A Small Request - If you do not care...

[Viper393]

If there was a Libertarian on the ballot we voted for them with one exception and that was Todd Young.

 

[rambone]

1. I get it. Corruption is OK and ethics be damned as long as it positively impacts your cause.

2. I'm not defending nor am I for or against the law. It's simply the law. I don't know why it is written the way it is. Probably to keep tweakers off the ballot. If you want it changed elect legislators who will change it.

1. Doug did nothing corrupt, immoral, unethical, illogical, illegal, or irrational.

2. What is a tweaker, and why should they be kept off the ballot?

3. Why should the future ballot access of a party hinge on the success of the Secretary of State race?

4. If it is illegal to ask for support of a candidate or a party, then free speech is dead already.

5. Unrelated note. If the law turns tyrannical, it is our duty to ignore it and fight for liberty and protect the constitution. So I would encourage Doug to use his free speech in every forum and on every soapbox he can find.

6. If elections are stacked in favor of the 2-party system, then no Republicrat legislators are ever going to change that law.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

1. Doug did nothing corrupt, immoral, unethical, illogical, illegal, or irrational.

2. What is a tweaker, and why should they be kept off the ballot?

3. Why should the future ballot access of a party hinge on the success of the Secretary of State race?

4. If it is illegal to ask for support of a candidate or a party, then free speech is dead already.

5. Unrelated note. If the law turns tyrannical, it is our duty to ignore it and fight for liberty and protect the constitution. So I would encourage Doug to use his free speech in every forum and on every soapbox he can find.

6. If elections are stacked in favor of the 2-party system, then no Republicrat legislators are ever going to change that law.

Maybe corrupt was too strong a word. I believe that he did desire to manipulate the process, and as a party official it was an unethical request. Since we all decide our own definition of ethics, I stand by my assertion while allowing that you do not agree. As I said, I wasn't trying to start a fight. Just looking to see if anyone agreed with me. Obviously not.

To answer your points.

1. I believe it is unethical for a party official to ask you to vote for someone not because that candidate is a good candidate but because the party doesn't have to get petitions signed to be on the ballot in future years. You don't. Most don't. We'll have to agree to disagree. Not the first time I've stood on one side of the hill while everyone else was on the other. Won't be the last either.

Just to level-set, I also think it's unethical for a candidate to try to scare you out of voting for an opponent. It works, and it's legal. My moral compass leads me in the other direction.

2. Tweakers is a term that generally means crack heads or meth heads.

3. I don't know. I didn't write the law and have never thought about it. Again, if you don't like the law work to elect representatives that will change it.

4. I NEVER SAID IT WAS ILLEGAL. Just unethical and manipulating. There's a huge leap between the two.

5. I don't want to engage in the anarchy debate. I believe in the rule of law and that there are ways to change it. If you can't work within the system to change it you will fare no better outside the system.

6. So you've given up before you started?

I didn't vote for Charlie White because of ethical lapses that really don't amount to much. The bigger issue is the lack of traction that requires a party official to openly beg not to be relegated to minor league soccer. That's a different debate for a different day.

 

[mrjarrell]

If there was a Libertarian on the ballot we voted for them with one exception and that was Todd Young.

Well, you made a decent choice, but Todd is a republicrat and used to work for Lugar. He showed up INGO back around the primaries and answered some gun related matters pretty well.
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ung_answers_the_gun_rights_questionnaire.html

 

[theweakerbrother]

I didn't read this until after I voted but you can mark me down as a thought criminal who voted for Wherry.

 

[Jack Ryan]

Not trying to start a fight, because I understand what you want to accomplish. Does anyone else have an issue with manipulating the voting process to benefit a particular political party? Isn't this exactly the kind of corruption we rail against Republicrats for?

Yep and it's about time there was a new snake in the box.

 

[Jack Ryan]

But the request is not "so that voters have more, better options to choose from in the future". It is so that the Libertarian Party doesn't have to work to achieve it. Read the OP again.

Except that in this instance the request is made to circumvent state law. That should be a red flag to anyone, regardless of party or political leaning.

The request was NOT a request to circumvent state law. It was a request in assistance in abiding state law.

I've collected signatures for candidates to get on the ballot before, a lot of different candidates a lot of different elections. Those laws are not to make sure EVERYONE is required to give the same fair effort to get on the ballot. Those laws were in enacted in collusion by the two wings of the uni-party in an effort to keep the maximum amount of spoils from the public treasury at their own disposal.

There should be NO signature requirement to place your name on an election ballot in this country or the same requirement should be enforced for every citizen to be on the ballot. Pledges of support and loyalty among private pirate gang members has no place in giving preference to individual candidates in elections for public office. The uni party consisting of Republican and democrat pirate wings doesn't own this country or the government of this country and I owe them NOTHING in the way of preferrential treatment to use of my tax dollars unless it is to purchase rope to hang themselves for treason.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

Maybe corrupt was too strong a word. I believe that he did desire to manipulate the process, and as a party official it was an unethical request. Since we all decide our own definition of ethics, I stand by my assertion while allowing that you do not agree. As I said, I wasn't trying to start a fight. Just looking to see if anyone agreed with me. Obviously not.

Semper,

I applaud that you think about these things and take the time to consider the justice of these kinds of issues. I also applaud you for raising the question.

I do not personally see anything wrong with the OP, but appreciate you raising your question and participating in the resulting discussion.

 

[dross]

The request was NOT a request to circumvent state law. It was a request in assistance in abiding state law.

.

Precisely correct.

 

[XMil]

I didn't say there was anything illegal about it, and you have to lack any reason to claim I did. [snip]

In fairness to mrjarrel, the following from your post on page 2 kind of sounds that way:

Except that in this instance the request is made to circumvent state law. That should be a red flag to anyone, regardless of party or political leaning.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...quest_-_if_you_do_not_care-2.html#post1419188

Sincere apologies if I misunderstood something.

 

[DagerOne]

Regardless, it looks as though Wherry easily managed the needed 2%. Not sure how up to date these are, but what I did find shows Wherry comfortably in the 6% range:

Secretary of State
5,107 of 5,265 precincts
Charlie White (R)* 953,419(57%)
Vop Osili (D) 613,046(37%)
Mike Wherry (L) 98,421(6%)

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

In fairness to mrjarrel, the following from your post on page 2 kind of sounds that way:




https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...quest_-_if_you_do_not_care-2.html#post1419188

Sincere apologies if I misunderstood something.

Circumvent: to manage to get around especially by ingenuity or stratagem

I never meant to imply there was anything illegal. I would have come out and said so if I did. I didn't because I knew there was nothing illegal about it. But an act doesn't have to be illegal to be unethical.

 

[dross]

Circumvent: to manage to get around especially by ingenuity or stratagem

I never meant to imply there was anything illegal. I would have come out and said so if I did. I didn't because I knew there was nothing illegal about it. But an act doesn't have to be illegal to be unethical.

I think I'm at odds with your premise.

You seem to believe that someone should vote for the best candidate. I don't agree. I think a vote can be for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with the best candidate.

In every race I knew the Republican would win for sure, I voted Libertarian, including the House race in my district. I vote Republican because in my view they are the lesser of evils. I voted Libertarian in safe races because my basic belief system is closer to Libertarian than any other party. The stronger the Libertarians do in the elections, the more the Republicans will view libertarian values as fertile ground to pursue voters. At the same time, it's not worth it to me to vote Libertarian if it means putting a Democrat in office.

I see nothing at all unethical about such a plan.

Also, if state law requires a 2% showing, and that 2% is in the interests of the voter, it makes perfect sense to vote to achieve that 2% in races the voter doesn't care about, or in races that the voter knows is safe.

In any of the above scenarios, the voter is voting in his interests. It's not about the candidates, it's about the voter, the citizen.

Please explain how any of that is unethical, and if it isn't unethical, then neither is an appeal to take that action.

 

[rambone]

This is why he has a bone to pick with the OP. This is why it he thinks it is unethical to want to see more Libertarians on the ballot.

Libertarians wouldn't know the first thing about how to govern. A while back dross started an "if you were elected what would you do" thread. You could almost tell the Libertarian supporters based on the responses, which vascilated between ineffective, unachievable, unreasonable, and flat out goofy. But that's what you get when you're a debate club who does nothing but throw little rocks that hit just hard enough to annoy yet not hard enough to grab attention or make any difference whatsoever.

 

[dross]

This is why he has a bone to pick with the OP. This is why it he thinks it is unethical to want to see more Libertarians on the ballot.

I actually agree with him on that particular point. Libertarians will never be more than an influence on another major party. The philosophy is simply too rigorous for most people. I wish it weren't so, but I believe it is simple reality. I'd like to grow the number of people who adhere to libertarian philosophy, but I don't delude myself that libertarians will ever be a majority. It goes against everything I've learned about human nature in my life, and all my knowledge of history.