Seeing how a minor party needs all the publicity it can get, I emailed them asking if they had a candidate ready or a list of potential ones. Needless to say, nobody is apparently home at LP headquarters as I never received any response. But, by chance, I noticed a Libertarian candidate had recently materialized on the SOS site.
His name B. Dale Gremban and while I would have liked to contact him, you'll see why that failed by noting what is wrong with his candidate info on the SOS site.
But in the end it didn't matter as, following the Nevada State Supreme Court ruling, the roster of players was trimmed to just four with Mr. Gremban failing to make the cut. Apparently Gremban was never officially "designated" by Nevada's Libertarian Party as their candidate.
So was Gremban just a lone wolf who marked down "libertarian" when he walked into the SOS to file the minimum of paperwork, or did the LP drop the ball on their end? Either way, it doesn't say much for a political organization that likes to tout being the biggest third party. This is a major election and they couldn't be bothered to muster a qualified candidate? Unbelievable. Couldn't they have put Wayne Root up?
The Libertarian party of Nevada recently had a consolidation/disaffiliation hence the lack of candidate. Suffice to say it's a North vs. South battle and sanity w/ Wayne Root included is highly suspect.
ReplyDeleteFYI: No alternative party to the Democratic-Republican Party has a candidate in every single U.S. Rep. race. The Libertarian Party has the most by far though.
ReplyDeleteStill, it's a rather important race and the Libertarians always seem to have someone on the ballot. Are they so dysfunctional that they couldn't get anyone in the state to run this year?
ReplyDeleteAnd, who was Gremban? Is a registered Libertarian?
I just remember in times past I would always email candidates (all of them) asking a couple questions and it always surprised me when a third-party one wouldn't respond. This happened a couple times with Libertarians and I see it is no different now. Very sad, if you are a Libertarian or third-party fan.
Let me see, Wayne Allyn Root couldn't run because I don't believe he is in District 2 and the rest of the Libertarian party in District 2 has been successfully disaffiliated by the ELITE in Las Vegas.
ReplyDeleteTechnically, for a House seat I believe one needs to only reside in the state, not district. So if indeed the northern chapter of the LP has been deleted it would have fell on the Vegas group to put someone up.
ReplyDeleteApparently Wayne Root isn't too popular with a few Libertarians. I mentioned him only as he seems to be the best known (well, as much as a third-party guy can be).
So what is the problem with Root?
In Nevada, the IAP is officially the largest and most organized third party.
ReplyDeleteLooks like NVLP'ers are going to have to back Fasano.
And to all you constitutionalist & right-wing minded Libertarians in the Silver State, you ought to consider the IAP as your true home
www.iapn.org
I think we've had this discssion before, but the main reason the IAP here in Nevada has such high reg. numbers is, well, people can be a little stupid and check the box because it has the word "independent" in it. The reg numbers rarely translate to vote numbers, unlike Nevada's other third parties.
ReplyDeleteBut, that said, I think the IAP's social views would rankle the classic libertarian. Too bad the AEP didn't put a candidate up. makes me wonder about who is in charge of NV's third parties. Oh well.
From my understanding Root is part of the group of southerners in the State LP who voted to dismantle all the county organizations. I’ve heard speculation that this was to consolidate the party in the state into his hands ahead of this quest to be the Libertarian candidate for president in 2012. I’m not sure whether that was his motivation or not. It is either that or he favored disbanding what organization the LP has on a county basis because he thought it was a good thing to do. So either he is a shady character using the LP for his own gain or he is completely clueless about how to grow a political party.
ReplyDeleteI often ponder what is more of a menace to the LP; the first past the post plurality voting system which creates physical and psychological barriers for third parties….or that the LP is infested with people who mostly seem interested in running for office to sell their books: http://www.paynoincometax.com/irwinschiff.htm
Of course, there is always the hope that Gary Johnson will run as a Libertarian. Though judging from your previous post he might not bring much name recognition to the table (aside from in New Mexico).
It probably helps the IAP that "Non-Partisan" is the term that Nevada uses for registering as an independent. This ensures that IAP has a monopoly on the word on voter registration forms.
ReplyDeleteWayne Root isn't very representative of the Libertarian Party. Many of us find him way too conservative and way too concerned with promoting himself rather than libertarian ideas. But the Nevada LP has some good people who I believe are carrying on the fight despite the attempted disenfranchising of their local party chapter organizations by Root and his collaborators.
ReplyDeleteRobert, You're right. If "non-partisan" was changed to "independent" you would see a huge drop-off in IAP's annual reg numbers. If a person knowingly chooses to register for a third party, it's usually safe to assume they are a committed voter and will support their nominee. But IAP vote totals virtually never match up with their registration (except, occasionally, in races where no D or R is running and they are the "opposition").
ReplyDeleteStarchild, even if Root is solely in it for himself, which wouldn't make him the first politician to do so, he still has some recognition and the ability to get on the local talk shows and such. I would think this would be preferably to not putting anyone up or a purist who hides and/or is ignored by the media.
Isn't the ultimate goal of third parties to actually make a difference and to try and win an actual election or two?
Hi! I'm David Colborne, Northern Regional Representative for the Libertarian Party of Nevada. Though I'd love to blame the consolidation for the LPNV's failure to field a candidate for CD-2 (I voted against it, after all), I'm afraid the truth is a bit more straightforward than that. Simply put, our party bylaws weren't designed to take special elections into account.
ReplyDeleteUnlike other third parties, the Libertarian Party of Nevada does not allow its Executive Committee to file nominations for public office to the Secretary of State unless the candidate has been approved at a convention by the membership at large, either locally or statewide. Since CD-2 is not a local race, it would have to be handled at the state level. According to the LPNV's bylaws, the state party is only allowed to conduct one convention per year (an "annual" convention) and 60 days notice must be provided to all members in the state before the convention is conducted. This works fantastically for normal campaign cycles - it gives everyone sufficient time to get together, discuss possible candidates for various offices, and fully vet everyone in the field, while preventing those with "connections" from slipping friends and family in as "libertarian" candidates for public office. For this particular special election, however, it made it functionally impossible for the state party to file a candidate since the actual filing deadlines were in court-mandated flux and we already held our annual convention back in January.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan of the consolidation - eliminating local parties was a stupid, stupid, STUPID move and it's not doing us any favors here or in Clark County. However, CD-2's geographical boundaries span several counties, so this would've been a statewide issue anyway. Unfortunately, we managed to legislate ourselves into a tidy little corner that procedurally prohibited us from participating in this election.
As for the IAPN, they've actually done a fantastic job of setting themselves up as the "second" party in the rural corners of Nevada. It helps that Democrats have largely abandoned everything outside of Washoe and Clark to the GOP, so the IAPN has an easier road ahead of them. Though I don't agree with large portions of their platform (I'm simply not that religious), their rural-focused strategy has given them the ability to punch above their weight on more than a few occasions. In many respects, I'm mildly jealous of their successes out there.
ReplyDelete"I think we've had this discssion before, but the main reason the IAP here in Nevada has such high reg. numbers is, well, people can be a little stupid and check the box because it has the word "independent" in it. The reg numbers rarely translate to vote numbers, unlike Nevada's other third parties."
ReplyDelete= The IAP name is indeed attractive, but in many of the local and legislative races the stereotype that IAP voters don't usually vote IAP is proven wrong; look at Janine Hansen's race for State Assembly last year, or John Lampros victory in White Pine. There's also Arthur Wehrmeister in Esmeralda that also won in a 3-way race. Jackie Berg also got elected in 2006 as Eureka County Commissioner in a 3 way race with a GOP and a Libertarian running against her. Those are good examples that Independent Americans can win, even in three-way races, though Janine at least got second place.
Janine Hansen and her brother Joel also do very well whenever they run for state office, they usually capture between 5% to 9% of the vote statewide.
Funny how the IAP can also run more candidates for office and even elect more people to office in Nevada then any other third parties in this state- we already have 4 IAP'ers currently serving in various offices.
Another thing that some of you also don't realize is that, if you check the percentages of IAP voters in each county, you'll find that, in the rural areas, where the voters there are passionate and very conservative about their politics- the percentages of registered Independent Americans are the highest. In Esmeralda County alone for example, 8.3% of their voting population is Independent American- and is it any wonder why Arthur Wehrmeister got elected there in the first place?
ReplyDeleteIf there are people joining the IAP just for the name, it would usually be young people in the urban areas that lack the education about politics, yet the IAP is bigger (percentage-wise) & elects people in the rural areas. And also the largest age group in the IAP is actually those between the ages of 25 and 34, which would be people that would be quite educated in politics and know what they're doing when signing that voter reg. form
"Robert, You're right. If "non-partisan" was changed to "independent" you would see a huge drop-off in IAP's annual reg numbers."
ReplyDelete= And we would sue the living sh*t out of Ross Miller if he attempted to do such a thing. Our buddies with the Hansen & Rasmussen law firm are not one to be reckoned with.
BTW yes, our rural strategy is very much paying off for us now; the IAP does have a very determined activist base out there with the Hansen family and their allies, and our dedicated efforts have been earning us public attention and likewise putting Independent Americans into office.
ReplyDeleteAnother reason why the IAP does better then the LP out there too is not just because our activist base is bigger & better organized, but its because the majority of Nevada rural voters prefer our message of "God, Gun Rights, Property Rights, Family Values, & Constitutional Government" over the LP message of 'Legalizing pot & anything else, along with getting rid of most forms of government, and that strong emphasis on legal prostitution' -which many LP'ers here are fervent on.
Yet rural Nevadans are just more inclined and sympathetic to our ideology then yours.
Sorry, but that's how it is.
Talking about pot and prostitution with the cowboys and ranchers out there just isn't working for you guys, period.
Nice work citing Esmeralda County as an example of IAP prevalence. According to the latest data (http://publicrecords.onlinesearches.com/NV_Esmeralda.htm), there are 830 people living in the county, and I think we can very liberally assume that 75% are of "voting population" (I am trying to help you out here, Cody). That means there are ~623 in the votiong population. Of that, you say 8.3% are IAP. Well, 623 x 8.3% = 51.66. There are 52 registered IAP voters in Esmeralda county, if we go by my ludicrously high estimation. Sounds like a party ready to dominate the scene anytime now.
ReplyDeleteI think some of those rural counties have populations smaller than Reno city blocks.
ReplyDeleteYou were pretty close with your estimates. The June 2011 SOS numbers have Esmeralda IAP voters at 47. Non-Partisans at 62, Dem 139 and GOP 303.
Ryan, there are ONLY 562 registered voters in Esmeralda County, as of June, 2011.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nvsos.gov/index.aspx?page=891
-That's counting the total number of voters.
You are an idiot.
BTW Anon, Arthur happened to have gotten more then 47 votes in his race for County Attorney General last year.
How's he an idiot? He calculated you guys had 52 registered voters and it turns out you have 47.
ReplyDeletePlus you keep touting three-way races where the Libertarians or some independent is the third party. In a traditional Dem vs. GOP race where the voter pool is greater than a handful, you will always be third or worse. Again, when a Dem or Republican fail to run, you guys become the opposition choice. Not on your platform or imagined popularity, but simply some people won't vote for a Republican or, on the flip-side, a Democrat.
As for Wehrmeister, yes he did defeat a Dem and Republican. But a county election where garnering 188 votes is considered a landslide, doesn't count. That's local politics where personality wins out and, let's face, in a DA race everyone has the same platform -- "throw away the key."
'How's he an idiot? He calculated you guys had 52 registered voters and it turns out you have 47.'
ReplyDelete= Anon Guy, Esmeralda County has ONLY 562 registered voters! HELLO?!
Do you just really suck at math, Anon? Or do you think there are actually 623 registered voters in Esmeralda currently?
'Plus you keep touting three-way races where the Libertarians or some independent is the third party. In a traditional Dem vs. GOP race where the voter pool is greater than a handful, you will always be third or worse. Again, when a Dem or Republican fail to run, you guys become the opposition choice. Not on your platform or imagined popularity, but simply some people won't vote for a Republican or, on the flip-side, a Democrat.'
= Janine's numbers didn't lie in her last race, and the IAP keeps electing people to partisan office- you can squeal all you like, but the IAP is a serious force to be reckoned with here.
You also forgot about John Lampros race where he faced a GOP candidate and a Democrat on the ballot.
'As for Wehrmeister, yes he did defeat a Dem and Republican. But a county election where garnering 188 votes is considered a landslide, doesn't count. That's local politics where personality wins out and, let's face, in a DA race everyone has the same platform -- "throw away the key."'
= Still, the fact that the IAP is winning constantly now in these parts is nothing to cast aside or scoff at; we're growing and gaining.
Are you for real Quirk, or do you actually represent the best and brightest of the IAP? Which would go a long ways to explain the marginalization of the IAP and any hopes of being a "serious force to be reckoned with here."
ReplyDeleteWhat does it matter if Esmeralda has 623 registered voters or 562? So he was 61 off in his guesstimate, who cares? What matters is he thought you had 52 registered IAP voters. And, yes, he was slightly wrong. You actually have less, 47.
Yes, Hansen finished second and beat a Dem in the AD-33 race. And I'll respond with two items. She is, I would say, by far the most well-known third party candidate in Nevada. And she lost by 21 points.
As for the other small wins, yes that is far more than any other third party in Nevada, but by no means means a giant IAP movement is afoot. Win a legislative seat, admit your numbers are inflated and then you can crow.
Yes I'm for real and don't hide behind a screen name like you do.
ReplyDeleteThe true IAP movers and doers don't waste their time on blogs dealing with people like you. But I do; I'm a bit relentless.
"What does it matter if Esmeralda has 623 registered voters or 562? So he was 61 off in his guesstimate, who cares? What matters is he thought you had 52 registered IAP voters. And, yes, he was slightly wrong. You actually have less, 47."
= He was wrong to claim that I was wrong, and with the REAL number of 562 registered voters in that county, as I said: Over 8% of them are IAP. Your defense of Ryan's faulty claims tarnishes your perception greatly.
"Yes, Hansen finished second and beat a Dem in the AD-33 race. And I'll respond with two items. She is, I would say, by far the most well-known third party candidate in Nevada. And she lost by 21 points."
= And her Democratic opponent lost by an even greater margin; that says a lot too.
"As for the other small wins, yes that is far more than any other third party in Nevada, but by no means means a giant IAP movement is afoot. Win a legislative seat, admit your numbers are inflated and then you can crow."
= It already is afoot, and granted it has to start at the local level and work its way up, like what many Libertarian Parties in other states are accomplishing, its already doing that.
The legislative wins will come in due time, but are numbers are already big and continue to get bigger, whether you like it or not.
"And her Democratic opponent lost by an even greater margin; that says a lot too."
ReplyDeleteYeah, that Democrats are so thin on the ground in Elko that it is possible for a candidate to out perform them based on the votes of non-partisans and Republicans concerned about fluoridation and imaginary conspiracy theories.
This is exactly why you guys, if indeed you are a representive sample of the average IAP, will never make any impact except, perhaps, tipping a major race to a Democrat somewhere.
ReplyDeleteJerz was doing a back of the napkin estimate of Esmeralda voters. He wasn't using the SOS reports and he wasn't doubting your percentage claim. Get that? He wasn't doubting your claim of 8%. He was just pointing out that your percentage claim doesn't amount to a lot of actual voters in a county the size of Eseralda.
And, if anything, he was slightly generous in estimating your numbers. But as you point out with, I can only assume, conspiratorial glee you guys have only 47 registered voters. Congrats, you have made your point. You have even less influence than Jerz guesstimated.
Yes, the Democrat in AD-33 lost big, just like they always do in the rurals. But they still garner more votes than the IAP, if that is the battle criteria you want to use.
And again, for what seems like the millionth time (and, I know Quirk, that is an exaggeration not a fact), all anybody here has said about your party is that its base isn't as big as the voter registration numbers. That's it. It's not some agenda to destroy the IAP, up the LP, or whatever conspiracy you are currently falling for. A strong third party system (or, at least, relatively strong) is healthy for everyone. I've always said that.
So in that sense dealing with someone like you is especially exasperating. You are doing your party no favors by being the living embodiment of the third-party stereotype -- an angry, somewhat delusional, paranoid.
Tell you what, we'll continue the fighting here-
ReplyDeletehttp://dullardmush.blogspot.com/2011/07/iaps-cody-quirk-throws-down-on-nv-sos.html?showComment=1311309743718#c3805754194894169164
And on TPID.
Jansen conversation on the Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, Ron Paul question.
ReplyDelete-------------------------------
by Bradley Janse, (libertarian), Saturday, October 11, 2008
My colleague at Third Party Watch Cody Quirk has been debating me on the Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, Ron Paul question. I suspect our dialog began when I published my column analyzing Chuck Baldwin's campaign here.
He took issue with some facts, I corrected him (I was right), he repeated his misinformed opinion, I corrected him again with the same facts from the original article (hypertexted to their source in the original).
Ultimately, he responded with a column of his own which largely consisted of personal attacks on Barr and misrepresentation of Congressman Ron Paul's views (and I suspect a misrepresentation of the views of Chuck Baldwin as well).
So, I wrote a column urging an end to personal attacks