From: wchen@beirut.berkeley.edu (William Chen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Results for other than Demopublicans or Perot?
Date: 10 Nov 1992 08:10:16 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
NNTP-Posting-Host: beirut.berkeley.edu

In article <BxB4zs.Axu@unx.sas.com> rkw@zuni.unx.sas.com (Randy Whitehead) writes:
>
>In article <1992Nov6.172447.24327@ornl.gov>, de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>|> In article <aelman.720861320@Xenon.Stanford.EDU>, aelman@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Adam Elman) writes:
>|> >jkp@cs.hut.fi (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>|> >>
>|> >>Why aren't results from the U.S. presidential election for others than
>|> >>the governing party and the court jester told?
>|> >
>|> >Frankly, the reason is simply that there are no other candidates
>|> >receiving significant portions of the vote.
>|> 
>|> And the reason no other candidates receive significant portions of the vote is
>|> that they don't receive adequate press coverage.
>|> 
>|> And the reason they don't receive adequate press coverage is that they don't
>|> receive significant portions of the vote and don't have $billions to spend.
>
>Or maybe it's because 99% of all voters have absolutely no direct experience
>with Libertarians as part of government on any level. You can't just pop up
>and say "We'd like to run the government now, please elect us President."
>Get yourselves elected to some city councils, and state legislatures (no
>$billions required), establish a track record of how Libertarian philosophy
>would be implemented in a real government in the real world. Once we've all
>seen how well it works, you'll have a hard time staying out of office. True,
>this approach will take several decades, but it is the only way it will ever
>happen.
>
>-- 
>Randy Whitehead         And now, back to your regularly scheduled day...    
>SAS Institute Inc.                     
>rkw@unx.sas.com                        
>                                       

Or maybe it's just that most people in this country do not favor what the 
Libetarians stand for.  I believe the average voter is a bit more intelligent 
than some of you credit him for, I don't think that the people vote for 
whomever the press tells them to vote for.  Most Americans do know how
the parties stand on major issues such as abortion, gun control, and social 
programs.  Most people I have encountered do recognize that the libertarians
favor less or no government regulation, legalization of drugs, are
isolationalist, and are pro-choice and are agaisnt government sponsered
welfare.  It's just that most people do not support the Lib's planks. 

Thus the Libertarian's claims that their low percentage is caused by a 
media conspiracy is a bit overblown.  Voters DO know about the Lib's 
planks.  A more legitimate argument would be that more people SHOULD
favor these policies--and maybe with the growing unrest in this country more 
people will, and the press coverage will come naturally. In fact Libs might 
have a hard time avoiding reporters.  

Remember Lyndon LaRouche got lots of press coverage.  In 1984 he was on
prime time TV a couple of hours, however he STILL got a low vote total 
in that election.  

Bill 

Disclaimer:  Without this disclaimer, will anyone truly believe that 
             these views actually represent the official position of UC
             Berkeley?


             












Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections