LPedia

Document:Libertarian Party Radical Caucus Platform 2016: Difference between revisions

Document Discussion

Document:Libertarian Party Radical Caucus Platform 2016 (view source)

Revision as of 00:37, 18 April 2016

15 bytes removed ,  18 April 2016
m
no edit summary
mNo edit summary
mNo edit summary
Line 103: Line 103:
g. the repeal of anti-racketeering statutes such as the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) that punish peaceful behavior — including conspiracy to commit acts such as sale of sexually explicit material, and nonviolent anti-abortion protests — by freezing and/or seizing assets of the accused or convicted; and
g. the repeal of anti-racketeering statutes such as the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) that punish peaceful behavior — including conspiracy to commit acts such as sale of sexually explicit material, and nonviolent anti-abortion protests — by freezing and/or seizing assets of the accused or convicted; and


h. the repeal of all laws interfering with the right to commit suicide as infringements of the ultimate right of an individual to his or her own life.
h. the repeal of all laws interfering with the right to commit suicide as infringements of the ultimate right of an individuals to their own lives.


We demand the pardon and exoneration of everyone who has been convicted solely for these "crimes." We condemn the confiscation of property via civil asset forfeiture that all too often accompanies police raids, searches, and prosecutions for victimless crimes.
We demand the pardon and exoneration of everyone who has been convicted solely for these "crimes." We condemn the confiscation of property via civil asset forfeiture that all too often accompanies police raids, searches, and prosecutions for victimless crimes.
Line 132: Line 132:


===11. Safeguards for the Criminally Accused===
===11. Safeguards for the Criminally Accused===
Until such time as a person is proved guilty of a crime, that person should be accorded all possible respect for his individual rights. We are thus opposed to reduction of present safeguards for the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied.
People should be accorded all possible respect for their individual rights until such time as they are proven guilty of a crime. We are thus opposed to reduction of present safeguards for the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied.


We oppose labeling cases as civil in order to avoid the due process protections of criminal law and we further oppose pretrial seizure of property. We oppose police officers using excessive force, preventive detention, and no-knock raids.
We oppose labeling cases as civil in order to avoid the due process protections of criminal law and we further oppose pretrial seizure of property. We oppose police officers using excessive force, preventive detention, and no-knock raids.
Line 372: Line 372:
Competition in ideas and government policies is important to the electoral process and is a cornerstone of fundamental freedoms. At the national level, The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), created in 1987 by the Republican and Democratic national parties for the express purpose of keeping minor party and independent candidates out of debates, intentionally limits participation in the nationally-televised debates to the Democratic and Republican Party nominees. The presidential debates organized by the CPD exert a de facto influence on the outcome of presidential elections, because a presidential candidate who is excluded from presidential debates has virtually zero chance of winning the general presidential election. The right to form a party for the advancement of political goals means little if that party’s nominee can be arbitrarily excluded from debates and denied an equal opportunity to win votes. While we support the abolition of all intrusive election and other laws affecting the operation of private political parties, to the extent that these laws exist, they should not be manipulated to benefit the dominant parties to the exclusion of minority parties or independent candidates and to the ultimate detriment of the voters who are not presented with the range of potential choices. This effectively disenfranchises voters and violates First Amendment freedoms. Therefore, in accordance with current ballot access laws, we call upon all organizations that host debates to have fair and objective debate criteria that should: include all candidates who are legally qualified to serve and whose names appear on the ballot. Additionally for Presidential debates, candidates should also appear on enough ballots to potentially secure a majority in the Electoral College.
Competition in ideas and government policies is important to the electoral process and is a cornerstone of fundamental freedoms. At the national level, The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), created in 1987 by the Republican and Democratic national parties for the express purpose of keeping minor party and independent candidates out of debates, intentionally limits participation in the nationally-televised debates to the Democratic and Republican Party nominees. The presidential debates organized by the CPD exert a de facto influence on the outcome of presidential elections, because a presidential candidate who is excluded from presidential debates has virtually zero chance of winning the general presidential election. The right to form a party for the advancement of political goals means little if that party’s nominee can be arbitrarily excluded from debates and denied an equal opportunity to win votes. While we support the abolition of all intrusive election and other laws affecting the operation of private political parties, to the extent that these laws exist, they should not be manipulated to benefit the dominant parties to the exclusion of minority parties or independent candidates and to the ultimate detriment of the voters who are not presented with the range of potential choices. This effectively disenfranchises voters and violates First Amendment freedoms. Therefore, in accordance with current ballot access laws, we call upon all organizations that host debates to have fair and objective debate criteria that should: include all candidates who are legally qualified to serve and whose names appear on the ballot. Additionally for Presidential debates, candidates should also appear on enough ballots to potentially secure a majority in the Electoral College.


The Australian ballot system, introduced into the United States in the late nineteenth century, is an abridgment of freedom of expression and of voting rights. Under it, the names of all the officially approved candidates are printed in a single government sponsored format and the voter indicates his or her choice by marking it or by writing in an approved but unlisted candidate's name. We advocate for a strict separation of ballot and state, and call for a return to the previous electoral system where there was no official ballot or candidate approval at all, and therefore no state or federal restriction of access to a "single ballot." Instead, voters submitted their own choices and had the option of using "tickets" or cards printed by candidates or political parties.
The Australian ballot system, introduced into the United States in the late nineteenth century, is an abridgment of freedom of expression and of voting rights. Under it, the names of all the officially approved candidates are printed in a single government sponsored format and the voter indicates their choice by marking it or by writing in an approved but unlisted candidate's name. We advocate for a strict separation of ballot and state, and call for a return to the previous electoral system where there was no official ballot or candidate approval at all, and therefore no state or federal restriction of access to a "single ballot." Instead, voters submitted their own choices and had the option of using "tickets" or cards printed by candidates or political parties.


In order to grant voters a full range of choice in federal, state, and local elections, we propose the addition of the alternative "None of the above is acceptable" to all ballots. We further propose that in the event that "none of the above is acceptable" receives a plurality of votes in any election, either the elective office for that term should remain unfilled and unfunded, or there shall be a new election in which none of the losing candidates shall be eligible.
In order to grant voters a full range of choice in federal, state, and local elections, we propose the addition of the alternative "None of the above is acceptable" to all ballots. We further propose that in the event that "none of the above is acceptable" receives a plurality of votes in any election, either the elective office for that term should remain unfilled and unfunded, or there shall be a new election in which none of the losing candidates shall be eligible.
Retrieved from "https://lpedia.mywikis.net/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1479162"