Libertarians May Co-Nominate Rand Paul in 2016

[LawnWake]

If this happens, let's hope the RNC doesn't conjure up some bogus rule to have it keep him from receiving the Republican nomination. The Libertarian and the Constitution party should focus on either nominating him, or if that's impossible, refrain from running their own candidate.

 

[Crashland]

I don't think the Libertarian Party would nominate Rand with a different VP. That's just asking for trouble. If they are going to bite the bullet and do it, might as well show some solidarity and go all in.

 

[Brett85]

I don't think the Libertarian Party would nominate Rand with a different VP. That's just asking for trouble. If they are going to bite the bullet and do it, might as well show some solidarity and go all in.

But their convention is in May, and they wouldn't actually know who Rand's VP pick would be. Unless they decided to just postpone their convention and have it later.

 

[torchbearer]

I don't believe party by-laws would allow for the delegates to vote for someone who isn't registered libertarian. but then again, the delegate could vote for whoever he wants.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

I'm conflicted on this. On the one hand, if it would help him win, I'm OK with it, but on the other hand, I don't really want to see the word "libertarian" watered down further. If the term "libertarian" can include those who want to bomb foreign countries to any degree or for any reason, the term has lost any meaning and I'll just use "voluntarist" and "anarcho-capitalist"... which I mostly do anyway but its still kind of annoying to see libertarian watered down so much.

I'd much prefer, if the results would be the same, for the LP to just not select a candidate. Encourage your guys to vote for Rand, sure, but don't pretend he's an actual libertarian. He isn't.

But then, Gary Johnson and Bob Barr never were either, so I guess it doesn't really matter. I'd love to see the anarcho-capitalists and true minarchists take that party back from the moderates.

If Rand welcomes getting the LP nomination, and openly embraces it upfront, it would be evidence that he really wants to win. The big negative about it is, yes, by his rhetoric he has not been running like he is a libertarian. It would have been much more logical if Ron had done this, as his views are substantively and rhetorically in harmony with the LP. But even Rand's watered down version, if his father carried water for him in the run up to 2016, would be enough to get the LP nod if he went for it. Since most of the 'conflicts' would be on the Republican side, it's a workable trade-off for LP members to accept, especially compared to Barr and Johnson.

This would be a total game changer as far as the Republican primaries were concerned. It would be impossible for the media to not cover Rand if he was, credibly, going for two party nominations at once, as it would impact the election. It would not only deflate attempts to paint establishment GOP contenders as "electable" while Rand was "not," but would arguably make Rand the ONLY Republican who was electable in '16, as he would be the only GOP choice that would not split the anti-Hillary vote. The media would be mousetrapped by the circumstances, as they couldn't even begin to marginalize Paul from primary coverage, knowing he would be a factor for the whole election year.

There would be minor problems, such as bylaws issues (fixable, in both parties, especially if worked on in advance), sour grapes laws in a few states, or in selecting an VP that would work for both the LP and the GOP (my suggestion, Napolitano, or Ron Paul). But the establishment-busting, historic nature of the double candidacy makes it an irresistible option---Rand needs to do this to win the GOP nomination.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

The Constitution Party should consider this too. I think they are in 40+ states, though not all 50.

That would be pretty unprecedented if the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party both endorsed Rand. Talk about uniting the clans!

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Take it back? When have they ever had control of the Libertarian party? The Libertarian party will do whatever gets them the most votes. I think it's a little naive to think a party cares about purity like you think they should. They are just like a business, they look at what gets them the best result.

True. Gary Johnson opted for matching federal funds for his campaign.

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

The Constitution Party should consider this too. I think they are in 40+ states, though not all 50.

They also go by Taxpayers Party and Independent Party in some states.

 

[Rudeman]

When Ron Paul and Harry Browne were their candidates.

And what happened? I know the Cato people (I was confusing the LP with Cato)/Koch were the ones pushing moderation but that was at the start.

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[William Tell]

That would be pretty unprecedented if the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party both endorsed Rand. Talk about uniting the clans!

Yeah, they both wanted Ron Paul in the past.

 

[specsaregood]

That would be pretty unprecedented if the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party both endorsed Rand. Talk about uniting the clans!

Yeah, they both wanted Ron Paul in the past.

Which is why I say this would never happen and just some journalist looking to write something different. If it was gonna happen, it would have happened in 2008 or 2012 when Ron was an option who was much more an ideal candidate for both the CP and LP. Randal is a much better GOP candidate by comparison.

 

[fr33]

Yeah, I doubt that will happen. I hope it does though.

 

[Inkblots]

What if the VP candidate is different on the ballot? What if the Libertarian Party nominates a different VP for Rand than the one that Rand picks to be on the GOP ticket? They wouldn't actually be able to have Rand's VP pick on the ballot since their convention is in May and Rand wouldn't have a VP picked by that time. Does a different VP being on the ballot make any difference as far as the vote totals are concerned?

Electors cast separate ballots for President and Vice-President, so no (e.g., see section 6907 of the CA election code).

Interestingly, this actually happened in the election of 1896, when the Democrats nominated William Jennings Byran and Arthur Sewall, while the Populist Party nominated Byran and Thomas Watson. To sort this out, arrangements were made on a state-by-state basis, so that, for example, in Kansas the Bryan-Watson slate listed the same names as the Democratic Bryan-Sewall slate, on the condition that if Bryan-Watson received more votes, the Democratic electors would vote for Watson on the VP ballot.

This actually created a remarkable condition wherein it was possible that Bryan would win the electoral college for President, while McKinley's running mate, Garret Hobart, could receive the most electoral votes for Vice President.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

I'm conflicted on this. On the one hand, if it would help him win, I'm OK with it, but on the other hand, I don't really want to see the word "libertarian" watered down further. If the term "libertarian" can include those who want to bomb foreign countries to any degree or for any reason, the term has lost any meaning and I'll just use "voluntarist" and "anarcho-capitalist"... which I mostly do anyway but its still kind of annoying to see libertarian watered down so much.

I'd much prefer, if the results would be the same, for the LP to just not select a candidate. Encourage your guys to vote for Rand, sure, but don't pretend he's an actual libertarian. He isn't.

But then, Gary Johnson and Bob Barr never were either, so I guess it doesn't really matter. I'd love to see the anarcho-capitalists and true minarchists take that party back from the moderates.

Rand does not *WANT* to bomb any foreign countries outside of defense of our embassies which have been established by treaty contracts. If people like FreedomFanatuic did a better job educating the public on basic libertarians principles, Rand would not be put into a bind like this. Go get busy and educate instead of bitching about Rand Paul.

 

[Inkblots]

Rand does not *WANT* to bomb any foreign countries outside of defense of our embassies which have been established by treaty contracts. If people like everyone here did a better job educating the public on basic libertarians principles, Rand would not be put into a bind like this. Go get busy and educate instead of bitching about Rand Paul.

Fixed it up a bit, but agree otherwise. +rep

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

My understanding is that when the same candidate is nominated by multiple parties and appears more than once on the ballot, then they are added together. It is fairly common in my state for a candidate to appear twice, as the nominee for both the Democratic Party and the Working Families Party. According to several local news sources I am reading, the votes are reported separately, but they are ultimately tallied together for the candidate, not the party. I'm not sure what the implications are for the electors. Perhaps they are allocated proportionally.

I would love to see the Libertarian party nominate Rand, though it would only do any good if he also gets the GOP nomination.

It would do more good than that. It would guarantee Rand would be in the general election debates.

 

[Brett85]

Which is why I say this would never happen and just some journalist looking to write something different. If it was gonna happen, it would have happened in 2008 or 2012 when Ron was an option who was much more an ideal candidate for both the CP and LP. Randal is a much better GOP candidate by comparison.

The Libertarian Party and Constitution Party would've nominated Ron if it had looked like he was going to win the GOP primary. That's what this article is all about, the fact that many in the Libertarian Party recognize that nominating a candidate other than Rand would take away hundreds of thousands of votes from Rand and possibly cause him to lose the race. Many of them acknowledge that Rand would likely be the most libertarian President that we've ever had. (If you recall, in 2008 Chuck Baldwin said that he would drop out of the race and endorse Ron if Ron actually won the GOP nomination)

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Which is why I say this would never happen and just some journalist looking to write something different. If it was gonna happen, it would have happened in 2008 or 2012 when Ron was an option who was much more an ideal candidate for both the CP and LP. Randal is a much better GOP candidate by comparison.

Rand actually has a very good shot at winning the Presidency though and he's a realistic candidate for all three parties. In other words, things are becoming more serious now.