From: mohr@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Gordon Mohr)
Subject: Marrou's puzzling vote totals: Why & consequences
Keywords: Objectivism Libertarianism
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 10:03:30 GMT

--
Marrou's poor showing has puzzled many libertarians. By all accounts, the
LP received more media attention this time around than ever before, even
more than was purchased during the 1980 campaign of Clark/Koch.

Yet Marrou, with 50 state ballot access, received fewer votes than the
Libertarian candidates in 88 and 80 (and 84 too, I think). 

Why?

Also, results I've seen from California and Washington show that anywhere
from 5 to 10 times as many people voted for state office Libertarian
candidates than voted for Marrou. 

Again, why?

Some have suggested the presence of Perot drew away votes. Surely it did, to
some extent. But the LP's highest vote total ever, over 900,000 votes, came
in 1980, when there was also a higher-profile "independent" candidacy. And
the presence of independents and other third-party candidates in many
statewide races didn't stop Libertarians from drawing 2-9%, compared to
Marrou's 0.3%.

I think the key difficulty Marrou ran into was that the American people
take their Presidential vote very seriously, and believe the only
purpose of holding an election--and running a candidate--is to choose
a president for the next four years.

So while it makes perfect sense to committed Libertarian Party members and
libertarian sympathizers that we should run a sure loser Presidential
candidate as a party-building and outreach effort, 99.7% of the voters don't
see it that way. 

In fact, any candidate who doesn't appear to be presidential, experienced,
focused on what the media say are "the issues", and, most importantly, able
to win, looks bad to voters. That candidate, regardless of how well he
or she carries his or herself, by the mere virtue of running to lose, looks
"fringe", "impractical" and "too ideological" to most voters. These only
amplify the concern about "wasting my vote" and lead voters to discard,
on the face of it, any consideration of voting Libertarian.

If the LP weren't already struggling to explain what it stands for, it
could also explain why it's good to vote for a loser if that loser 
represents your true desires. But that is, in my opinion, usually
a harder sell than even the libertarian ideology itself. Given the
very tight limits on Libertarian resources and exposure, also 
explaining the why of "voting your conscience" for a loser is an
unrealistic goal. 

Also note that these negative voter impressions are only REINFORCED by
continual ballot access. Instead of winning new voters each successive
election, running a hapless Libertarian candidate each four years only
enhances the image of "stubborn, perennial loser". Such an image even
discredits the Libertarian as an attractive protest vote.

Since I think these mostly unchangeable voter attitudes are the real
reason for low--and declining--Libertarian vote totals, I don't think
future elections will offer the LP any breakthroughs.

The LP should give up on presidential elections, and focus its energies 
elsewhere.

- Gordon Mohr ------------
- mohr@cory.berkeley.edu -