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

We call for an end to government control of political parties, consistent with First Amendment rights to freedom of association and freedom of expression. Political parties are private voluntary groups, and should be allowed to establish their own rules for nomination procedures, primaries, and conventions. At the same time, political parties must not be given any special privileges or subsidies in their internal decision-making process. To that end, we call for the complete abolition of primary elections that are funded or controlled by any government body. "Voters" do not own political parties -- the people who invest their time and money in them do, and the state should not interfere in their right to run their parties in the manner that suits them.

We urge repeal of all regulations and regulatory structures including the Federal Election Campaign Act and the FEC which suppress voluntary support of candidates and parties, compels taxpayers to subsidize some politicians and political views which many do not wish to support; invades the privacy of American citizens; and protects the Republican and Democratic parties from competition.

Many state legislatures have established prohibitively restrictive laws which in effect exclude alternative candidates and parties from their rightful place on election ballots. Such laws wrongfully deny ballot access to political candidates and groups and further deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives. We hold that no state has a legitimate interest to protect in this area except for the fair and efficient conduct of elections.

Electoral systems matter. The predominant use of "winner-take-all" elections in gerrymandered, single-member districts fosters political monopolies and creates a substantial government-imposed barrier to election of non-incumbent political parties and candidates. We call upon legislative bodies to adopt electoral systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state, and local levels, such as proportional voting systems with multi-member districts for legislative elections and ranked choice approval voting for single winner elections. Further we oppose implementation of the electoral system known as Top Two.

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.

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.