Tuesday, May 06, 2008

Effectively Impossible, or Impossibly Effective

News and Observer story today on the ballot access lawsuit.

That's where I have been: in court. An interesting process.

Then, there was this story in the Greensboro News and Record.

"Munger admitted"? Let me get this straight:

1. I testified, under oath, that it is "effectively impossible" to run a successful grassroots campaign under the current law.

2. Then, under cross-examination, I "admitted" that no Libertarian candidates had won?

If in fact a Libertarian candidate had won, and I knew it, I think I would have been guilty of perjury, right? Of COURSE no Libertarian candidates have won. That's what it means to be "effectively impossible" to win. The laws are impossibly effective in protecting incumbents.

Still, the reporter here is right: This is the case that the state is trying to make. Wow.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

That's hilarious. Consider the conversation I overheard b/n two baristas this morning.

B1: What are people voting for today?
B2: It has something to do with helping pick who's going to be President.

We're so f*d!

Dirty Davey said...

I think in the sentence:

"Munger also admitted that since 1992, Libertarian candidates had enough signatures to get on the ballot but did not win any state elections."

...the word "admitted" refers more to the part of the statement that says the Libertarian candidates have gotten on the ballot rather than the part that says they have not won elections.

The easy argument would be that of the Greens: "of course we can't win because we aren't on the ballot". The actual argument of the Libertarians--that the time, effort, and money spent on ballot access consume resources that otherwise would go to activities that might improve performance in the election--is more complicated than the Greens' case, and must include the "admission" that the ballot access hurdles themselves can be gotten over.

Dirty Davey said...

But Mungowitz, I'm a bit mystified by:

"I'd prefer to be in the primary. What I would like is to have the opportunity to run as a regular candidate," Munger told reporters outside the courtroom.

What does "I'd prefer to be in the primary" mean? Are you saying you'd prefer the Libertarian party select its candidate via primary rather than having a convention? To what extent is that the decision of the LPNC rather than of the established parties?

(I assume there are requirements, not discussed in the article, for a party to have its ballot and candidates offered to the public on primary election day through the state-run voting process. I do not know whether the LPNC has ever tried to meet those requirements, or whether they would have a hope of doing so if they tried.)