Did a Zombie Libertarian cost Republicans the Senate? [Archive]

Crazed Rabbit

11-13-2006, 00:27

This guy ran as a libertarian for the Senate seat in Montana, and got 10,000+ votes. He is against abortion and gay marriage. The Republican lost by 2500 or so votes.
https://img120.imageshack.us/img120/6347/zombielibertarianjy4.png
He is also the 'poster child' for why you should not make your own antibiotics (read the article):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/11/AR2006111101004.html

Zombie Libertarians: Eating Republican brains in these and future elections? Discuss.

Crazed Rabbit

Adrian II

11-13-2006, 00:34

Zombie Libertarians: Eating Republican brains in these and future elections? Discuss.

Crazed RabbitI do not know about other Libertarian candicates, but our Mr Jones seems to be a complete idiot:

He is also a man who accidentally turned his skin blue by drinking a homemade antibiotic laced with silver. He first took the medicine in 1999, he said, fearing that the year 2000 would wreck computers, spread terrorism and disease, and make prescribed antibiotics unavailable. He concedes now that he miscalculated.

Papewaio

11-13-2006, 00:42

The US needs a more modern voting system. :yes:

Adrian II

11-13-2006, 00:55

The US needs a more modern voting system. :yes:I do not see why. If people want to vote for idiots, they will do so anyway. If that is what Americans really want, then we can send them a few busloads from Holland. We have idiots to spare in The Hague.

Seamus Fermanagh

11-13-2006, 01:02

Adrian:

Thanks, but no thanks. We've no shortage locally, production remains steady, and any imports would have to have really special features.

Seamus Fermanagh

11-13-2006, 01:07

Of a certainty.

In our current "first past the post" effectively two-party system, third party candidates rarely serve any other role but that of spoiler. In close races, though, that can make the difference.

The GOP is likely to lose some "protest" votes to libertarians whenever they deviate from a conservative/small government agenda.

The Dems lost the 2k race this same way, with 90k Floridians voting for Nader in a race Gore lost by less than 1,000 votes. But Gore hadn't been "green" enough or "anti-corporate" enough to suit some fringe lefties.

Papewaio

11-13-2006, 01:17

I do not see why. If people want to vote for idiots, they will do so anyway. If that is what Americans really want, then we can send them a few busloads from Holland. We have idiots to spare in The Hague.

Not what I'm referring to. Low IQ medium EQ and maxed out CQ are the norm for politicians.

First past the post allows wins on a minority vote, preferential is an improved (but definitly not perfect) solution. It also has a tendancy to stop a two party system from being all there is.

Adrian II

11-13-2006, 01:29

Not what I'm referring to. Low IQ medium EQ and maxed out CQ are the norm for politicians.Have you talked to any voters lately?

I am afraid politicians are only humans, no better or worse than those who elected them, generally speaking. The truly able, strong as well as honest politician is a godsend and very rare.

Papewaio

11-13-2006, 01:34

Adrian II

11-13-2006, 01:52

Talked to voters? Its compulsory that you vote in Aus, so it is an unavoidable part of life... except both my hermit skills and gag reflex have improved.

Still the point isn't the stupidity of the system... and a large number of dumb agents can beat an expert agent... so it isn't neccesarily a flaw.

My point is to the way votes are divided up.Oh sure, on the latter issue we see eye to eye. I agree that proportional repersentation (PR) is superior, not because it produces better politicians but because under PR every vote counts. It would probably increase voter participation in the U.S. as well, just as it did in Norway where they introduced PR recently. And a break with the two-party system in the U.S. would be a welcome change. It would not lead to an impasse, I think, because the country has a strong executive that provides leadership.

My :2cents:

Zanderpants

11-13-2006, 02:04

Adrian:

Thanks, but no thanks. We've no shortage locally, production remains steady, and any imports would have to have really special features.

Hahahaha, good one. I was at my local polling place last week, and someone was kind enough to inform me that gay people were going to steal my home if I voted Democratic. If it weren't for her, I never would have set up those bear traps which caught those pesky homos as they were charging my front door.

Kralizec

11-13-2006, 02:09

Hey Adrian, wich idiot are you going to vote for in the coming election?

Reenk Roink

11-13-2006, 02:50

This is why I abstain from voting... :wink:

and unlike in Mafia, it's not courteously... :no: :laugh4:

Seriously though, these voting registration people are like Velociraptors, they jump on you even when you look away. You try to be polite the first few times and say "no thanks" but they become irate and confused... Some don't even want you to vote for a particular candidate or proposal, but just want you to perform the act of voting...

GoreBag

11-13-2006, 07:03

I can't imagine a zombie being anything but an extreme libertarian..

Banquo's Ghost

11-13-2006, 07:33

I can't imagine a zombie being anything but an extreme libertarian..

Hmm, unthinking and mindless, unwilling to deviate from simple, established commands, eager to kill the living...

Nope, sounds like another party to me...

:wink3:

GoreBag

11-13-2006, 07:50

Hmm, unthinking and mindless, unwilling to deviate from simple, established commands, eager to kill the living...

Nope, sounds like another party to me...

:wink3:

I was thinking more along the lines of fulfilling the individual's needs and sucks to everyone else's ass-mar. You know, instinct and the driving need to eat flesh and all that. Then again, anyone who has politics on the brain is a zombie to me.

This is fun.

Aenlic

11-13-2006, 09:59

This guy and Rummy should get together and do a stage act. Dead Guy and the Zombie. Then make the audience guess which is which.

Adrian II

11-13-2006, 12:48

Hey Adrian, wich idiot are you going to vote for in the coming election?Whatever way you look, it is a choice between Scylla and Charybdis and I honestly don't know yet.

I have to hand it to Seamus and others though, we do not have the kind of raving idiots like Mr Jones who poison themselves to make their point about Armageddon. Ours are more cowardly, more bland, outwardly composed but inwardly simmering with repressed imbecillity and a constant suspicion of their own moral turpitude. Ar least Mr Jones wears his idocy on his sleeve, or his face to be precise. Ours rot from the inside.

Fragony

11-13-2006, 13:07

Husar

11-13-2006, 13:20

Fragony, don't you have a heart for those with 800*600 resolution(or those who don't have Opera) and/or 56k modem users?~;)

naut

11-13-2006, 13:21

I walk into the Backroom once, and find this!

:juggle2:

Fragony

11-13-2006, 13:30

Fragony, don't you have a heart for those with 800*600 resolution(or those who don't have Opera) and/or 56k modem users?~;)

No I hate poor people ~;)

Camelboy took my edit function, couldn't resize :beam:

Shadow

11-13-2006, 16:07

Fragony, don't you have a heart for those with 800*600 resolution(or those who don't have Opera)

Okay, this may sound stupid but Opera have a auto resize function?

Fragony

11-13-2006, 16:11

Pavarotti would love that

GoreBag

11-13-2006, 18:09

Pavarotti would love that

I'm so mad at you.

Redleg

11-13-2006, 18:24

It was probably a combination of the Libertarian and Burns own failings and corruption that irked the Montana voters. Burns lost because his corruption enabled some voters to turn to the libertarian party. But because of the margin the Republicans will blame the third party for the loss.

Listening to talk radio lately the talking heads have alreadly picked up this line of reasoning without justification in my opinion. They are using it to call for a two party only system in the voting process.

What should be learned from this election and the last two presidental elections, is if the elections are that close and their is not a clear majority of voters for the winning canidate, then the two top canidates conduct a run-off election to determine the overall winner.

If I remember my history correctly this is exactly how the founding fathers envisioned the election cycle with the loser of this election getting the vice president position. The classic advisary government. Both sides always having to work together to get any legislation through.

Vladimir

11-13-2006, 18:48

Our great leader! A man of great integrity, pappa :yes:

http://bureaucratie.tinoz.com/balkenende.jpg

Anything but Boslim or Maorijnensen or Haalzemaar should do fine, as long as Balkje stays president I am happy.

That's one sexxxy dutchman. I just hope he doesn't try to steal my house, he looks too big for a bear trap.

Aenlic

11-14-2006, 01:48

In my case, I live in a predominantly Republican county. Many positions had no opposition candidates. IN every case I could do so, I voted against the Republicans. In more than a few here in this county, there were only Republicans and Libertarians and no Democrats standing for a position. The Libertarians got my vote in that case.

I'm growing more certain that a proportional representation system would be an improvement on this entrenched two-party system. I think the country is not as divided 50/50 as the elections would have it seem from year to year. It is simply the two party system which makes it appear that way. If we had a more proportional parlaimentary system, the actual difference would become more clear as people aren't forced to hold their noses and vote for one of only two parties. You'd see Libertarian Environmentalists and Democratic Evangelicals and Republican Pro-Choicers and all of the other varieties which really exist. And this tendency of whichever party achieves power to act as if it has a mandate of some kind would stop. They'd all have to learn to work together and find compromise solutions.

AntiochusIII

11-14-2006, 02:08

I'm growing more certain that a proportional representation system would be an improvement on this entrenched two-party system. I think the country is not as divided 50/50 as the elections would have it seem from year to year. It is simply the two party system which makes it appear that way. If we had a more proportional parlaimentary system, the actual difference would become more clear as people aren't forced to hold their noses and vote for one of only two parties. You'd see Libertarian Environmentalists and Democratic Evangelicals and Republican Pro-Choicers and all of the other varieties which really exist. And this tendency of whichever party achieves power to act as if it has a mandate of some kind would stop. They'd all have to learn to work together and find compromise solutions.I find it quite admirable and funny at the same time that you could hold on to your anarchist idealism and yet afford to think on pragmatic "real world" terms both and give your arguments firm reasons to stand on. ~:)

The US voting system ought to be revamped; sadly, it will never happen. The two parties will never give up their powers so easily.

In any case, the more colorful the crowd, the more fun we have with politics anyway. Bring it on, Trotskyists-in-Congress! :wacky:

Aenlic

11-14-2006, 09:28

I find it quite admirable and funny at the same time that you could hold on to your anarchist idealism and yet afford to think on pragmatic "real world" terms both and give your arguments firm reasons to stand on. ~:)

The US voting system ought to be revamped; sadly, it will never happen. The two parties will never give up their powers so easily.

In any case, the more colorful the crowd, the more fun we have with politics anyway. Bring it on, Trotskyists-in-Congress! :wacky:

I am a pragmatist. That's why I became an anarchist and a socialist. The clearly inequitable and unsustainable system of capitalism and the failures of our so-called "representative" democracy to actually represent the people instead of the corporations and the campaign donors has led me down other paths. The end result might seem utopian, but one has to start somewhere, eh? And since the alternatives have already proven themselves to be untenable, perhaps it's not so utopian after all.

As for Trotskyites in Congress, we already have one avowed socialist who moved from the House of Representatives to the House of the Senate in Bernie Sanders - and he won handily. Perhaps the Trotskyites and Makhnovists and Gradualists and other utopians aren't so far behind :wink: