Document:LP News 1973 January-February Issue 12
ONE FOR THE BOOKS
Whatever may happen in the future, the Libertarian Party is now assured at least a passing mention in the history books. For on December 18, 1972, Roger Lea MacBride of Charlottesville, Virginia, a member of the successful slate of Nixon electors from that State, broke ranks and cast his Electoral Vote for Dr. John Hospers and Ms. Tonie Nathan. As a result, the final results of the 1972 Presidential Election became officially recorded as Nixon 520, McGovern 17, and Hospers 1 -- and the LP suddenly achieved instant national recognition, receiving coverage on all three TV networks, in Newsweek, and in newspapers all over the country.
MacBride, a lifelong Republican, announced his decision to switch from Nixon to Hospers by saying that it was "an attempt to put principles ahead of party politics," explaining that he could not in good conscience vote for Nixon because "he has moved the government toward ever greater control over the lives of us all, 11 and that by doing what he did, he hoped to tell Nixon that "he has lost his way."
The story of MacBride's historic decision broke in newspapers across the country on the day that the Electors met in their respective State capitols, via a syndicated column by Nicholas Von Hoffman of the Washington Post. In his column, which was pro-MacBride, Von Hoffman discussed the implications of MacBride's action in some depth and needled the GOP for its lack of perception in failing to recognize that Roger MacBride was not just another party hack when they chose him to be a member of their Virginia slate of Electors. (Ironically, MacBride was originally offered the position because he had written a book on the Electoral College.)
Roger's commitment to libertarian ideals goes back much farther than 1972, incidentally; he is the grandson of noted libertarian writer Rose Wilder Lane, and was one of the founders of the Free Enterprise Society at Princeton during his college days in the late 1940's.
His action, although not unprecedented, was of historical significance for several reasons. First, because there have only been nine previous cases in the 150-year history of the Electoral College when an Elector has "jumped ship" (and interestingly, two of them were Nixon electors in 1960 and 1968, making Nixon the only three-time loser in history). Second, because MacBride's move made Tonie Nathan the first and only woman ever to receive an
Electoral Vote. And third, because the Hospers Nathan ticket is only the seventh minority party ticket to receive any Electoral Votes in this century (the Communists and Socialists, in contrast, have never received an Electoral Vote). As soon as the news of Roger MacBride's action went out, calls and letters began to pour into his Charlottesville office, with Dr. Hospers, Ms. Nathan, and National LP also receiving quite a number. LP members everywhere were naturally elated, and many of them have tried to express the delight they felt upon first hearing of MacBride's action. Nobody has said it better than Sam Kazman of New York, however, who sent the following letter to Roger. We think he speaks for all of us.
Mr. Roger MacBride, Elector Par Excellence
Dear Mr. MacBride:
BRAVO! That is, I find it impossible to adequately describe the joy I felt, or the whoop I let out, upon hearing of your action on the Monday night CBS News. Here I was in my living room, and here it was all dark and gloomy outside, and here was Walter Cronkite doing what I've seen and heard him do so many times before. And then this. Oh Jesus Christ!
So the first thing I did was to yell and holler and clap my hands in disbelief. And then I called some people I knew, who had either gone for Ni on with thei nostrils stoppered, or who, like myself, had watched their Hospers write-ins vanish into the obscure categories of "Void" or "Scattered." And they all hollered some more and phoned some more people. A bright network of non-believers for whom Christmas had come early. Amazing!
What can I say to you? Who are you? Were you planning to do this all along? If not, what changed your mind? Do you still have a future in the Republican Party? Do we still have a future in the Libertarian Party? Oh do we ever!
I'm sending you some leaflets put out by our group here. Of course, you don't need propagandizing, but it's nice to see other people thinking what you're thinking. "Psychological visibility", Branden would call it. "Love") Enjoy them. May they make you one-thousandth as happy as you've made us. I hope you live forever.
Yours,
Same Kazman
As for the reactions of the Establishment, they were (Predictably) less ecstatic; we understand that when Spiro Agnew announced the official tally hen the Electoral Votes were counted in the US Senate on January 6, he acted considerably less than please he had to read off the one Hospers Nathan vote.
All in all, Roger MacBride's glorious gesture was a tremendous treat -- the fronting on the whole '72 campaign cake, as it were. Many thanks, Roger... and what are you doing in '76?
ELECTORAL REFORM - AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PROGRESS
As a result of Roger MacBride's history making action on December 18, there is once again a hue and cry throughout the land to abolish the Electoral College and have our Presidents elected by direct popular vote.
Senator Birch Bayh (D-Ind) has announced that he will re-introduce into Congress a proposed Constitutional amendment to this effect· he tried this once before, in 1969, and was nearly successful in getting the two-thirds majority in both Houses that is necessary for a Constitutional amendment to be formally sent to the state legislatures for ratification. This time, it seems almost certain that the Bayh Amendment will get through Congress, and perhaps through the state legislatures as well.
It is certainly debatable whether such a change would be a good thing; Roger MacBride, for one, has assembled cogent arguments to the effect that it would not. Nonetheless, since it now appears that direct election of Presidents may well become a reality, we would be foolish not to try to take advantage of the current "reform" attempts, to advance one of our own goals -- namely, making it easier for minority parties to get on the ballot .
The simplest way for us to achieve this goal, it seems to your editor, would be to persuade Senator Bayh to add to his proposed amendment an additional section or sections containing the following provisions:
1) That all minority parties whose Presidential candidates received 1,000,000 votes or more in a given Presidential election shall automatically be entitled to have their Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates listed on the ballots of all 50 States and the District of Columbia in the next election.
2) That all other minority parties shall be entitled to have their Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates listed on the ballots of all 50 States and the District of Columbia by filing one petition, containing 100 000 signatures, with the Federal Election Commission -- and that the FEC shall provide all interested parties with the necessary petition forms at least five months prior to Election Day, allowing at least two months for the collection of signatures.
3) That only those Presidential candidates who are granted ballot listings under one of these two provisions shall be regarded as "real" Presidential candidates, in the senses of being eligible to receive media time under the "equal time" provision, and being required to file campaign expenditure reports with the various authorities.
This arrangement would obviously be of great benefit to us, and to the other minority parties, in two respects. First, it would eliminate the tremendous hassle of having to get on each state's ballot separately. And second it would multiply our effective vote gettin potential by a factor of approximately ten; an analysis of the number of votes received by our candidates and those of the other minority parties last November reveals that being on the ballot increases a minority party candidate's vote total tenfold, compared to a write-in effort.
Thus, we strongly urge each and very one of you to write to Senator Bayh (United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510), urging him to add these provisions, and stating that you will work actively on behalf of his amendment if and only if he does so. Copies should be sent to your own Senators and Congressman, and to your local newspapers. THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT THING YOU CAN DO TO ADVANCE THE CAUSE OF THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY THIS YEAR. So even if you don't do a single other thing this year, take the time to make this one effort!
Now, obviously, the fact that these provisions will help minority parties isn't going to cut much ice with Senator Bayh and his colleagues. However, there are a number of points which can be made that should have some effect on them. Some of these are given below, and you might wish to cite one or more of them (using your own words) in your letter -- along with any others you can think of.
A) The present system discriminates against those Americans who do not favor either of the two major parties; in effect, it denies them of their right to vote for the candidates of their choice. And there are an increasing number of people who fall into this category; in the '72 Presidential election, a record breaking 44% of those eligible to vote did not do so.
B) As the constantly inc.easing "no vote" figure indicates, people are becoming more and more frustrated with our system of government. And the more difficult it is for people to express their discontents through the peaceful means of voting, the more likely they are to turn to non-peaceful means. Thus, making it easier for minority parties to get on the ballot will help "cool things off."
C) The present system in effect grants a monopoly to the two major parties. If there were an industry in which two companies had managed to place legal blocks to entry on the part of competitors, the government would never allow the situation to persist--so why should the two major parties be allowed to do it?
D) As things currently stand, there is no uniformity in the various States' ballots; some list only the two major parties, others listed up to seven minor parties last time. This means that people in different States are in effect, voting on a different basis, even though they're voting on the same offices. We don't have different ballots in each county of a given State, for the State-wide races (e.g. Senator), so why should the requirements for listing for national office vary from State to State?
E) The system described above is fair and reasonable, in that it makes it possible for parties with a fair amount of support to get on the ballot, but eliminates "crank" candidates with only a handful of followers.
F) The provision that only the candidates qualifying for 50-State listing be eligible for "equal time" and required to submit expenditure reports would eliminate a great deal of work for the FCC and the Federal Election Commission, and would make it easier for the media to know which candidates to cover (i.e. only those who had a significant number of supporters).
G)
POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE
VIII. FOUR MORE YEARS