So I'm working my way through a question I had and it led me to the question I wan to pose to the forum. First off, I was pondering why it is that most people, Democrat or Republican, always complain about the lousy choices for president they have. Many on both sides of the aisle are disappointed with the choice of either Obama or Romney.
So I was wondering, why so little support for 3rd party candidates? As I'm thinking this I ponder my opinions of the only 3rd party candidate for president, Gary Johnson. While some things about his platform I agree with, and some that I don't, I don't think he can be an effective president. I said the exact same thing about Ron Paul.
The problem with Johnson and Paul is that they don't have a congress that supports their ideas. Both Obama and Romney have lots of people in congress that support them. That makes it easier for either of them to get their agenda across.There probably isn't even 10 independents in all of the Senate and House combined [[approx. 535 members).
So with all that blah, blah, blah, I finally come to the question I want to pose to the forum...
Libertarians candidates are notoriously for limited government, and the little government they do believe in is at the state level. So why don't Libertarians focus on taken over state legislatures and then state governorships? Even at the federal level, why don't Libertarians focus on electing more members of congress instead of just going for the presidency? If Libertarians could get more people elected at the levels I suggested they would find it easier to elect a president. What good is it to be elected president with a congress that is almost completely opposed to you?
Why not focus on the state legislatures, state governorships, and fed congress first?
Bookmarks