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

Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

Revision as of 13:01, 17 September 2019

19 bytes removed ,  17 September 2019
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 128: Line 128:
The individual's right to privacy, property, and right to speak or not to speak should not be infringed by any government. Governments should not use electronic or other means of covert surveillance of an individual's actions or private property without the express consent of the owner or occupant. Correspondence, bank and other financial transactions and records, medical records, legal records, employment records, and the like should not be open to review without the express consent of all parties involved in those actions.
The individual's right to privacy, property, and right to speak or not to speak should not be infringed by any government. Governments should not use electronic or other means of covert surveillance of an individual's actions or private property without the express consent of the owner or occupant. Correspondence, bank and other financial transactions and records, medical records, legal records, employment records, and the like should not be open to review without the express consent of all parties involved in those actions.


We support the rights protected by the Fourth Amendment and oppose any government use of search warrants to examine or seize materials belonging to innocent third parties. We also oppose and call for the abolition of police roadblocks aimed at randomly, and without probable cause, testing drivers for intoxicants, police practices to stop mass transit vehicles and search passengers without probable cause, and Terry stops (also called “stop-and-frisk”).
We support the rights protected by the Fourth Amendment and oppose any government use of search warrants to examine or seize materials belonging to innocent third parties. We also oppose and call for the abolition of police roadblocks aimed at randomly, and without probable cause, testing drivers for intoxicants, police practices to stop mass transit vehicles and search passengers without probable cause, and Terry stops (also called "stop-and-frisk").


All federal, state, local, and other government compilations of data should be conducted only with the express consent of the persons from whom the data is sought. To this end, we call for the abolition of the National Security Agency and any other agencies that conduct unwarranted mass surveillance; the abolition of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which rubber-stamps secret warrants that can't be challenged; and the abolition of the USA PATRIOT Act, USA FREEDOM Act, Alien and Sedition Acts, Espionage Act, and any other legislation, executive orders, or regulations which authorize violations of rights.
All federal, state, local, and other government compilations of data should be conducted only with the express consent of the persons from whom the data is sought. To this end, we call for the abolition of the National Security Agency and any other agencies that conduct unwarranted mass surveillance; the abolition of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which rubber-stamps secret warrants that can't be challenged; and the abolition of the USA PATRIOT Act, USA FREEDOM Act, Alien and Sedition Acts, Espionage Act, and any other legislation, executive orders, or regulations which authorize violations of rights.
Line 461: Line 461:
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 or approval voting for single winner elections. Further we oppose implementation of the electoral system known as Top Two.
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 or 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.
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 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.
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.
Retrieved from "https://lpedia.mywikis.net/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1525034"

Navigation menu