With the 2010 elections coming up fast is there any sentiment for working in coalition or alliance with other "third" parties? By this I mean coordinating candidates so that one district does not have a Democrat, a Republican, a Libertarian and a Constitutionalist while another district only has a D and an R (or worse, just a D OR an R). I am not suggesting that the CP and the LP do anything remotely close to merging since each party holds views that make the other cringe but on the whole the LP and the CP have more in common with each other than they do with the Ds and the Rs. I am only suggesting that in most congressional districts and state legislative districts it does not make much sense to run against each other and split the "third" party vote. Since most of the time the CP and the LP do not field a complete slate on candidates anyway, why not coordinate so voters get a third choice in more races? Again, I am not suggesting that for U.S. Senate races and other statewide races the parties not nominate a full slate. However, if ANY statewide race will qualify a party for automatic ballot status for the next election it would even make sense to coordinate at that level to increase the chances of either or both parties polling enough votes in a statewide race to qualify the party for the next election and avoid the hassle and cost of petitioning. What do you think? Can this work?

We need to do this if we really want change. I have been saying this out my way and hopefully we can give the voters some real choices. We should coordinate this at the county level for most candidates.

We do this here in MN. Not always, of course, but we often make 'unofficial agreements' to do things like this. It does help.

But NewFed, you wrote, "...each party holds views that make the other cringe." I don't think it's as severe as you make it seem. Or at least, here it's not. There are a few issues, abortion, immigration, and drugs, that separate the two parties, but many members of both parties consider these to be issues that can be overlooked when it comes to the big picture of Constitutional adherence and personal liberty. Most issues have a shared styance by the CP and LP. I look forward to the day that the two finally merge. If that happens, the 'purists' from both parties would be purged, and the unified party would be stronger.

Except in Presidential races, we're already doing this in Kentucky.

O.W.

I wonder why if MN and KY are already experiencing CP/LP cooperation one never hears much about it in the blogosphere? I wonder how many other states are doing the same thing? Most every site I visit and read only shows antagonism between the two parties which I find foolish. Perhaps I read all the wrong sites!

Here in MO it was "talked about" after the election because the MO LP did not get the required 2% and it was obvious we were splitting the vote with each other in many of the state wide offices. We managed to pull nearly 3% in the Treasurers race to maintain our ballot access. We thought it would benefit both of us if we agreed to split some of the state wide offices so we would not take votes from each other. At this point I have not heard another thing about it though.

I have met some of the LP members in the Springfield MO chapter, I did not feel any antagonism. In fact we had Doug Burlinson, a Libertarian who was elected to city council, speak at one of our local meetings.

Some of the MO LP members are pro-life, so that has not been the source of contention you would think.

Its true we will never see eye to eye on some key issues, but in MO we both agree that it would be much better if we had CP and LP members in office to debate the issues instead of the two halves of the same party we currently have.

Ray

(06-10-2009 10:20 AM)Raymond Wrote:  Some of the MO LP members are pro-life, so that has not been the source of contention you would think.

Actually, there is a very significant minority within the LP that is pro-life. My guess is that it is about a third or more of those who identify with the LP. I think many of them come to their pro-life views differently than most CP identifiers (ie: not necessarily on religious grounds) but come to the same conclusion nonetheless. I am happy to hear that I may be all wrong about CP/LP cooperation. I love being wrong... especially if it means more choices in November!

Also, don't forget the smaller parties that are similar to us - The AIP/IAP, the Patriot Party, the Veterans Party, and the America First Party (among others). Most of these only have chapters in a few states, but in those states, they will likely work with us.

One good site to find info on other parties is - http://politics1.com/parties.htm