Category Archives: Libertarian

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, Washington Examiner commentary writer Tiana Lowe joins Culture Editor Emily Jashinsky to discuss her recent article, Hillbilly Elegy hate proves J.D. Vances importance to conservatism, and how millennials from a wide range of positions within the right are reshaping it.

I think that millennials have to stop letting boomers and specifically the boomer establishment hijack every movement that actually comes from the grassroots, Lowe said.

According to Lowe, there are many opportunities for conservative and libertarian millennials to capitalize on their generations distrust in elite institutions and use it to reshape the party to unite against power-hungry, money-grabbing universities and human rights abuser communist China.

There could be some unity where we see an inherently unfair system, Lowe said.In a sane world, China should be the unifying issue.

Quite frankly, there is a niche issue for everyone in there, she added.

Read more from the original source:

From Libertarians To Nationalists, Millennials Are Shaping The New Right - The Federalist

Libertarian party Girchi is known on the Georgian political scene for its original approach. It appears to have a growing appeal among younger voters tired of the more mainstream parties.

December 4, 2020 - Eva Modebadze- Articles and Commentary

Photo: eflon flickr.com

In many old and new democracies, the politicalnihilism of young people is a serious concern. Many young people find itchallenging to navigate the advancement of populist ideologies, economictension, fake news, media manipulation and distrust in politics at large. Inemerging Eastern European democracies, where for a long time politics has beenmonopolised by Soviet-style governance, young people have been marginalisedfrom meaningful political participation and disillusioned by the traditionalconduct of politics. While young peoples distrust in political institutionsoften results in lower turnout in elections and lowparticipation in local or national politics, one small political party in post-SovietGeorgia may have found a solution. This party is called Girchi, whichtranslates from Georgian to pinecone a symbol of freshness and enlightenment. Girchi, after just fouryears of political existence, mainly supported by young people, won 2.9 percent of the vote in the 2020 parliamentary elections. Even though most of the oppositionparties including Girchi declared the elections rigid and refused to enter theparliament, it does not change the fact that the party managed to secure atleast four mandates in the 150-strong parliament, outnumbering many larger andexperienced political parties.

Libertarian Girchi is well-known for its grotesque and extraordinary, even slightly freakish, actions, such as opening a brothel in its headquarters, planting marijuana seeds, begging for money at the presidential palace in protest, renting out the leader Zurab Japaridze for New Years Eve, placing a campaign Ad on PornHub and establishing a religious organisation with the sole purpose of helping young men avoid compulsory military service. However, behind its outlandish behaviour, Girchi has a clear political agenda based on libertarianism and classical liberalism advocating for liberty as a fundamental principle, small and transparent government with less bureaucracy and economic liberalism. Girchis liberal democratic formula is simple: economic deregulation leads to prosperity, and prosperity is a prerequisite of democracy and welfare.

Of course, itwould be wrong to assume that we need parties like Girchi because they offersolutions to various crises that current political systems face. Girchissuccess formula seems even too simplistic deregulationof the economy cannot be the panacea for the countrys prosperity. Moreover,Girchi has little to offer when it comes to healthcare, social security,womens participation in politics and environmental problems. However, the politicalpluralism that Girchi offers is essential in challenging the conception thatpolitics is the work of men and women in suits. With its open distrust in Soviet-style biggovernment and the old-fashioned way of conducting politics, on numerousoccasions the party has presented itself as a channel for Georgian youthpolitical participation. With its honesty, complete absence of populism anddevotion to the partys liberal ideals, Girchi managed to enter the mainstream,bringingfreshness into redefining and challenging how politics can and should be done. By that, Pinecone has become anacceptable political force not only to those with the same outlook on politics,but also to some die-hard leftists like myself.

Explaining Girchis success

Before trying to understand Girchis success amongst the young population, the term youth needs to be defined. Who is the youth in Georgia? There are at least three widely-used definitions of youth as a life stage, as a social group and as a generation. In Georgia, youth can be primarily defined as a generation of people born after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the independent country of Georgia. If we borrow the EUs usage of the term, this classification combines Generation Y people born in the 1990s and Generation Z (born in the 2000s).

Young people are considered to be holders of certainvalues and attitudes, sometimes completelydifferent from those of older generations. Some studies underline that youthtend to be more progressive and democratic. This is especially visible in manypost-Soviet states, including Georgia. Even though young peoples values andattitudes largely depend on the social groups and institutions in which theysocialise, with increasing access to the internet and digitalisation, youngpeople are less dependent on the social groups around them, whether it befamily, friends or local community. The changes brought by wide access toinformation and, of course, the disappearance of Soviet ideology made the youthmore independent decision-makers.

Girchi successfully took advantage of rapiddigitalisation and based its pre-election campaign entirely on the internet. Bydoing this, the party also made an indirect focus on younger supporters, whoare generally more digitally-educated consumers of the internet. Interestingly,for the 2020 parliamentary elections Girchi refused to have paid commercialson TV, billboards or any other paid advertisements. Instead, the party basedits entire campaign on GirchisFacebook Page,attracting supporters with creative videos and hashtags # (#historicalvideos) and # (#girchiintheparliament).The leader of the party, Zurab Girchi Japaridze (who added Girchi as his middlename as a tribute to the party), explained this decision by simply statingthat Facebooks free platform was the way to go since they did not haverecourses for an expensive election campaign. It has to be mentioned thatGirchi functions entirely from donations. The list of donors is transparent andavailable to the broader public. Furthermore, after donating, each donorbecomes Girchis partner and gets GeD (Girch Digital Currency) equivalent to thedonated amount, which means that every donor gets involved in Girchispolitical functioning.

The leader of the party explained the partys success by stating, Girchi has the most sincere and heartfelt supporters, who believe in the party idea. Japaridze says that none of the other political parties in Georgia have as many people sincerely devoted to the core idea as they do in Girchi. Indeed, Girchis internet campaign was the opposite of populism and was entirely dedicated to ideas of classical liberalism. Instead of giving appealing promises about social benefits in a country where the average salary is around 300 euros, Girchi advocates for an idea that is not very popular state deregulation in every aspect, letting the invisible hand decide.

With not so appealing messages for the wider public, Girchi has been an avid advocate of the youths increased participation in politics. The party even released a video explaining what happens when young people do not vote. The video narrates, Just because you do not go to elections, politicians give promises to your grandmas and grandpas. Because young people do not vote, informs Girchi, politicians target older voters by focusing on raising pensions. The video claims that the fact that politicians are neither speaking to nor caring about young people getting a better education, having decent jobs nor enjoying their lives is the result of young people not voting in elections. Japaridze believes Girchi is the party of the future, and hopes to attract voters who support decentralisation and minimalisation of state power. Girchis pacifist rhetoric and active support of non-violence in a country with two unresolved territorial conflicts and the experience of civil war proved successful among younger liberal-minded youth. Asked the question of which political party stands closest to you, 40 per cent of Georgians aged between 18-35 say that there is no party, while 5 per cent support Girchi, making it the third party after the two mainstream parties Georgian Dream and United National Movement. Amongst supporters of Girchi, not surprisingly, 84 per cent are aged between 18-35, 12 per centbetween 36-55 and only 4 per cent above 56.

Which party is closestto you? (2019)

Source:CRRC, Caucasus Barometer

Why do we need parties like Pinecone?

So why do we need parties like Girchi? There is nodoubt that citizens inclusive political participation and their ability toinfluence political decision-making is one of the key tenets of democraticpolitics. Increased inclusion of the youth in the formal political process notonly upholds key principles of democracy, but also increases representativeness.That is why liberal-minded parties like Girchi are essential in building thetrust of younger voters in the political system, empowering them to participatein formal political processes and offering a brand-new outlook on the conductof politics, without challenging core democratic values.

Throughout recent decades, European politics has seen increasing popularity of far-right and far-left populist parties. Anti-globalisation, Euroscepticism, protectionism, objection to elitism and support for expanding the welfare state have been common features of parties from both ends of the ideological spectrum. Considering these trends, post-Soviet Georgias Girchi has the potential to become an example of how to bring freshness into staggering European democracies and unite the youth around core libertarian principles. Even though Girchis socially-irresponsible policies, support for marijuana legalisation and other ludicrous statements make it unattractive to older generations, especially in conservative Georgia, it is important that Girchi offers a solution for disenfranchised and disillusioned youth to see alternative politics without having to resort to radical forms of populism or complete nihilism. Girchis anti-establishment attitudes are not just old wine in a new bottle Pinecone utilises a completely new toolkit for alternative politics. This new toolkit is based on strong support for the idea that creativity can be useful in attracting youth to meaningful political participation and lending their voices to the formal decision-making process.

Eva Modebadzeis a postgraduate student at the International Masters programme in Central and Eastern European, Russian and Eurasian Studies (CEERES) at the University of Glasgow, UK. Her particular field of interest includes gender and security studies in the post-Soviet space.

Dear Readers -New Eastern Europe is a not-for-profit publication that has been publishing online and in print since 2011. Our mission is to shape the debate, enhance understanding, and further the dialogue surrounding issues facing the states that were once a part of the Soviet Union or under its influence.But we can only achieve this mission with the support of our donors.If you appreciate our work please consider making a donation.

Georgia, Georgian politics, South Caucasus, Youth

Read more:

Pinecone: The fringe political party saving the youth from political nihilism in Georgia - New Eastern Europe

Here at Reason, we're gonna need a bigger website to keep fighting for free minds and free markets.

Welcome to Day 2 of Reason's annual webathon, when we ask you to make fully tax-deductible donations to support our print, online, video, and audio journalism that promotes a principled, libertarian vision of the world. If you like our articles, videos, podcasts, and media appearances, please dig deep to help us increase the quality and quantity of our output. We're hoping to raise $200,000, all of which will go to publishing more articles, videos, and podcasts.

Go here to get info on swag associated with different giving levels and to make secure donations in everything from dollars to Bitcoin. We can't do it without youand we wouldn't want to, either (yes, we read the comments, emails, messages, and tweets).

2020 has been the most insane, unpredictable, awful year that most of us will ever live through. Between the novel coronavirus pandemic, the poorly implemented lockdowns that put the economy in a medically induced coma, months of righteous protests and indefensible looting, an insane presidential election season that just won't end, and more, we are all bruised, angry, and deeply worried about the future.

2021 won't just be another year. The battles (and budgets) are going to get bigger before they get better. For over 50 years, Reason has been your libertarian voice in debates about politics, culture, and ideas. I've been with Reason since 1993 and can say with certainty that your donation this time around is more important than ever. So please, give what you can.

Read this article:

'We're Gonna Need a Bigger Website' - Reason

More voters have opted for third party candidates and write-in votes over the past four election cycles. Despite this increase, third parties still struggle to be a viable option for American voters in the two-party system. The last third-party candidate to win any electoral votes was George Wallace in 1986, winning five southern states on the platform, segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.

In 2016, unlike most third party candidates the mainstream media covered Libertarian candidate Gary Johnsons campaign. The Green Party and Libertarian Presidential candidates in 2020 have not permeated the minds of American voters as widely. As of September 2020, 40% of American voters identify themselves as independents, leaving 29% for Republicans and 30% for Democrats.

Although the size of third parties could indicate their lack of significance, Sean Goff and Daniel J. Lee argue the importance of third parties and their value for American democracy in their journal, Prospects for Third Party Success in a Polarized Era. In a polarizing time in Americas political history, third parties and journeying away from the two-party system could be the solution to the hyper-divisive politics of recent years. Either way, Goff and Lee assert that third parties have historically played an important role in instigating change in the major parties.

One of the most challenging aspects of running third party is in fact getting on the ballot at all. The requirements are different in every state but usually entail getting a specific number of signatures. In the state of Georgia, 36,180 signatures were required (1% of voters eligible to vote in the last election) to run for one Senate seat, while the other was only available to qualified parties. The number of signatures varied for the U.S. House of Representatives seats, but if unaffiliated parties were allowed to run, the signature requirement was 5% of registered voters in the district in the last election.

Ease of ballot access ranges from state to state, with Georgia being notorious for its difficulty for minor parties. Arizona, for instance, requires all candidates to petition. Affiliated candidates (Democartic, Republican, and Libertarian) must garner signatures from 0.5% of qualified voters, and unaffiliated candidates need signatures from 3% of qualified voters.

John Fortuin, a Green Party candidate for the U.S. Senate in Georgia, said that the most difficult part of getting on the ballot is obtaining enough signatures, and COVID-19 has not helped.

Covid has had a major impact and unlike other states that have fairer requirements for qualifications for third parties and independents, Georgia did not allow electronic signature collection and did not significantly reduce the signature collection requirement, Fortuin said.

The lack of accommodation for minor parties in the upcoming election resulted in a lawsuit by the Green Party of Georgia.

Jimmy Cooper, Green Party candidate for Georgias 8th congressional district for the U.S. House of Representatives and Hugh Esco, secretary for the Georgia Green Party, acted as litigants in this process.

The state of Georgia did not offer a good response to the pandemic. Because of the pandemic we werent able to launch an effective ballot access campaign, Cooper said.

Petitioning for signatures often requires knocking door to door and attending large events, both of which have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. At the time, Georgia was still in a state of emergency and in lock down. The Secretary of States office offered a 30% reduction in signatures needed, not a reasonable response in Coopers eyes.

It is extremely hard, and in my opinion irresponsible, to try and collect signatures during a pandemic, he said. The guidelines are already prohibitive.

The number [of signatures] are only there to keep us off the ballot, Jimmy Cooper said.

Esco shared a similar sentiment. According to him, the motivation behind the restrictive 1943 ballot access laws was less than pure. The original motivation for this 5% statue which was adopted in 1943 was to keep communists and republicans off the ballot, Esco said.

He detailed a history in which the surrounding racial tension and communism during World War II cultivated a desire to restrict access to the ballot.

Esco details the connections between increase in Black military service and ballot restriction above.

An article for the Seattle Law Review in 2010 by Oliver Hall titled Death by a Thousand Signatures: The Rise of Restrictive Ballot Access Laws and the Decline of Electoral Competition in the United States details similar ideas. It cites the red scare after World War I as a primary motivation for restricting ballot access. It says in fact, that the first elections in the United States did not require ballot access laws at all.

Third parties challenging the legality of such restrictions is not new either. Williams v. Rhodes was the first minor party challenge to a modern ballot access law, according to Hall. In 2016 the Green Party was successful in getting the state of Georgia to reduce the number of signatures for presidential candidates from 54,000 to 7,500.

The case in question, Green Party of GA v. Kemp, also cites similar motivations in the historical restriction of ballot access. The case reads that plaintiffs assert that this requirement [5% signature rule] was adopted as a means of prohibiting Republicans, Communists, and Black people from accessing the Georgia ballot. The defendant contested this assertion. The Supreme Court has also upheld the 5% ballot access laws.

Despite past success and the extenuating circumstances of the pandemic, the judge of the court case this year upheld the procedures the Secretary of State set out, a 30% reduction of signatures.

Fortuin is running in the special election race against incumbent Kelly Loeffler. He claims that the special elections are the closest Georgia law comes to a fair shot for third parties and independents. The other enormous obstacle to fair elections in Georgia and for true voter choice is the absence of ranked choice voting in this state, said Fortuin.

Ranked choice voting is an electoral system in which voters would have the opportunity to rank candidates by their preference, according to Ballotpedia. In this system, if a candidate wins a majority of the first preference votes, they are declared the winner. If, however, they do not, the candidate with the fewest amount of first preference votes is eliminated, and the results are calculated with the second preference votes taken into account.

This would allow, at least hypothetically, the possibility for third-party and independent candidates to become more of a threat to the major parties. Fortuin illustrated this using the 2016 election. Some voters may have ranked Hillary Clinton first, Bernie Sanders second, and a Green or Libertarian Party as their third option, while leaving Donald Trump blank. It is possible, if not likely, that voters on either side of the spectrum wouldve preferred a third-party candidate to the opposing major party candidate. The current winner-takes-all system doesnt account for voter preference.

There have been folks that claim they are progressive democrats or libertarian minded folks who claim you must vote with the two major parties, however you never hear the same persons who are trying to force and guilt trip citizens into voting for the major parties advocate for ranked choice voting, Fortuin said. In his view, this is inherently dishonest if they do not mention ranked choice voting as a way to solve the so-called spoiler problem.

Cooper agreed that a ranked choice voting system would aid third parties as it wouldnt give voters the idea that their only choices were either the Democratic or Republican parties.

Democrats like to pretend that they own our vote, that somehow were beholden to them, said Hugh Esco.

Fortuin claims that voting systems now in Georgia are un-auditable on purpose. Ive dedicated decades of my life fighting against corrupt democrats [and republicans] and their steadfast support of computerized voting systems that are not dependent on a paper ballot that can be audited, he said.

Ballot access requirements in terms of percentage of signatures needed to run in a race need to be reduced 100-fold, said Fortuin. He would like to see Georgias requirements for signatures brought down to as low as 63, as opposed to the 6,000 he had to collect. Many countries have no requirements for petitioning to get on the ballot. We really do need to look at best practices abroad as well as domestically to model our democracy on, he said.

Charles Bullock, professor of political science at the University of Georgia (UGA), specializing in southern politics, legislative politics and elections, was not convinced that third parties will make much of a dent in November this year. All the evidence says theres a very small share of the electorate thats not committed to Biden or Trump, Bullock said.

There could be something to the idea of a ranked voting system, however. Bullock said that he can see movement in the direction of that kind of system in Georgia. I could imagine in the next few years there would be some discussion in the general assembly. I think the context in which this will be pushed is for primary elections but not necessarily general elections, he said. Among some reasons, this system in the primaries would eliminate the need for run-off elections, which struggle from low voter turnout, Bullock claimed. I would not be surprised to see Georgia adopt that for primaries, whether they extend that to general, Im not so sure, Bullock said.

One thing Bullock is sure of is that its very difficult to get on the ballot in Georgia as a third-party candidate.

Unless a person is fairly delusional, they dont anticipate that a third-party candidate is likely to win,said Charles Bullock.

Many third-party votes, according to him, are protest votes, throw away votes, or votes hoping that in the future the party will have more influence.

Another option, Bullock said, is to not vote at all. He said hes heard this specifically from progressives, who say Biden isnt liberal enough. Some of those folks are beginning to rethink that as a result of the vacancy on the Supreme Court, he said, in reference to the recent death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Regardless of if third-party votes continue the trend of increasing this November, there seems to be movement in the direction of a different voting system. Distrust in the two party system and major party candidates could push American voters to a ranked choice voting system and into the welcoming arms of minor parties.

Meg Hansen is a senior majoring in religion and journalism in the Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Georgia.

Here is the original post:

The Trials and Tribulations of Third-Party Candidates - University of Georgia

Earlier this year, the National Constitution Center commissioned a constitution drafting project, with teams of constitutional scholars tasked with creating a new U.S. Constitution, or updating the existing one, according to libertarian, progressive, and conservative visions, respectively. In addition to the actual draft constitutions, we each submitted explanatory essays that summarized our approaches and noted key innovations. Here's a summary of what we did, followed by some concluding thoughts about this experience. (Full disclosure: The project was suggested and underwritten by Cato board member Jeff Yass.)

I led Team Liberty (as we called ourselves), joined by Tim Sandefur of the Goldwater Institute (and a Cato adjunct scholar) and Christina Mulligan of Brooklyn Law School. This was probably an easier project for us than for our counterparts because the current Constitution is fundamentally a libertarian or, more precisely, classical liberal document. So much so that, at the outset, we joked that all we needed to do was to add and we mean it at the end of every clause. As we put in our introduction, however

many parts of our fundamentally libertarian constitution, particularly those that limit federal power, have been more often ignored, or cleverly evaded, than honored, especially by court decisions that have perverted the actual meaning of the documents text. Our task was therefore largely to clarify and sharpen those provisionsmost notably the Commerce Clause, which has been transformed by legal interpretation into a charter of expansive federal power far beyond what the framers envisioned.

Of course, there have been some developments in the 230 years since the original Constitution and Bill of Rights took effect and the 150 years since the post-Civil War amendments were ratified, that have demonstrated certain deficiencies from a libertarian perspective. Out-of-control spending necessitates a balanced budget requirement (except in emergencies). Todays imperial presidency militates for a reweighing of checks and balances. We also couldnt help but add in a few and we mean it provisions just to be safe, as well as certain liberty-enhancing reforms suggested by such scholars as Randy Barnett and Milton Friedman.

We also circumscribed executive power (as did the other groups in certain ways), including by allowing for impeachment of federal officials for "behavior that renders them unfit for office." We made sure that Congress couldn't coerce the states -- the states are allowed to choose block grants instead of federal funding with regulatory strings -- while a supermajority of the states can reverse a federal law or regulation. And we strengthened or made more explicit what we now consider to be protections under the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, as well as -- my favorite -- protecting the right to the fruits of ones labors and adding a catch-all right to live a peaceful life of ones choosing. You can read our constitution here.

Team Progressive was led by Caroline Fredrickson of the Brennan Center for Justice (and former head of the American Constitution Society) and included Jamal Greene of Columbia Law School and Melissa Murray of NYU School of Law. Not surprisingly, this team emphasized democracy and equality, while pushing back against the idea that the current Constitution is antithetical to progressive government. In what was a surprise to me, however, they added very few positive rights or entitlements. As these scholars wrote in their introduction:

the original Constitution establishes a structure of divided government that is a necessary precondition for a constitutional democracy with robust protections for individual rights. Accordingly, we took this exercise as an opportunity to strengthen those structural protections for democratic government that we believe serve the exercise of individual rights. . . . We believe that embedding democracy more effectively in our Constitution will better protect rights than an explicit description of each and every right.

As progressives, we believe in democracy rather than government by judiciary, and that is why we have approached the document in this fashion. At the heart of our progressive Constitution is an accountable and inclusive political process.

The Progressives added an explicit right to vote, eliminated the Electoral College, and made the Senate more democratic. They also allowed for the regulation of political contributions, gave Congress greater oversight authority over the executive branch, and added Supreme Court term limits. And they extend what we now think of as equal protection without regard to "sex, sexual orientation, performance of sexual or gender identity, sexual preference, or pregnancy, childbirth, and all attendant conditions, including the decision to become pregnant or terminate a pregnancy." Amazingly, they also subject our rights and freedoms "to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" because rights should "be limited to a certain extent in order to promote other democratic values, including the exercise of other rights and the public good." You can read the progressive constitution here.

Team Conservative was led by Ilan Wurman of Arizona State University College of Law and included Robert P. George of Princeton University, Michael McConnell of Stanford Law School (and former Tenth Circuit judge), and Colleen A. Sheehan of Arizona State University. This team focused on strengthening Madisonian deliberation to "serve justice and the common good." As these scholars wrote in their introduction,

we still confront the perennial conundrums of popular government, of which the problem of faction yet constitutes the disease most incident to republican government, as Madison warned. Simplistic adherence to pure democracy, unleavened by constitutional checks and balances, is therefore still undesirable. . . .

Many of our proposed changes are designed to enable elected officials to break free of the grip of faction and once again to deliberate, with the aim of listening attentively to, as well as educating, public opinion, and promoting justice and the public good. To the conservative mind, self-government is simply not the same thing as democracy or democratic accountability. It is government by reflection and choice, ultimately responsible to the people themselves, but refined and enlarged through mediating institutions and the processes of deliberative republicanism.

The Conservatives shrunk the Senate (one member per state) to allow better deliberation, while limiting senators to one nine-year term and requiring them to swear an oath "to promote the common good and long-term welfare of the nation and not the interests of any party or class." They also limited presidents to one six-year term, to provide incentive for statesmanship over politicking, and changed presidential selection to a system whereby state legislatures nominate candidates and the public selects among them by ranked-choice voting. They would also term-limit the Supreme Court, while fixing the number of justices at nine. They conclude that "a republican constitution itself rests on a still higher authority. . . . the natural law, whose principles ground our Constitution and bind us together in a cause that justifies our civic association and makes worthy our civic life." You can read the conservative constitution here.

* * *

There's some commonality among the three -- for example on restricting executive power and providing for the voting rights of D.C. residents (accomplished in very different ways) -- but plenty of differences. What surprised me most about this project was how Teams Progressive and Conservative both focused on issues that Team Liberty considered to be "good government" reforms without clear libertarian salience. Wedebated adding term limits for members of Congress and Supreme Court justices, but decided not to include them because evidence from the states shows no correlation between term limits and liberty-protecting limited government. Same thing for expanding the size of the House and of the Court; these sorts of reforms might be worth considering -- perhaps they make politics less polarized, perhaps they dont -- but thats more of a political-science academic project than what were doing here.

I found it striking that Teams Progressive and Conservative both focused on structural changes, the former on democratization, the latter on republicanization. I wouldve expected both to be much more rights-centered, but maybe thats my own libertarian projection! Maybe its good to know that everyone accepts the basic limited-government, rights-centered model, though the devil is in the details of "democratic values" and "the common good."

Here's a recording of the zoom presentation of the libertarian and progressive constitutions. And here's a podcast with the captains of all three teams (myself included). Finally, here are snazzy pdfs of the Libertarian, Progressive, and Conservative constitutions alongside their explanatory essays.

Read more from the original source:

The Libertarian, Progressive, and Conservative Constitutions | Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute

Indiana voters supported Republican President Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election with nearly 59% of the ballots with three-quarters of the vote counted. Here's how the state has voted in the past. Wochit

A record 3 million Hoosiers cast their ballots in the Nov. 3 election, according to turnout data released Tuesday by the Indiana secretary of state's office.

Sixty-five percent of the state's 4.7 million voters wanted a say in the top-of-the-ticket race between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden, higher than any presidential election since Bill Clinton unseated President George H.W. Bush in 1992. That year 74% of registered Hoosiers voted.

Although Biden won the presidential election nationwide with 306 electoral votes, Trump carried Indiana 57% to 41%.

We continue to see that candidates and issues drive turnout,Secretary of State Connie Lawson said in a prepared statement. Presidential elections tend to have higher turnout rates."

Here are the number of Hoosiers who voted in the past five presidentialelections:

Hamilton County and Wells County had the highest turnout at 75%.Greene, Hancock and Whitley counties followed at 74 percent.

A Congressional race played a pivotal role in the high turnout in Hamilton County.Republican Victoria Spartz defeated Democrat Christina Hale for an open seat that drew national attention and millions of dollars in spending.

Elsewhere in the area, Boone and Hendricks counties were at 72%, Johnson at 70% and Marion at 59%.

An unprecedented 61% of registered Hoosier voters 1.9 million cast their ballots absentee amid the coronavirus pandemic. In the June primary, 51% of registered voters, or552,779 people, voted absentee.

In the last presidential election, 33% voted absentee. In 2012, 22% voted absentee.

Locally, Boone County had 84% vote absentee, Hancock had 82%, Johnson had 79%, Hamilton had 73%, Hendricks had 68% and Marion had 55%.

Gov. Eric Holcomb easily was reelected with 56.5% of the vote. Democratic challenger Woody Myers had 32.1% and Libertarian Donald Rainwater had 11.4%, the highest that party has ever received in a gubernatorial runin Indiana.

Libertarians typically receive3% to 4% in that race.

Rainwater wasn't quite the most successful Libertarian ever to run in Indiana. That record goes toSteve Osborn, who collected 12.6% of the votein the 2006 U.S. Senate race against Richard Lugar when no Democrat ran.

In a more typical three-way race, Andrew Horning has the Indianarecord for a Libertarian candidate inthe 2012 U.S. Senate race. He had 5.6% that year.

Call IndyStar reporter Chris Sikich at 317-444-6036. Follow him on Twitter: @ChrisSikich.

Read or Share this story: https://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2020/11/24/indiana-elections-2020-record-3-million-hoosiers-cast-their-vote/6412265002/

The rest is here:

A record 3 million Hoosiers voted in the 2020 election - IndyStar

Abdul Hakim-Shabazz Submitted photo

The 2020 election is over, for the most part.

Absent some bogus rantings regarding voter fraud, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris will run the country as president and vice president. Control of the Senate is basically down to two seats that will be decided in January, and Democrats keep control (barely) of the U.S. House.

Here in Indiana, Gov. Eric Holcomb, despite the rantings over masks, won easily. Republicans expanded their supermajority in the House and Democrats won a couple of seats in the Indianapolis area. And Todd Rokita happened to catch the attorney generals seat and the coronavirus in the same week.

So here are my thoughts on each one.

Lets face it, Biden won the election fair and square. Now Im not saying that there arent some minor issues or discrepancies. In a universe of at least 145 million voters, youre going to have an issue or two. But allegations of this wholesale fraud are outrageous and just straight-up ridiculous. The Donald Trump campaign has provided no evidence of widespread fraud and judges in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Nevada have already dismissed lawsuits. And think about this: Some of the places where the Trump camp is alleging fraud are run by Republicans and the GOP also won Senate seats. So if Democrats are going to cheat, they needed to do a better job.

I have to give a major shout out to Gov. Eric Holcomb on a major victory; heck 57% of the vote aint bad. Dr. Woody Myers, the Democrat, grossly underperformed and Libertarian Don Rainwater did about what I expected him to do get about 11% of the vote. Whats interesting here is that if Libertarians play their cards right, they can grow their status as a political party in Indiana. If Libertarians can keep their 11% in the next 2022 election, where secretary of state is on the ballot, they can get major party status, giving them automatic ballot access. And the fact that Rainwater actually came in second in about three dozen counties should give them hope.

In the Fifth Congressional District, Republican Victoria Spartz beat Democrat Christina Hale, once again cementing the districts GOP credentials. Although Hale won the Marion County portion of the district, Spartz won Hamilton County 53%-42%. So that margin, along with the rest of the district, put her over the top. It was also a rebuke of the Democratic suburban strategy, which we saw take place across the country.

Lets be honest here, Democrats got their clocks cleaned. With the exception of Fady Qaddoura who beat John Ruckelshaus in Senate District 30 and Mitch Gore who beat Cindy Kirchoffer in House District 89 in Marion County, Republicans won big. In addition to failing efforts to replace Speaker Todd Huston and Reps. Jerry Torr and Donna Schaibley, Democrats Terry Goodin, Melanie Wright and Chris Chyung also lost, giving Republicans at least a 71-seat majority. That hurts. And Democrats have some major soul searching to do if they want to come back into power in the next decade.

So what does it all mean? Well despite Joe Bidens win (sorry Republicans, but he won it), Republicans are alive and well here in Indiana. Of course, the trick is to govern smartly so you can keep your gains. If youre Democrats, you need to come up with some candidates and good ideas that Hoosiers will accept if you want to come back. And if youre Libertarians, you just need a repeat performance in 2022.

Good luck guys and gals.

Abdul Hakim-Shabazz is an attorney and the editor and publisher of IndyPoltics.Org. He is also a frequent contributor to numerous Indiana media outlets. He can be reached at abdul@indypolitics.org. Send comments to editorial@therepublic.com.

See original here:

Final thoughts on the election - The Republic

Were going to run a series of articles looking at Cobb County and the 2020 General Election in some detail. The numbers in the article are from the current state of the election on the countys results page. There is a recount in progress, but it is not expected to significantly shift the numbers.

This is part one of that series.

This first installment is just an overview of the bigger picture by comparing the results in the presidential race with one of the U.S. Senate races.

In later articles well dig into the county commission district and precinct levels for various races.

During the 2016 election when Hillary Clinton received the largest number of votes within Cobb, there was some speculation that those results were nothing more than dislike of Donald Trump among some suburban Republicans, and that the county was still solidly Republican.

The 2020 election dispelled that notion, and shows that Cobb is an increasingly majority Democratic county.

Democrats swept all the countywide seats, in addition to giving President-elect Biden and Democratic senatorial candidate Jon Ossoff the majority of votes from Cobb in their two races.

Lets compare two maps from the results website. They will give a clear idea also of where Democrats are strong, and where Republicans are strong.

The first is the map of the presidential race, a screenshot from the Cobb County election results web page. If you want to zoom in, find your own precinct, and see more information you can visit the interactive version of this map by following this link.

In the map above, the precincts voting for Joe Biden are in green, and the votes for Donald Trump are in dark blue.

As you can see from the map, Bidens strength was in South Cobb (including Mableton and Austell) and Powder Springs, Smyrna, Marietta, the City of Acworth and the City of Kennesaw.

Trumps votes were concentrated in the northwest and northeast corners of the county.

The total votes cast for president was 393,746. Biden received 221,846 or 56.34 percent of the vote, Trump received 165,459 votes or 42.02 percent, and Libertarian candidate Jo Jorgenson received 6,441 or 1.64 percent of the total.

A good test of the effect of Donald Trumps unpopularity with a segment of Republican voters is to compare the map above with the U.S. Senate race between Jon Ossoff and David Perdue.

The Ossoff-Perdue map above shows that the general trends are similar, but Perdue outperformed his fellow Republican Trump at the edges of northeast Cobb, and in one of the Vinings precincts.

So there is probably at least some percentage of Cobb residents who are Republican voters, but did not vote for Trump, and they seem concentrated in the more affluent parts of the county.

Below are two tables. The first shows the precincts won by Trump. The second the precincts won by Biden. To see a list of precincts with the addresses of their voting sites follow this link.

One precinct, Bells Ferry 02, was an exact tie between Biden and Trump at 1127 each, with 51 votes for Libertarian Jo Jorgenson.

In future articles well look at more specific numbers at the precinct level, and get a firmer grip on voting preferences across the county.

The second in the series will look at Cobb Board of Commissioners races.

Read more:

Cobb County and the 2020 General Election: Part 1 - Cobb County Courier

Over the past 50-plus years, Charles Koch grew his family business, Koch Industries, into one of the largest privately held companies in America. At the same time, he played a leading role in creating or supporting the modern libertarian movement and some of its major institutions. Among them: The Cato Institute, the Institute for Humane Studies, the Mercatus Center, and the Charles Koch Foundation, a nonprofit that supports many organizations, including Reason Foundation, which is the publisher of Reason magazine. Along with his brother David, a longtime trustee of the Reason Foundation who passed away last year at the age of 79, the 85-year-old billionaire became not only one of the most successful businessmen in the country but also one of the most controversial, with leftists blaming "the Koch brothers" for many of our contemporary problems.

Koch has just published Believe in People, a book that seeks to "offer a paradigm shift [that] calls for all of us to move away from the top-down approach to solving the really big problems" by instead "empowering people from the bottom up to act on their unique gifts and contribute to the lives of others."

In a conversation with Koch and his co-author, Brian Hooks, who is the chairman and CEO of Stand Together and the president of the Charles Koch Foundation, Reason's Nick Gillespie discusses the 2020 election, the successes and failures of the libertarian movement, and what Koch and Hooks see as the defining challenges and opportunities in the coming decade.

For a video version of this interview, go here.

The rest is here:

Charles Koch and Brian Hooks: Believe in People - Reason

Local communities of Brookhaven, Buckhead, Dunwoody and Sandy Springs were Biden country in the presidential election, joining other metro Atlanta suburbs in flipping Georgia blue for the first time since 1992.

Democrat Joe Biden earned about 61.1% of the total votes in those four communities, while Republican incumbent Donald Trump won only about 37.5%, according to official precinct-by-precinct results mapped and analyzed by the Reporter in the interactive map shown above. (At press time, a recount requested by Trump was pending, but was not expected to significantly change the results following a previous review that combined aspects of an audit and a recount. That previous review did not alter any local results.)

The map shows how strongly precincts in local communities leaned toward either major-party presidential candidate. The darker the blue, the higher the vote for Democrat Joe Biden, and the dark the red, the higher the vote for Republican Donald Trump. Scroll over the map to see the results for individual precincts.

Biden handily won each of the communities as well, with the following approximate percentages:

Brookhaven

Biden 64.5%, Trump 34%

Buckhead

Biden 60.7%, Trump 38.1%

Dunwoody

Biden 59%, Trump 39.6%

Sandy Springs

Biden 60.8%, Trump 37.5%

As the Reporters map shows, Trump lost every precinct in Brookhaven and polled no higher than the 50% range in Dunwoody. (Numbers for Brookhaven are approximate because precinct lines capture some voters outside of the southern city limits.) Sandy Springs had only two precincts that leaned Trump: one in the eastern panhandle above Dunwoody and another in southern High Point around Windsor Parkway.

Buckhead won the distinction of both the bluest and the reddest voting precincts among local communities. Biden took 93.1% of the vote in 06Q, a precinct in the Armour and southern Lindbergh neighborhoods. Trumps best performance 58.2% came in the Kingswood and Randall Mill neighborhoods in western Buckhead.

Trump also prevailed in some precincts in North Buckhead and in neighborhoods along West Paces Ferry Road. Among those was Tuxedo Park, whose residents include Gov. Brian Kemp and U.S. Sen. Kelly Loeffler, the Republican who faces Democrat Rev. Raphael Warnock in one of Georgias two nationally spotlighted runoff elections for U.S. Senate seats coming Jan. 5.

In a handful of local precincts, neither Biden nor Trump won a majority of the votes, including some areas in northern Dunwoody, southern and western Sandy Springs, and Buckheads Paces neighborhood.

Biden and Trump werent the only presidential candidates on the ballot. Libertarian Jo Jorgensen drew small numbers of votes in local precincts. The local Libertarian hotspot? Brookhavens Cross Keys High precinct, where Jorgensen won about 2.5% of the vote.

John Ruch with mapping and analysis by Maggie Lee / maggielee.net

Facebook Twitter LinkedInEmail

See more here:

By the Numbers: Local communities were Biden country in Nov. 3 election - Reporter Newspapers