Out voting Librarians, What‽

Those Librarians. Will they ever win?

Libertarians are Republicans.

Damn those libraries and their Dewey Decimal system to swing the vote.

Punk ass book jockeys.

OMG. Autocorrect. lol

Libertarians.

I have fixed the OP

Autocorrect owns my productivity.

I fixed it

Libertarians are conservatives on steroids. The fact that they've been growing in popularity in the past has been scary. It's good to see a more progressive alternative gain some ground.

LOL Damn autocorrect.

It's fixed now.

3% of what exactly? The governor's race didn't even have a green party candidate on the ballot and that was the only statewide race?

This is a good time to remind everyone of what happened when Libertarians took over Grafton, NH.

There were other offices than just governor, statewide. Do you even read what you're voting for?

Not always. But will agree that ever since the Tea Party the term has been coopted quite a bit. Like when you see a "Libertarian" talking about a strong military and wanting anti-abortion laws.

Just like anarchism there's a spectrum, and participants range from quite left to quite right.

I agree with you. It’s too bad that hate has taken over.

As a vet, and an older white guy, I won’t even display my flag anymore. It’s a mark of the facist party now. I can’t beat to be associated with that.

Don’t tread on me is also great in spirit, but if I see that flag now, I know exactly what that person really means that it’s ok for him to tread on whatever he wants.

From my experience, Libertarians are just republicans who don't have the stones to just admit it in current company.

TIL: After 2016... There are people who still think that Green is a real party.

Stein sat at that table with Putin.. just like Michael Flynn did.

I always loved bears, now I do even more

Exactly. I used to identify as a small-l libertarian and was registered as a capital-L Libertarian. Then I described myself as a "left leaning Libertarian". Then just "left leaning", and now "liberal".

Some of that was because I matured out of the Ayn Rand teenage mentality circle jerk, but most of it was the shifting of the Overton Window in our society & how that term has changed. I still hold opinions that'd make a Progressive cringe and vice versa, but more often than not we'll agree on the same What even if we don't agree on the Why.

Green Party and Libertarian is where Dems and Repubs go when they don't like their candidate but can't bring themselves to cross idealogical lines... But dilute their own vote to allow the other side to win...

You're right, I didn't mention AG/Auditor/Treasurer too. Those are statewide. None of em had a green party candidate.

​

So, I guess now,, I'll ask with the same level of politeness you're showing me: What the fuck are you even talking about?

Didn't used to be. Used to be socially liberal people wary of government spending. Recently the whackos have completely taken over. They were always there they've just gotten louder and taken over leadership roles.

Go ahead... THROW YOUR VOTE AWAY

No dispute. But sad, because Howie Hawkins, the Green party candidate in 2020, was a decent guy. (Nowhere near qualified, mind you, but as an unqualified outsider, he'd have done a better job representing the interests of the WWC than Donald Trump.)

Both Secretary of State and Auditor had Green-Rainbow party candidates.

https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_state_executive_official_elections,_2022

Putting up unqualified candidates seems to be what the Green party is all about, which is really fucking weird for a state like Massachusetts where one would assume there to be more qualified individuals that align.

Spoiler candidates are spoiler candidates I guess...

[deleted]

Real good read, thanks for that.

I just can' t swallow the Laissez-faire take on society that libertarians have. It denies objective reality in favor of warm platitudes.

[deleted]

Amazing that someone like Putin would have given the time of day to Jill Stein.

Ok, I see now. I don't get why you couldn't just say that in the first place.

I voted 3 weeks ago. Even when I went to look and see if I just forgot the green party candidate, the New York Times listed no affiliation for those 2 candidates. Since neither of them got 3% anyway, that's why I asked what you were talking about.

obviously a typo, and a joke, but in all seriousness, not the worst idea i have ever heard, lets hand the government over to librarians. =) Green librarians, even, that might have far better results than ever, in some weird twist.

anyway, i sometimes vote for green, independent or "other" -- i feel like in massachusetts i can do so because its so obvious before hand the blue will win the day almost always. so its less - giving a vote to the other guy - or throw the vote away for someone who has no chance of winning, but whoever i think is best.

i guess i mean that because massachusetts is deeply blue, i can vote green or other party, just to voice that there are many who want viable third party options, and other options. and not give a vote to the other guy, since the dem is such a shoe in.

Why do I have to be a Dem or Repub? Neither party perfectly aligns with my beliefs and opinions.

[deleted]

[deleted]

I'm not in the Green party, nevermind in charge of it, but I'd probably work on running for city council in Chelsea, P'town, and Somerville (or other dark-blue districts). Reassuring voters they're competent and sane has to be the first step to winning a mayoral or state-wide race.

Didn't say you did... But referring to those that are.

There is also the option of a non vote... But that is worse. If you at least vote for a third party, there is the possibility no candidate will get 50% and force a runoff (depending on the rules), whereas a non vote doesn't dilute the percentages.

"Democracy In Chains" by Nancy McLean is alllll about the Libertarians. Really good book. And those people can get fucked.

I get your point. In Mass it’s safe to vote 3rd party without ending up inadvertently handing a win to a Q-Anon type. But other places, voting green just doesn’t take as many votes from the right.

every state i have ever lived have been deeply blue. idk if many independents are like this but often for me it isnt between the dem and the green / other party/independent -- its between NO ONE and abstaining from voting, and the green/independent/other party.

so basically i am kinda a neutral on most elections, where i dont like either party. then again it does often come down to the dem and other third party, but because i live in these deep blue states, i know the dem will win and can voice that we want a third party, even knowing my person wont win.

Right. I just think there is some truth to the idea that Nader cost Gore the election.

oooo that one. i was in the camp wrongly blamed for bush, having for voted for Winona LaDuke and that guy she ran with !

but again, voting in deep blue states, it really didnt matter one bit in actuality that gore lost my vote. the state wouldve gone to gore, even though i really disliked him and could not bring myself to vote for him. what a mess. but there was a big misconception there for those of us in deep blue states. i can see how that couldve been a factor in that mess, but idk. it couldve been more independents choosing between no one and nadar, not gore and nadar --or rather winona laduke -- even though it may have been a strange choice for him to have her as running mate, in all truthfullness i voted for her not him. he wasnt bad either, but that is why i voted AT ALL in that particular election.

so my choice in that one was actually LaDuke or NO ONE.

i would actually love if they put that on all ballots -- no one -- or worded better. where you are specifically voting against BOTH PEOPLE. so not just abstain, but you want to register a negative vote for both parties. and then to see if actually there would be some elections where no one actually won over both choices.

Although I spent some time with the Green Party (immediately post-Nader; I was young and impressionable, okay?), and I personally wish we had more than 2 viable options year after year, I think that energy is better used trying to get something like ranked choice voting up and running so that third party candidates aren't just spoilers.

The Republican party has moved so far into wacko territory, that if you're identifying as a libertarian you have to really be nuts beyond the pale.

"The GOP is TOO mainstream for me!"

Yeah Libertarianism is an adolescent fantasy that has never succeeded in running a stable and secure society

My opinion, this "socially liberal" position was only ever a red herring. Like, oh I want all people to thrive, but I also want to withhold resources from those who most need them.

More political parties are need in mass and nationwide. We need an injection of some new ideas into our politics instead of the same red vs blue shit we have every single damn year

I'd call the resources part much more of a fiscal issue.

Wasn't that long ago that even some Democrats didn't fully support gay marriage. Used to be only Libertarians fully advocating for it.

Really don't get your use of "red herring" in this context.

Red herring because I think this framing is deliberately misleading. Trying to get good person brownie points without doing anything good. "I don't hate poor people, but I'm also happy to watch them die for a tiny tax break."

If MA adopted ranked choice voting, we could vote third party without the risk of aiding a party we strongly oppose. Maybe that needs to be a ballot question in the near future. Pretty sure they tried that a while ago and it got voted down for some reason…

Think you're kinda painting them as cartoon villains. A lot of Libertarians are just wary of government spending programs. Look at how much PPP was abused by corporations. Look at how many false unemployment claims were made during all of COVID. Our solution for fixing the T has been "throw more money at it with little oversight" and look how that's going.

Still don't know what you're talking about as misleading. William Weld was advocating for gay marriage while the likes of Clinton and Obama were to afraid to take a position on it. Democrats (some, not all, it's a big party) seem to only take up social issues such as drug reform and LGBT issues when its convenient for them.

I don't see a problem with being skeptical of where and to what degree the government should be involved in your life. It's the nuts who worship guns and think that things like roads should be ran by corporations though that have kinda turned me off of the party.

Yeah and you won't find me cheering for those types of democrats either. More of that party's electeds are trash than not, but there's not a party with a lower trash ratio, so I'm registered Dem. Doesn't mean I think it's a good party, just think the others are worse. I absolutely agree that we all need to scrutinize government spending, but there is a huge difference in approaching problems from a standpoint of, how can we improve the outcomes from government spending versus, how can we end government spending. Edit to add: also there has been a very clear libertarian to fascist pipeline in place for at least the last decade (most well known example is crying nazi Christopher Cantwell, but it's a common trend), so I think there's a case to be made that "social liberalism" isn't as crucial a component of the movement as they paint it as.

Well put

TY and apologies for adding an edit you may not agree with as you were complimenting the rest of my post. =)

No worries, you're right on point. The amount of alt-right/Libertarian muddling that has been going on is both confusing and concerning.

Don’t blame me. I voted for Kodos.

hey wait you have 88 in your usersname *eyes suspiciously*

Look at my about lol

I'm a simple man... I see third party, I vote third party.

LOL i'm sorry that happened to your number! those fuckers ruin everything.

Doesn’t beat the workers party.

It's a tense rivalry, but it looks like the librarians are still struggling to seize ultimate power.

Right-libertarians have largely made their peace with the idea of a highly authoritarian state. You can have a high degree of economic freedom in a police state, see e.g. Pinochet's Chile. And individual freedoms are a far distant afterthought in their pantheon compared to where property owning & private property rights fall.

That is to say the right-libertarian MO tends to be "To make an omelette you have to break a few eggs", or to have a large degree of economic freedom you still need to have a small and efficient night watchman-type state, whose primary job is (efficiently) performing a disappearing act on undesirables who think right-libertarianism isn't the best way to run things.

>It denies objective reality in favor of warm platitudes.

The last word I would use to describe the right-libertarians I've known is "warm", unless "Kill 'em all, and let God sort them out" qualifies as a "warm platitude."

The Massachusetts Workers Party did pretty great for its first time getting over 50,000 votes for an openly socialist, anti-capitalist party.

[deleted]

51 people In my town if +/- 8000 voted for the Workers Party candidate.

barely got voted down we should just run it again.

Can't for 4 more years I believe.

change it to only impact a single office and you can run it again immediately. which would also likely make it easier to sell to the public and get them use to the idea.