult.

The American public's take on capitalism remains mixed, with just slightly more saying they have a positive (50%) than a negative (40%) reaction to the term. That's largely unchanged from a 52% to 37% balance of opinion in April 2010.Socialism is a negative for most Americans, but certainly not all. Six-in-ten (60%) say they have a negative reaction to the word; 31% have a positive reaction. Those numbers are little changed from when the question was last asked in April 2010.

Read the full report for more details on the survey as well as public perceptions about "Libertarian," "Liberal" and "Conservative."

From the full report:

The American public remains divided over the word libertarian, with 38% offering a positive reaction, 37% a negative reaction, and 24% offering that they don’t have a reaction either way.

The steepest divide in reactions to the term libertarian are not political but generational. By a 50% to 28% margin, people under age 30 have more positive than negative feelings toward the termlibertarian. Views are more split among those age 30-64, while those age 65 and older offer more negative (43%) than positive (25%) reactions.

Presidential Nomination Campaigns Are Changing

Michael Barone names three "rules" of presidential nomination campaigns that seem to be changing.

First, up-front money is essential.

In 1992, Jerry Brown kept repeating his campaign's 800 number so people could phone in contributions. In 2008, and especially this time, candidates are raising money through email. That's far faster and cheaper than snail mail.

Money can rush in rapidly. Scott Brown's Massachusetts Senate campaign was taking in $1 million in the last days after polls showed him within striking range. Herman Cain was deluged with millions after the news media reported he had been accused of sexual harassment.

Second, personal contact is the main way to win Iowa and New Hampshire.

But current Iowa polling But current Iowa polling shows Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain and Mitt Romney in a tie for the lead there. According to the tracker, in the 38 days since Oct. 15, Gingrich has had Iowa campaign events on eight days, Cain on three and Romney on two. Rick Santorum has had Iowa events on 19 of those days and is the only candidate to have held them in all the state's 99 counties. But he's averaging only 4 percent in Iowa polls taken during that time.

Instead of personal contact, voters seem to be making decisions based on performance in debates, which thanks to cable news have been viewed by many more voters than in the past, and by what they've been reading and watching on the Internet. [See here for a survey on how debates are influencing Republicans.]

Third, religious and social conservatives drive GOP nominations.

Iowa caucuses are open to anyone who shows up, and in 2008 only 119,000 Republicans did so in a state of 3 million. That leaves a large potential reservoir of newcomers this time.

Iowa pollster Ann Selzer reports less enthusiasm among evangelical Christians in this cycle, and some local Republicans predict a larger turnout this time. That could mean an infusion of new participants, with results that can't be extrapolated from past contests. [Also note that libertarian Ron Paul is doing well in some Iowa polls.]

A Libertarian Take on American Exceptionalism

Our chapter on civic culture discusses America's unique commitment to individualism. From a libertarian perspective, Shikha Dalmia writes on this topic at Reason Online:

America’s critics see American exceptionalism as a dangerous form of nationalism that legitimizes bellicosity abroad and swagger at home by suggesting that America has a God-given mission—a manifest destiny—to remake the world in its own image. But this is a perversion—which, unfortunately, President George W. Bush’s post-9/11 foreign policy agenda of spreading democracy by the sword did nothing to dispel.

However, that is not how Alexis de Tocqueville, the French philosopher who first described America as “exceptional” in 1830, saw it. He thought Americans took justified pride in their new nation. Rejecting European feudalism and monarchy, they had consciously crafted a republic based on the ideals of liberty, equality, individualism, and laissez-faire. Its project to keep tyranny at bay and create maximum political space for individual self-determination had, in Tocqueville’s view, produced a different“species” whose success might become an example to the world.

...

Very often the biggest triumphs of ideals are invisible. They lie not in what they prevail against, but what they prevent from coming into existence. For example, Americans might quarrel about prayers in public schools, but the separation of church and state is so thoroughly embedded in the American consciousness that neither an established church nor mandatory secularism (à la France’s burqa ban) are conceivable in this country. Nor could one ever imagine Americans worshiping the symbols and trappings of state power, as the British do with their king and queen.

But what is truly exceptional about America—especially to non-natives like me—is the remarkable absence of class consciousness. This expresses itself culturally in a thousand ways: in the downplaying of differences of wealth and status in American attire; in the avoidance of honorifics to denote station or seniority; in the informality of manners that makes using the wrong dinner fork a correctable faux pas, not a sign of an immutable lack of breeding.

This innate egalitarianism of Americans has major consequences for liberty. While there are occasional outbreaks of class warfare, to be sure, there are no political parties seeking to use state power to protect class privilege—as the Tory Party historically did for the aristocracy in England and socialist parties do for the working classes everywhere.

Ron Paul and Young Voters

Our chapter on political parties discusses the Libertarian Party, whose 1988 presidential candidate was Ron Paul. He is now running for the Republican presidential nomination, as he did four years ago. Libertarian philosophy has roots in the "Don't Tread on Me" strain of American civic culture, and has appeal to younger Americans. The Daily Campus at SMU reports:

Ron Paul has done well in recent polls, falling just behind "top tier" candidates, and in some cases beating them handily.

Much of this winning streak is attributed to the votes of young America, with whom Paul has polled even higher.

In a Gallup Poll released Aug. 24 Ron Paul ranked third with 13 percent behind Rick Perry's 29 percent and Mitt Romney's 17 percent with Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents.

However, in this same poll, Paul came in first among voters 18 to 19 years old with 29 percent, beating out Perry by eight points and Romney by 17 points.

SMU political science professor Matthew Wilson said the difference might be explained because "libertarian tendencies are particularly pronounced among younger voters — especially relatively affluent ones."

And while Wilson believes Paul will be taken "more seriously this time around," he doesn't believe he can pull off the nomination.

"He is too damaged by his past associations with fringe positions, and he is actually the oldest candidate seeking the nomination," Wilson said. "That said, the political climate has become more accepting of libertarianism generally, and a younger, somewhat more mainstream version of Paul – like, perhaps, his son Rand – might have a future in national politics."

But even for this campaign, Paul supporters have noticed a large increase in young volunteers.

Indeed, the Gallup data show a striking relationship between age and Paul's support:

• 18-29....29%
• 30-49....15%
• 50-64...07%
• 65+.......04%

Ron Paul Rising ... Up to a Point

Gallup reports that Ron Paul is the presidential choice of 13 percent of Republicans nationwide, behind Perry and Romney but ahead of all others.

Gallup also reports that Paul would be in a statistical dead heat with President Obama in a general elections.

And yet the Project for Excellence in Journalism shows that the media tend to ignore him. Jon Stewart has made the same point:

The Daily Show - Indecision 2012 - Corn Polled Edition - Ron Paul & the Top Tier
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Lee-Anne Goodman writes at The Canadian Press:

Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul says he's the Rodney Dangerfield of U.S. politics, griping recently that he gets no respect from the media in terms of coverage even after finishing a close second to Michele Bachmann in the often game-changing Iowa straw poll.

The media, Paul said at the time, "is frightened by me challenging the status quo and the establishment."

...

Dennis Simon, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, said there's little doubt Paul is pushing America's buttons on a larger scale than he did in his previous two attempts to get the Republican nomination, most recently in 2008.

"He's resonating, there's no question," Simon said in an interview Thursday.

And unlike in '08, the issues that Paul has been railing about for more than two decades as a congressman have suddenly gone mainstream.

Paul has long been critical of the Federal Reserve Board, for example. Public opinion polls now suggest Americans overwhelmingly agree with his call to audit the Fed.

He's consistently called for the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Afghanistan. In fact, he railed against America's monstrously expensive overseas wars so passionately during the most recent Republican debate that he got the biggest and most prolonged cheers of the night, something that went largely unreported.

He's not alone _ the majority of Americans now want U.S. soldiers to come home as soon as possible.

Paul has also passionately advocated smaller government and a drastic reduction in the national debt, and refused to vote earlier this month in favour of legislation that raised the country's debt ceiling as the U.S. teetered on the brink of defaulting on its US$14 trillion debt.

Simon doesn't think Paul can soar much higher, however.

"I think that he's got an upper limit and he's approaching it," Simon said.

"After one of the Republican debates in 2008, his online fundraising shot up _ we've seen it happen before. But he and Bachmann and Gov. Perry are all chasing the same Republican voters, so that's where I think he'll soon run into a wall."

Freedom in the 50 States

We have previously discussed comparisons among the states. The Mercatus Center at George Mason University has issued a new report, Freedom in the 50 States, by Jason Sorens and William Ruger. From the executive summary:

This study comprehensively ranks the American states on their public policies that affect individual freedoms in the economic, social, and personal spheres. It updates, expands, and improves upon our inaugural 2009 Freedom in the 50 States study. For this new edition, we have added more policy variables (such as bans on trans fats and the audio recording of police, Massachusetts’s individual health-insurance mandate, and mandated family leave), improved existing measures (such as those for fiscal policies, workers’ compensation regulations, and asset-forfeiture rules), and developed specific policy prescriptions for each of the 50 states based on our data and a survey of state policy experts. With a consistent time series, we are also able to discover for the first time which states have improved and worsened in regard to freedom recently.

More detail on video:

A report in The Huffington Post:

New York isn't North Korea, but it's the closest thing you'll find in the U.S. -- at least according to a new report from a libertarian think tank.

A Mercatus Center study has pegged New York as the country's "least free" state, 49 slots behind "Live Free or Die" New Hampshire. Its authors gave the state particular abuse for its taxes, "by far the highest" in the country, according to their methodology.

True to their libertarian ways, however, they also said that New York would have scored higher if it had legalized gay marriage.

New York's low ranking in the study hasn't stopped co-author Jason Sorens from living in the state -- he's an assistant professor at SUNY Buffalo. And for the many New Yorkers who might associate freedom with being able to actually enjoy themselves, Sorens acknowledged that there are a few more nightlife options in the Empire State than in, say, South Dakota (#2 in the index).

John Hospers, RIP

Our chapter on political parties discusses the Libertarian Party. In an obituary of one of its candidates, one may find lessons about third parties and the electoral college. Jesse Walker writes at Reason:

John Hospers, the Libertarian Party's first presidential candidate, has died at age 93. He was both the least and most successful of the party's nominees: His 1972 campaign received fewer popular votes than any of its successors (not surprisingly, since he was on the ballot in only two states), but it also was the only campaign to get a vote in the Electoral College, thanks to a libertarian-leaning elector who couldn't bring himself to cast a ballot for Nixon. (Hospers told the tale of his presidential run in an entertaining memoir for Liberty [pdf].)

Libertarians

Our chapter on political parties discusses the role of minor parties. The Daily Caller reports on recent developments for the Libertarians:

It’s becoming a more familiar story: Voters, frustrated by the anti-incumbent malaise sweeping the political landscape, turn on incumbents and put their weight behind underdogs. Although good management and fundraising certainly play a role in party growth, today’s zeitgeist could help make a Libertarian boom out of the two-party bust.

For the 2010 election, 171 candidates for U.S. Congress are running with an “L” beside their names, up from 127 in 2008 and 114 in 2006. At all levels of public office, the party counts 716 candidates running as Libertarians this year, compared to 593 in 2008, and 596 in 2006.

Wes Benedict, executive director of the Libertarian National Committee, said that some of these declared candidates might not meet the requirements to be placed on the ballot. The party will add new candidates up until the election, though, and he thinks the final candidate number could remain above 700.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/16/libertarian-party-sees-resurgence-as-number-of-congressional-candidates-jumps-by-35-percent-over-2008/#ixzz0r7BK4EzH

But now all is bright for minor parties. California voters just passed a "top-two" primary in which candidates from all parties run in one big mid-year primary and the top two finishers -- regardless of party -- end up on the November ballot. George Will writes:

In areas where Democrats or Republicans dominate -- there are more and more of them as the nation increasingly sorts itself out into clusters of the like-minded -- the November ballots will offer voters a choice of two Democrats or two Republicans. Voters with sensitive political palates can savor faintly variant flavors of liberalism or conservatism.

Voters who prefer their political menu seasoned with the spices provided by minor parties are pretty much out of luck. Under Proposition 14, such parties -- Green, Libertarian, etc. -- which previously could place candidates on November ballots, will almost always be excluded from those by failing to run first or second in primaries.