Henley vs. Balko & McArdle? Henley!
I wholeheartedly endorse Jim Henley’s endorsement of the Libertarian Party candidate, who just happens to be Michael Badnarik, for what it’s worth. Radley and Megan must explain (”must explain” in the sense of “need to explain in order to satsify Will Wilkinson’s curiousity”) why Jim is wrong.
I especially like Jim’s point about the direction of causation for the LP: not lack of votes because of lack of good candidates, but lack of good candidates because of lack of votes.
November 1st, 2004 21:15
More on the LP
Will Wilkinson would like me to respond to Jim Henley’s defense of an LP vote. Jim writes:I also suspect that…
November 24th, 2004 06:10
I think it’s more a problem of the fact that the Lib position is “anti-emotional”. Meaning, most folk are generally against the gov’t bothering them, and doing the stuff the gov’t does. Generally against it; mildly against it.
But they strongly favor the gov’t doing the thing they like the most, or stopping the thing they hate the most. And so the 80-90% mild agreement does not overrule the 10-20% fervent disagreement.
There is almost no special interest group that doesn’t have a positive gov’t agenda — which the LP opposes.
And, of course, a large mass of voters think any third party candidate vote is a wasted vote. Libs themselves aren’t sure they’re much better than None Of The Above.