Perhaps I should have clarified. Of course even among proper socialists there is not consensus as to it’s definition and it’s largely a matter of whether one is talking about Marxist socialism, Libertarian socialism, eutopian socialism or some other form therein. The American Heritage Dictionary defines socialism thus: “Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.” I suppose I’m mostly referring to the modern Marxist who has forgotten the first idea of unequal distribution of wealth measured by work put in and focus mainly on the second aspect which is control of that distribution of wealth goods or property by a central group. It’s not a stretch to think that a federal government body would think itself the proper central decision maker in such things and in that Obama certainly fits the bill with his ideas regarding who should be taxed more and to whom those taxes should be dispersed, his ideas on nationalized healthcare, his “windfall tax” schemes, his ideas on further widening the scope of federally controlled education… Surely you see that this control by a “central body” of goods and services that Obama supports is at it’s core inherently socialist in nature. Perhaps it’s a stretch to say any one of our candidates is purely socialist but how many socialist ideas and concepts must one incorporate into their “plan for the nation” before the term justifiably applies?

Do you really think Obama is more liberty-friendly than Barr on the issues you list? I doubt it. But even if he is, the issues you don’t list are telling: Obama would raise taxes, nationalize healthcare, and continue to deprive us of the right to earn reasonable interest on our retirement savings. I also have serious doubts about his Supreme Court appointments, who would likely continue in Warren’s footsteps, with more decisions like Kelo vs. New London, and more decisions relying on opinion polls or “international law” rather than the Constitution. Also, Obama voted for the Patriot Act, and I have seen evidence yet that he’s more hostile to spying on American citizens than McCain. He certainly doesn’t oppose it with Barr’s vigor.

Obama is no friend of individual liberty. Bob Barr is the only candidate who offers fidelity to the principles of freedom and small government that made America great and unique to begin with.

This year’s tough. We’ve got Obama the socialist, McCain the undercover Democrat and a bunch of third party contenders that can’t win (possibly only because of the fact that everyone who would vote for them thinks they can’t win so they don’t vote for them they’ll vote either for or against Obama). In the end I still say vote for the candidate that best represents your views and let the chips fall where they may.

I agree with you on voting reform, the main thrust of your post. However, must quibble with this widely believed statement:

“When voters have but a single vote to exercise in any election, then casting that vote for anyone other than the frontrunner and main contender really is “throwing away” that vote in regards to determining the outcome of the election.”

Under this standard any vote that does not have a reasonable chance of determining the winner is thrown away. In that case, every vote you will ever cast in your lifetime will be wasted. One vote will not determine the outcome of any major election. Do you really think John McCain or Barack Obama is going to win the election just because of your vote? If not, your vote isn’t going to affect the outcome, so you might as well vote your conscience.

I was a big L Libertarian until 9/11/01 and the Libertarian Party came out with it’s absurd position on Islamist terror. It wasn’t until I left the echo chamber that I was able to approach the LP’s arguments and slogans from the outside. It was then that I realized that I had been too hung up on the fact that the slogans above are generally true to realize that they are also completely beside the point. In any election, most voters want to influence the outcome of THAT election. In an election where the winner takes all—and all of our elections are winner take all—this means that the vast majority of votes will go to the top two contenders, period, the front runner and the main challenger. This indisputable reality is what produces our two party system.

When voters have but a single vote to exercise in any election, then casting that vote for anyone other than the frontrunner and main contender really is “throwing away” that vote in regards to determining the outcome of the election. Most voters won’t do it, even if they would prefer the third, fourth, or fifth tier candidate. But by giving voters the power to vote for any candidate or combination of candidates in an election does away with “wasted vote” syndrome by allowing voters to vote their personal preference AND between the top two contenders (presuming they’re different). By doing so we also eliminate spoiled elections. Even with multiple votes casts by voters, each vote still carries the same weight, votes are still counted the same way we do now with the winner being the one who gets the most votes, the balloting rules are simple to understand, and the outcomes are fair.

Any third parties that truly hope to win any elections should join together and push for approval voting reform. Even the major parties would be better off insofar as they won’t lose anymore elections due to a Perot or a Nader or a Barr.

yours/
peter.

Also, at this point in time, a conservative libertarian voting for the Republican party in the hope that it will treat them better is like an abused person getting back together with their abuser. In this case without the abuser even claiming to give better treatment.

(nb: I would hope liberal libertarians realize the same thing about the Democratic party)