Actually Mick, the press was salivating over dramatic gains in both the houses. Their predictions of 40 House seats and 10 Senate seats are what did not come through (though historically this would be in line with average midterm election results). The Bill of Rights has been dead for almost 60 years. Have you even heard of the 10th amendment?

Wm

Perhaps the Bill of Rights isn't dead yet. Hallelujah! Your prediction didn't come true.

From a peice by Ed Cline on the virtues of gridlock:

"I drew up a check-off list to compare the two parties' records and aspirations, in order to see which party was the more inimical to the survival of the U.S.

"The measure of the comparison being the country's survival and capacity to recover from over one hundred years of statist folly, neither party, in my estimate, wins an advantage over the other. Both are gravely and morally culpable.

"...the philosophy of sacrifice and duty that both parties advocate and practice... Both parties have a stake in one form or another of the same morality.

"To Objectivists, therefore, I can only recommend that they hope for the creation of gridlock in Congress, a state that would neutralize or minimize, for a time, the capacity of either party to further damage the country."

Read the whole thing at Rule of Reason

I tend to focus on the local items that are most likely to affect me personally. So I usually vote on the referendums, if only to demonstrate that not everyone in my county is a conservative religious freak. I think I last voted in March on purpose to oppose the proposed amendment to the Georgia State Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Next week, I will be voting "no" on several referendae and amendment issues, such as "more parks for the children" and other nonsense. I might vote "yes" to proposed language that supposedly limits Georgia's eminent domain powers, but I need to read the language very carefully first.

I will also vote for some candidates this time--actually, I will be voting AGAINST any incumbent running for Cobb County School Board, regardless of party, as these are the asinine people who dreamed up the infamous Anti-Evolution Sticky Note Strategy (slogan: when reason fails, convince 'em with Post-its). These people were also stupid enough to want to give ALL Cobb County public school kids from age 11 and up "FREE" laptop computers. Fortunately, that idea will not come to fruition yet (struck down by the courts on a technicality). (Yay for homeschooling!)

I never voted until I became a homeowner and the state was trying to do something very pointless and dumb with some nearby land. (Defeated, yes!) Since then, I keep my eye on local politics only and try to vote on merit (such a thing rarely exists) and only on issues that, well, get me all riled up.

~Jenn

I think Democrat gains in the House and Senate are going to be much lower then conventional wisdom dictates. The antique media has tried to suppress Republican voter turnout with their polling number manipulations, but now in the interest of post-election credibility has started to eroding the inflated gaps in races.

Wm

As merit is essentially a creation of smoke and mirrors in the political realm, I voted for gridlock. Keep them arguing -- I'll happily pay the bill for all the congressional pizza parties if they stay the hell out of my business.

Jennifer

-- Food Philosophy. Sensuality. Sass.

It looks like at the low end, the Democrats will gain about 20 House seats and gain a majority there. The real battle will be in the Senate. It will come down to two races: Talent/ McCaskill in Missouri and Allen/Webb in Virginia.

Jim

"I guess this doesn't really matter since so few [Libertarians] are running for national office."

Interesting point. The only place Libertarians have a chance of winning anyway are local elections. And anyone who votes thinking they will decide a national level election (for any party) is delusional. So for those bothering to vote since they care about local politics: Who would be so foolish when voting for county commissioner, mayor, school board, etc. to vote against the only candidate who opposes property taxes, zoning restrictions, and mandatory schooling - just because that same candidate might have foreign policy ideas they disagree with?

"Voting libertarian by label, rather than for a specific candidate, is kind of like gulping randomly from bottles on the shelf"

Sage advice for any candidates/parties.

"According to Liberty magazine, the LP platform was slashed this year by "reformers" who want the LP to be more moderate and therefore (in their opinion) more electable."

The Libertarian Reform Caucus got the whole platform to essentially be rewritten and gutted. It used to be long, detailed, and have many strong uncompromising points any lover of liberty could say 'fuck yeah!' to. Now it's rewritten in a relatively weak, bullet-point, 'action item' type format that just isn't that inspiring - and I highly doubt will help their candidates get elected.

So in summary...
1) If you're going to burn time voting at all,
2) vote for the local level Libertarians -
3) unless that particular candidate is a ferret-obsessed or blue-tinted loon -
4) and write yourself in for the national level positions, since you're better off playing the lottery than expecting to influence those elections anyway.

According to Liberty magazine, the LP platform was slashed this year by "reformers" who want the LP to be more moderate and therefore (in their opinion) more electable.

Like Luke, I was once a dues-paying Libertarian.  I gradually became disillusioned and let my membership lapse after 9/11, their reaction to that event being the last straw.  In a letter to the "LP News", I gave three reasons for leaving: (1) The party's focus on irrelevant issues, (2) Positions, not of principle, but of lunacy, and (3) Criticisms of past errors of government, without any viable alternatives given.

I'm not saying that every LP member is anti-ideological or a lunatic, but the party has its share.  Often times, LP candidates become LP candidates because of some pet-peeve with some law or regulation they don't like, drug laws being a common example. 

Other times, they are so blinded by their need to argue everything based on libertarian ideals that they fail to see the stupidity of their positions.  If there is some tax cut proposal, a Libertarian might oppose it because the proposal is based on the premise that taxes are morally permissible, and because they disagree with that premise, they are not even willing to back the tax cut! 

After 9/11, the party leadership's message was basically "we told you so", "we had it coming", "if the Libertarians had been in charge, this wouldn't have happened, because we would have had an isolationist foreign policy."

Back in 2000 (or 2001?) I received a mailer from the State of California with infomation on the candidates in the primary election.  It contained brief position statements from each candidate.  The Libertarian candidate for Lieutenant Governor devoted his entire statement to the fight for legalization of ferret ownership in California.  The Libertarian candidate for Governor was a little better, but his blurb did mention that he is a "Druid".  Oh joy.

After 9/11, the LP newsletter contained a political cartoon depicting their idea of what would have happened on 9/11 if only ordinary citizens were allowed to carry guns onto airplanes.  The cartoon depicted the boxcutter-knife-armed terrorists cowering in fear as brave armed citizens held them at gunpoint on the plane.  I found this cartoon so stupid on so many levels that I could not go on supporting a party that would find it worthy of publication.  Oh, in the same issue, someone took the position that there should be no restriction on where guns are allowed; people should be allowed to bring firearms into courthouses.  Presumably, accused murderers on trial also have that right, since they are innocent until proven guilty.

I might still vote Libertarian as a protest in a race in which it doesn't matter to me which of the main candidates win.  I think it can be useful to register a sort of "none of the above" vote this way.

Ted wrote:
be aware that the Libertarian Party is over-run by Moonies, vegetarians, pedophiles, eschatologists, anarchists, followers of Lyndon LaRouche, and the like.

Don't forget that their most popular candidates in recent years have been pornstars/strippers and Howard Stern.

- Mike

I almost voted Republican just to skew the poll, but put down my true sentiment, "merit" in the end. Of course, since I live in NYC, voting on merit means... I will be abstaining.

For our foreign friends who would support the Libertarians (which is understandable, when one doesn't know the principals) be aware that the Libertarian Party is over-run by Moonies, vegetarians, pedophiles, eschatologists, anarchists, followers of Lyndon LaRouche, and the like. Voting libertarian by label, rather than for a specific candidate, is kind of like gulping randomly from bottles on the shelf at a chemist's...good luck.

Ted Keer

Not a single mention of terrorism or the terrorist threat in the LP platform. I guess this doesn't really matter since so few are running for national office. To be fair there is a story on the "Death of Habeus Corpus" which contains a typical dailykos style mis-characterization of the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

Wm

I have never voted in my life, and this year will be no different.

Get it straight: my rights are not subject to majority approval. As I said in the discussion at Diana's place: if we're going to "check premises", then let's get with it.

Don't vote. And say why.

If I was an American citizen, I would Libertarian. Linz is exaggerating as usual. The LP has a considerable number of Objectivists and those who admire Rand.

Linz-
The US LP is for defence but against foreign intervention. For that matter, so is your Libertarianz party, whose principles state "A Libertarianz government will not be sending New Zealand troops to be shot at in foreign pest holes". There are many valid criticisms of the LP including how overbroad some in the LP consider intervention vs defence, and how the platform has gotten soft on some should-be-hardline stances. However, what you're critizing them for in particular is simply hypocritical tripe - 'Non-intervention for me, but not for thee.'

Duplicate deleted.

I can confirm Lindsay's assessment of the American Libertarian Party.  As I have stated in another forum, people joining that organization should heed the famous phrase, "Abandon all hope ye who enter here."  I really thought Peter Schwartz had gone overboard in his essay "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty."  He proved me wrong.  As Benjamin Franklin once wrote, "Experience holds a dear school, but a fool will learn in no other."

The U.S Libertarian Party is a bunch of anarcho-Saddamites. You've read George H. Smith & Jeff Riggenbach right here—that's the U.S. Libertarian Party. You remember Jim Peron—that's the U.S. Libertarian Party. They specialise in personal nastiness & philosophical subjectivism. Many of them have a curious aversion to bathing. Their untrimmed beards are encrusted with years-old food. Trust me, you really don't want to vote for them. Osama doesn't need WMD when he has the BO of U.S. Libertarians at his service.

Oh, & worst of all, many of them will be voting Democrat.

Linz

Well, I'm a NZ citizen, so I won't be voting at all. But if I was, I'd vote Libertarian - although I state that tentatively, as I haven't considered Diana's assessment of the LP in full yet.