Press "Enter" to skip to content

McArdle Appoints Reconciliation Committee

In response to various issues such as the statement of the Colorado LP that they will not put the Oliver-Ter Maat ticket on the ballot for President this year, Angela McArdle has announced the formation of a reconciliation committee to deal with the issue.  Her announcement reads:

Hello LNC,
It’s come to my attention (and to the attention of some of you) that we have state affiliates who are very upset with the Chase/Ter Maat ticket and are threatening not to put them on the ballot. We need to work this out. I’m appointing a committee to resolve this situation – the Reconciliation Committee.
Your goal is to communicate with the state affiliates who are aggrieved, find out their specific grievances, and communicate with the Oliver campaign to see if we can get those grievances resolved. This is a much better route than disaffiliations, lawsuits, threats, removal, etc.
Let’s please try to get it all resolved before the end of this month – June 30th, or before the deadline of any Secretary of State paperwork – whichever date is SOONEST.
Appointed to the committee:
Pat Ford
Caryn Ann Harlos
Kathy Yeniscavich
Andrew Watkins
Angela McArdle
Please use division of labor on your calls. Please share information. Please deliberate together, but do not bog each other down in endless meetings. Please try to de-escalate things. Please use discretion and meet confidentially. Please share a report to the general membership by the end of the month that includes end results or a brief summary of actions, so our members can feel confident that we worked diligently to resolve this and get our candidate on the ballot.
Thank you!
Everyone else, I’m sure the rumor mill will churn, but please take this as a sign of the LNC’s good faith and please be patient with us as we work through this kink. We will support our candidates.
Angela McArdle
Chair, Libertarian National Committee

17 Comments

  1. Walter Ziobro Walter Ziobro June 12, 2024

    If the Libertarian National Committee were to de-certify the nominations of Oliver and Ter Maat, could the Libertarian national delegates that supported them hold a rump national convention, re-certify their nominations, and choose a new, competing national committee, possibly of a new party?

    I think some similar things happened in past years when dissenting delegates at national conventions held rival conventions and made competing nominations. I think that the Progressive party did this in 1912 (by dissident Republicans) and 1948 (by dissident Democrats)..

    • Seebeck Seebeck June 12, 2024

      They could, but it would have no force and effect.

      But that’s not happening, either. Nobody is going to toss $50-100k around to do that.

      • Walter Ziobro Walter Ziobro June 14, 2024

        Virtual conventions might reduce the cost.

  2. Darryl W Perry Darryl W Perry June 12, 2024

    Parties get ballot access in Colorado by either getting 1% in any statewide race or having over 1,000 registered voters.
    Parties in Montana need and statewide candidate to get 5% of the total votes cast for the winning Governor candidate at least every other general election.

  3. Porcus Agricola Porcus Agricola June 11, 2024

    Being sick of reinventing a flat tire is insufficient reason to try to reinvent an even flatter tire. The libertarian party is past its useful shelf life, and will not be replaced by any useful libertarianesque party. Instead, what you’ll get is your movement’s equivalent of the plethora of socialist parties, or what happened to the Reform Party after 2000 and the AIP after 1976, etc.

    The socialist movement is (unfortunately) thriving, as are paleoconservative and centrist movements, etc. The minor political parties that nominally represent them…aren’t. The libertarian movement has reached that same stage. Political parties are now a counterproductive tactic for that movement. Any time, money and effort spent on such going forward should be redirected into the movement’s many other tactics as quickly and thoroughly as possible to cease being counterproductive to its stated goals.

    • Walter Ziobro Walter Ziobro June 12, 2024

      What might those other channels be, in your opinion?

      • Porcus Agricola Porcus Agricola June 12, 2024

        They are myriad. I couldn’t possibly list them all. You can find lists of movement organizations and tactics posted in many places, looking at the range of sponsors and speakers at major movement conferences, and so on. Get in where you fit in.

        • Walter Ziobro Walter Ziobro June 14, 2024

          But, wouldn’t that leave us with only Democratic and Republican Parties?

          • ATBAFT ATBAFT June 14, 2024

            Yes. The three or more party (on permanent basis and winning significant offices) model has failed whereas the two party model hasn’t. Our goal as libertarians is to achieve liberty, not decide how many political parties are optimal.

          • George Phillies George Phillies Post author | June 14, 2024

            However, in a fair number of states, the two party model has imploded to the one party model. Massachusetts, for example, where most state legislators run unopposed.

          • ATBAFT ATBAFT June 14, 2024

            So, in one party state, the Libertarian Caucus should have an easier time of taking over the out of power party ( putting them far ahead of trying to make the LP a real political force in said state.)

          • Porcus Agricola Porcus Agricola June 14, 2024

            No. The libertarian party still exists, and will probably continue to exist, regardless of my personal opinion regarding its usefulness. Perhaps in time they will prove me wrong.

            Other libertarianish parties will continue to attempt to form, regardless of my opinion that those involved are wasting their money and time even more egregiously. They could also one day prove me wrong. I see that as even less likely, but the marketplace of ideas – even one as highly distorted by government as the government elections process – is smarter than I am.

            As far as I know, running for office without a party remains legal in every US State, although some make it difficult to qualify for the ballot that way. In which case, you can try to change those laws, or build your personal brand to the point where you can overcome those barriers before attempting to run for office, or work on different ways for somewhat likeminded independent candidates and their supporters to help each other qualify and succeed in elections which are not formally organized as or call themselves political parties.

            Many such legal mechanisms exist, and in many ways are more advantageous than the political party form – they don’t have to fight over territorial monopolies, enjoy more favorable tax laws and regulations, don’t run afoul of people’s family legacy dedication to political parties, etc. Different such groups can help mutually overlapping sets of candidates, and so on.

            In my opinion, for whatever if anything it’s worth, is less the political model which assumes a given number of political parties, whatever that number may be. It’s the model of political parties as a primary method of political organization. The process of that model failing is sufficiently slow that many people have not yet noticed that it’s in the process of failing and being gradually replaced. The people who have not yet noticed this are disproportionately older than those who have, but that’s just a General rule – there are many exceptions to it throughout the age spectrum.

            As partial evidence for this theory, consider how many people associate their loyalties more with, for examples, the MAGA or Progressive movements, among others,than with the R or D parties, and are willing to switch their votes, and their donations of money and or time, on case by case basis as a result, even though those moments are not themselves a formal ballot label anywhere while those two parties are ballot qualified candidate labels in every state.

            Progressive exists as a party label in Vermont and maybe some other states, but that’s not what I mean by progressive movement. I don’t know of any state with a MAGA ballot label. However, I do know lots and lots of people who were non voters, minor party voters, or Democrats before MAGA gained sufficient hold in the GOP, and would be again if the former leadership were to take that party back over.

            As for the two biggest parties, even if they succeed in monopolizing party ballot labeling in all states, which I don’t see as either likely or desirable, there most likely wouldn’t be sufficient party discipline or control of information flow to preclude libertarians from running as candidates and organizing in various states in various ways on their behalf in one or both of those parties and across party lines. If that level of party discipline and political idea/organization monopoly does occur, you might consider alternatives outside of electoral politics to advance your ideas. There are many of those as well, as I’m sure you already know.

            Think outside the party box would have been a much quicker way to say all that, but I’d rather leave the rest to provide added context if allowed, since I foolishly took the time to write it, and someone could even conceivably read the whole thing and even gain additional insight from it, however unlikely that is.

      • ATBAFT ATBAFT June 13, 2024

        Maybe Piglet Farmer could comment on a formal Libertarian Caucus within the GOP? That might satisfy those libertarians who enjoy and/or respond well to political activism.

        • Porcus Agricola Porcus Agricola June 14, 2024

          As far as I know it already exists. Did it die or something?

          Different forms of political action will suit different libertarians. That’s one for some of them. Single issue and multi issue lobbying groups, pacs , individual candidate campaigns, and many others also exist. Like I said, get in where you fit in.

          Do you require a central authority to steer the political activity of everyone who calls themselves libertarians? I think competition among multiple different forms thereof, as chosen or sorted out by the “market” for such, would be more fitting and effective for the broadly stated goals of your movement. Even if I’m wrong, I’m neither inclined nor qualified to be or choose that authority.

          Whether I’m a libertarian or not depends on who you ask, and I don’t particularly care. I’m not obsessed with defining, much less fighting over, such political labels. In my experience many people who call themselves libertarians are, well past the point of being highly detrimental to their supposed goals, which just makes me far less interested in associating with them or especially declaring myself to be one. They’ll nitpick each other about who is or isn’t a true libertarian even in line for welcome showers at the freedom workers work camp.

          I’m libertarian leaning enough to generally prefer market competition to central planning even in the market for the money, time, talents and any other freely offered resources of those who call themselves libertarians. If you want to call yourselves libertarians, but prefer to centrally plan your way to freedom, good luck. I think you’re foolish or dishonest in that approach, but I’m often wrong, this could possibly be one of the things I’m wrong about. If I am, your centrally planned freedom workers committee will eventually win its cold war with the less centrally organized competition.

          Hopefully without using a great deal of extorted funds, conscripted foot soldiers, premature deaths, physical and psychological injuries, collateral damage, property destruction etc in the process. You have to break some eggs to make an omelette, but it’s nice to be efficient and not waste a lot of eggs in the process when possible.

          One of the great advantages of not centrally planning your way to freedom is that you don’t have to continuously seek consensus, especially among people self selected to include a maximum number of contrarians and perfectionists. You can just try different things and see what works best and or works best for you. I’ll skip trying to achieve consensus by the assembled committee or trying to hold any kind of vote on the question. Dealing with piglets is bad enough in meatspace, as it were. Just a freely offered opinion for those of you who say you’re inclined towards more freedom and less central authority.

          I consider myself one of those, but call me whatever you want. Call me piglet, in English if you prefer. Just don’t feed me hog slop, pen me up, or slaughter me. If you want me to do it to you, maybe I’ll figure out whether there’s an economically viable way to put you in some hog pens once you succeed in making that legal. I’m statist enough to not wish to be in a pen for breaking government laws myself, even if I didn’t violate consent. If you want me to suggest how you can best do it to each other, ask someone else.

          I hope I was clear enough and didn’t break any rules in my use of puns and metaphors. If anything inadvertently crossed the lines, please remove it and post whatever remains.

        • Jim Jim June 14, 2024

          I left the Republican party on purpose. They got bad after 9/11 and have only gotten worse under MAGA. Zero desire to go back. Frankly, without either the libertarians or Democrats moving, the libertarians have become closer to the Democrats than they are to the Republicans, just because the Republicans have gone so far off the deep end. We might disagree with Democrats on policy, but at least they can still see reality. Reality to Republicans has become whatever Trump says it is.

  4. Roberts Kraus Roberts Kraus June 11, 2024

    As mentioned on FB – This is a committee of failure. If they really wanted to resolve the affiliate issues they would have appointed Bill Redpath. Bill would explain that not placing Oliver on the ballot would likely result in losing ballot access – thus the only correct action national could take is disaffiliation. I think those states then would realize not putting Chase on the ballot is not an option. But with these folks, there will be zero repercussions – go vote for Orange Man.

    So if you’re sick of this shit – then please join me at LiberalPartyUSA.org

    • Arthur Ketchen Arthur Ketchen June 11, 2024

      I agree. Though I am not thrilled by Chase Oliver9he wants too much to placeate the idolatrous savages that support Trump) nonetheless go with the civilized and Libertarian States who will put Chase on the ballot and the Liberal Party should set up new affiliates in the states polluted by Mises MAGA. When Trump was booed and flipped off at the LP National Convention the Mises gang had to figure out how(even if they are the LNC majority) how to control their enemy(real Libertarians) and spread disinformation. I surmise they got that from the horses(orange man) mouth-er that is the wrong side. I urge real Libertarians to join and link up with the Liberal Party. This from a founding membe of the Libertarian Party.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *