Category Archives: Libertarian

Billionaire reality TV star Mark Cuban was asked last Sunday if he would run for president as a Libertarian. And like a majority of Americans, he admitted he didn't really know where the party stands on issues.

Thanks to how unpopular the likely Democratic and Republican nominees are, top Libertarians hope that the increased focus on their party as an alternative will help shed light on the Libertarian message.

But many Americans remain in the darka 2014 Pew Research survey also showed that 44 percent of Americans didn't know the correct definition of the party. So the challenge the party faces as it holds its national convention this weekend is familiarizing Americans with its platform.

Here are five major pieces of the Libertarian Party platform, as well as some issues its platform committee on Saturday is looking to change for this year:

Individual freedom

The idea of individual freedom defines the libertarian movementits the party of limited government, in all forms.

We are the only political party that stands for your right to pursue happiness in any way you choose as long as you dont hurt anyone else and as long as you dont take their stuff, party chairman Nicholas Sarwark told The Hill.

This year, the partys platform committee is looking to highlight how that differs with the two main parties with a new addition to the platform preamble: Our aim is to keep the Republicans out of your bedroom and the Democrats out of your pockets, so that you can make your own choices and live your life as you choose.

That push for individual freedom colors the views of the party on just about every issueincluding drug legalization, free trade, and free-market health care, as well as the elimination of campaign finance and gun control laws.

Social liberals

The push for individual freedom puts libertarians toward the left side of the political spectrum on many of the major social issues.

The 2014 platform argues that government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships, adding that consenting adults should have freedom to chose what makes them happy.

The same goes for drug legalizationthe party considers drug use and possession as victimless crimes that should be fair game unless the user hurts someone else in the process.

The platform does not currently address the death penalty, but the platform committee has proposed an indefinite suspension of the practice, noting the number of exonerations since 1973 and the disproportional use of the death penalty based on race.

Economic conservatives

Libertarians have faith in the free market and believe that theres little the government can do to pressure businesses or individuals that would be better than the power of the Invisible Hand.

That means unrestricted competition among financial institutions as well as the elimination of the Internal Revenue Service, Social Security and income taxes.

The main argument is that social pressure and the free market will convince individuals and companies to donate to charity to help the less fortunate -- replacing the need for the government-run social safety-net -- or make business decisions to protect the environment in the hopes of being rewarded by the market for those efforts.

And in the free market, companies live and die without the help of the government, so no bailouts.

But that doesnt mean taking the government entirely out of the equationthe platform committee has proposed clarifying that victims of a companys disregard for the environment should be given restitution when "damages can be proven and quantified in a court of law.

Abortion

Despite the socially liberal bent, this is an issue where libertarians disagree.

The 2014 platform echoed an effectively pro-abortion rights position, arguing government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

But this year, a potentially contentious change recommended by the partys platform committee includes a complete retool of that platform, shifting the rhetoric back toward the center.

If adopted, the plank will declare that Libertarians believe that taxpayers should not "forced to pay for other peoples' abortions." That's a dramatic shift from the previous assertion that the issue should be left solely to the individual.

A proposal would add to that new wording that Libertarians respectfully disagree on abortion and where life begins, while another proposal would simply note that "Libertarians along the spectrum present logical arguments in support of their principled positions on abortion."

A fourth proposal by the platform committee calls to eliminate regulations on over-the-counter contraceptives to help prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Non-interventionist foreign policy

Libertarians want America to abandon its attempts to act as a policeman for a world, and its platform on defense reads like a criticism of Americas foreign policy direction. The partys goal is to maintain a military devoted only to national defense, while shutting down foreign military and economic aid.

Along with that de-emphasis on the offensive, the platform repudiates the tradeoff between liberty and security by declaring that national defense must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens.

That means vigilant oversight on national security programs to ensure no rights are infringed upon as well as getting rid of any security classification that could keep information out of the hands of the public.

Read the rest here:

5 things the Libertarian Party stands for | TheHill

For me the message that has resonated the most after the shocking events in our nations Capitol Wednesday were words that came from an organization that serves farmers.

We must come together, the message said. Not as farmers or city workers. Not as suburbanites. Not as environmentalists. Not as Republicans or Liberals. So-called moderates, Libertarians, Antifa, Proud Boys, or whatever.

We must all come together. As Americans. We must put aside bitterness. Disappointment. Outrage. We must rally instead behind the principles that forged our great nation in a time of great and desperate division and which has ultimately held us together through two world wars and more besides.

We must do this. Because we cannot sustain our Republic, and our liberty, if we dont.

I have been in the news business for going on 30 years now. And I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times Ive felt compelled to write an editorial. Particularly an editorial about politics.

I much prefer to focus on telling a good story. I like writing about farmers. Oil and gas workers. I love gee-whiz, aint that cool science. Its my goal every day to help people understand the science in their everyday lives, without ever realizing Ive taught them anything particular about that at all.

Given that I have a degree in chemistry, and the writing bug since I was 6 years old, I am ideally suited to this mission. That is where my head is most of the time. But what I saw happening Wednesday afternoon could not be denied, and it demands my words now as a patriotic American citizen.

I saw men and women carrying Trump flags, and Confederate flags, and wearing Make America Great Again hats, chanting something that sounded like Fight for Trump in our Capitol, the hallowed halls of the people.

Ill agree that some of them did look relatively harmless, strolling along a roped corridor like high schoolers sneaking into the teachers lounge for a soda. But others carried weapons. And some planted pipe bombs. A woman was shot, and at least one Capitol police officer has since died of injuries sustained during the conflict.

To say what I saw was intimidating is to understate it dramatically. It was terrifying, and I was not even there in person.

Moments after posting an article about this mob swarming the Capitol, I was confronted by conspiracy theories that somehow were already circulating. It was Antifa, I was told in no uncertain and scolding terms. A closely cropped photo of some guy in horns was posted as some kind of murky proof.

The individuals name, I later learned, is Jake Angeli, a longtime, well-known Trump supporter. The sign he was carrying, oh so carefully cropped out, said Q sent me. The individual scolding me with this proof failed to mention Angelis true purpose at the BLM rally was to heckle them, and to maybe recruit followers.

Weve reached a moment in time where people seem to think nothing of bending photographs, videos, and other details online to fit whatever reality they most want to believe in. This has not come about all at once. I have seen it creeping upon us over the last two decades in my social media feeds.

As a reporter, I have always welcomed all walks of life on my feed. Republicans. Moderates. Liberals. Libertarians. You name it. They are there. I appreciate all of them. They help me see the world through their eyes and educate me as I decide what is worth my words on any given day.

But its also been disturbing to watch over the years as alternate realities have risen to life, with such devoted adherents that you do not dare utter one word of disagreement.

I have even been unfriended over such things. The latest was when I pointed out to an old classmate that Trump supporters are not necessarily supporting him because they are racist. I thought a better understanding of why folks actually supported him might help my liberal friend understand why Democrats are not doing well in so-called fly-over country. For the record, Ive been unfriended by conservatives as well, but I digress.

Theres now a sect in my feed that firmly believes vaccines are harmful. If they were, Ive pointed out, you would see a lot more people suffering, since weve vaccinated literally everyone for decades. Not to mention, the scientist who first made the claim has since admitted he faked his study.

Theres another group convinced Hillary Clinton runs a porn ring in a pizza parlor. Still. Even after some poor soul showed up at said pizza parlor with a gun. That allegation was made up by a guy who later admitted he wrote that story just to boost Internet traffic. It certainly worked.

More recently, theres been an even more outrageous claim that Lady Gaga is drinking stressed out childrens blood to remain young. The photo for that particular myth-information came from an episode of a television horror series.

The folks who believe these outrageously false things are all people I know. People I consider intelligent. Some of them are attorneys. Others are teachers. None of them are stupid. Yet, seemingly, the more outrageous the claim, the more likely they are to take it up, post it, and then fervently argue for it against all comers. Even when it is provably false. The truth, seemingly, has no traction.

This dynamic has culminated in the violence we saw in the Capitol, where men like Angeli, an enthusiastic Trump supporter and QAnon devotee, bragged about, what to me anyway, is unimaginable. Assaulting our Capitol. Intimidating our lawmakers with violence. Talking about bullet boxes instead of ballot boxes and telling elected officials to toss ballots that they have somehow determined from afar are illegitimate or else.

The fact is that we have the worlds best legal process and it has already examined theses allegations of election fraud and found that there isnt just too little evidence. But no evidence. At all.

Charges of unfairness are serious, wrote Trump appointee, Justice Stepanos Bibas. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.

He and 90-some other justices in 60-some court cases filed by Mr. Trump and his supporters.

I can remember, as a callow youth who didnt really understand things as I do now, laughing at third world countries for this type of Banana Republic behavior. But I see now with sadness that there was nothing to laugh about. It deserved much more somber reflection than I was capable of then.

As tough as it may be to take, as angry as it may make you that I say it, we are all of us to blame for this breakdown of our society. There are no high roads here.

Maybe you are a liberal unable to understand the terrible fears that are driving the words and deeds of your Republican counterparts, which seem to you divorced from reality. Perhaps you are a Republican, doing the same in reverse to so-called Libtards who you believe to be truly evil. Or maybe you are a Libertarian, and thinking that makes you above it all, because you are neither of these bickering partisans.

But you are all wrong. All of you. I hope that what we all saw Wednesday, Jan. 6, serves as a wakeup call to you, regardless of which ism you claim.

Your opponent is not Darth Vader, and you are not Luke Skywalker defending Democracy. In fact, when you cast your opponent that way, you are attacking something foundational to Democracy, because you are ignoring the deeply felt concerns that your fellow American has. Its the equivalent of kicking a fellow American when he or she is down. And that is truly un-American.

I saw a scientific study not too long ago that found all these outrageous lies online are like mental chocolate for the brain. They fuel endorphins that make us feel good.

But its time now for all of us to stop consuming these toxic treats.

If something makes you mad online, stop for a moment and ask yourself who profits if you believe this item, particularly if it leads to something foolish, like storming the Capitol of our nation while China, Russia, and other countries that dont like us gleefully look on.

Continuing to consume these outrageous lies may feel good in the moment. But it wont bring any of us anything lasting. It certainly wont preserve our Republic.

And isnt that what we all really want above all else?

Rene Jean is the interim editor of the Sidney Herald and has covered oil and agriculture for the Williston Herald.

Visit link:

We all bear the responsibility to come together - Williston Daily Herald

If youve routinely endorsed conservative policies and candidates, but now find that rightwingers have become chauvinistic, fiscally irresponsible and intolerant, consider the libertarian alternative.

If youve previously embraced liberal policies and candidates, but now find that leftwingers have pushed identity politics and socialist bromides, consider the libertarian alternative.

Libertarians have praised President Trump for progress in the Middle East, success against ISIS, reduced troop levels abroad, lower taxes, less regulation, and the confirmation of judges who appreciate individual rights and limited government. On the other hand, we have criticized Trump when he derides our intelligence agencies, cozies up to dictators, alienates our allies, and exacerbates global tensions. Weve also been troubled by his xenophobic immigration policies, protectionist trade barriers, punitive drug policy, excessive focus on the culture wars, and exploding federal spending.

Libertarians will support PresidentElect Bidens plans for criminal justice reform, immigration liberalization, civil rights, social permissiveness, revitalizing American diplomacy, reducing our military commitments, and nonproliferation. On the other hand, we will vigorously oppose higher taxes, more regulations, affirmative action, Medicare for all, the Green New Deal, expanded welfare, free college, ballooning entitlements, ahigher minimum wage, and judges who think the Constitution is amalleable document that courts can exploit as an alternative to legislation.

In essence, libertarianism is the political philosophy of personal and economic freedom. We believe that capitalism is the most efficient and morally defensible means of allocating scarce economic resources. Philosophically, we subscribe, as did Thomas Jefferson, to the idea of unobstructed liberty within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. Governments role is to secure those rights, applying sufficient coercive power but no more than the minimum necessary to attain that objective.

Put somewhat differently, we should be free to live our lives as we choose, as long as we dont interfere with other people who wish to do the same. Of course, individuals can never be completely selfsufficient. Thats why we sometimes need rules, enforced by government, to make peaceful cooperation possible. The risk, however, is that rules too extensive will produce asystem of special favors that extracts largesse for the politically connected at the expense of the rest of us. By contrast, libertarianism relies on spontaneous ordering minimizing the role of acommanding power that might preempt freely chosen actions.

Libertarians are not opposed to reasonable safety regulations, selective gun controls, or sensible restrictions in other areas. Moreover, we recognize that markets are not perfect. But neither is government. The relevant standard against which to compare our current framework is not autopian world in which justice is ubiquitous and all inequities have been systemically purged. Instead, we have to look at the current environment versus one in which regulations would be more pervasive meaning that some problems might be solved, but other problems would no doubt multiply.

Among those other problems: disincentives to innovate, favors to special interests, increased cost, reduced growth, governmentconferred monopolies, anticompetitive barriers to entry, restricted consumer choices, higher prices, overlapping and confusing laws, abuses of public power, and excessive resources devoted to politicking and lobbying.

How, then, can someone who views the left as excessively collectivist and the right as excessively authoritarian join with libertarians in advancing socially liberal and fiscally conservative goals? One way is to vote for candidates who come closest to promoting proliberty policies. Given the current political mix, those candidates will not be pristine libertarians. But its not necessary to agree with libertarianism acrosstheboard in order to move public policy in the right direction.

Second, alibertarian movement might be buttressed by supporting legislation and other political actions that foster personal autonomy and limited government. Such support policyspecific rather than candidatespecific could be in the form of lobbying, communications with government officials, letters to the editor, or donations to likeminded organizations.

Finally, theres the outside prospect of forming aviable third party. Two obvious hurdles complicate that approach. First, campaign contributions are presently limited to $2,800 per candidate per election. Effectively, that precludes all thirdparty candidates except those who can selffund. Second, 48 of the 50 states award presidential electors on awinnertakeall basis. Only Maine and Nebraska assign electors, in part, district by district. Consequently, candidates who have no chance of winning astatewide popular vote will not be able to garner any electoral votes.

Regrettably, therefore, fashioning an undiluted libertarian alternative will take time and effort. But incremental progress toward favorable public policy is practicable, opportune, and indisputably worthwhile. Lets get the ball rolling.

View post:

The Libertarian Alternative | Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute

The New York State Libertarian and Green parties are calling foul for the change of rules for third parties running candidates in New York state.

Cody Anderson, the chair of the Libertarian Party in the state of New York, said his party, along with the New York Green Party, had filed a preliminary injunction in a federal lawsuit to have the State Board of Election cease implementing changes to Election Law passed in Part ZZZ in U.S. District Court Southern District of New York.

If we lose, and I dont think we will, but if we lose, it will be nearly impossible to get back on the ballot, Anderson said.

The changes

In 2018, the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, the Independence Party and the SAM Party all receivedmore than50,000 votes each for their candidates in the governors race. Before Part ZZZ, this secured each of them a party line in the 2022 election.

However, the rules have now been changed, according to Duane Whitmer, a former-candidate on the Libertarian line. And he said thats not fair, or even legal.

Under the new rules, the ballot access that these parties earned through 2022 was removed, Whitmer said. In 2020, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, the thresholds were changed, and these parties needed to reach a higher threshold in 2020 in order to maintain ballot access.

That higher threshold was 171,000 votes for their presidential candidate, about 2% of the votes cast in New York for the nationwide election, said Whitmer.

Part ZZZ stipulated that instead of securing 50,000 votes for each partys candidates for governor and thereby becoming a recognized political party for four years with a ballot line, that time was sliced in half to two years and included the race for president. Candidates nominated by third parties in both the presidential election and the gubernatorial election must gather 130,000 votes or 2% of the vote in New York whichever was higher to keep their parties on the ballot line.

This knocked down all four of the third parties mentioned to square one petitioning to get on the ballot that they'd won the right to be on already.

What now?

"We had had ballot status originally in 1996," said Gloria Mattera, co-chair for the New York Green Party. "We had really kept building the party with petitions of tens of thousands of signatures. We ran local candidates, myself included several times. ... We'd maintained ballot status for three gubernatorial cycles.... We're working hard to overturn this unfair law."

If the parties loses the lawsuit, Libertarians and Greens will have to collect 45,000 signatures, up from 15,000, to run a candidate for governor.

If they win the lawsuit, the party will only need petitions from about 5% of registered Libertarians or Greens in New York.

We can lie down and take it after fighting for ballot access (for years), Anderson said. Or we can stand up and fight it. Fight it all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

See the original post here:

Libertarian and Green parties cry foul over ballot change - Niagara Gazette

A cynical power play by two tired old parties.

Thats what leaders of the states two largest third-parties are calling a provision slipped into the state budget that seeks to make it harder for third-party platforms to make it on the state and national ballots.

The Libertarian Party and Green Party filed a motion in federal court Tuesday for a preliminary injunction against the provision.

The provision, Part ZZZ, is the rider to the New York State budget, passed in April under cover of the pandemic, that increased vote and petitioning thresholds required for minor parties in New York state to obtain and maintain automatic ballot access, party leaders say.

In the motion, the parties asked the court to grant a motion for a preliminary injunction directing Defendants not to apply the new voter and petitioning thresholds from Part ZZZ and continue to apply the previous party definition.

This preliminary injunction is about protecting the Constitutional rights of the Green and Libertarian Parties, but more than that we intend to protect the rights of all New Yorkers to democratic choice in our elections, said Gloria Mattera, New York co-chair of the Green Party. The move by Governor Cuomo and the Legislature in the budget was clearly done to eliminate those choices and to do so as rapidly as possible. We reject their cynical power play.

The budget provision changes how minor parties achieve ballot status.

Currently, minor parties need 50,000 votes for their candidates for governor, a mark that will allow the parties to qualify for the ballot every four years.

The Green and Libertarian parties have both established the right to be on the ballot, based on the previous rules.

The new rules would require minor parties get 130,000 votes, or two percent, of votes cast to remain on the ballot. The provision also requires qualifications to happen every two years, instead of every four.

The provision came from Jay Jacobs, chairman of the state Democratic Party. He initially called for the required votes to be set at 250,000.

Jacobs, in an article in The New York Times, said the change was aimed at reducing voter confusion and rooting out corruption.

The Green and Libertarian parties filed a lawsuit in July in the Southern District of New York that claims the new provision alleges infringement upon First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to organize, identify, and vote for minor parties under the United States Constitution, and that the new voter and petitioning requirements are therefore unconstitutional.

The suit has yet to be heard, prompting the parties to seek an injunction.

The Libertarian Party has been the fastest-growing third-party in the country and leaders say the new rules will damage its status.

We maintain that the unconstitutional actions of the governor and legislature have caused irreparable harm to the Libertarian and Green Parties, as well as to other minor parties in New York State, said Cody Anderson, chair of the Libertarian Party of New York. Rather than allowing the governor to use the state Board of Elections as a tool to punish his political enemies and consolidate his power, we have asked the courts to recognize the violation of our 1st and 14th Amendment rights, to enjoin the Board of Elections to cease implementation of Part ZZZ, and to allow us to continue offering voters principled alternatives to the two tired old parties.

Locally, Chase Tkach, chair of the Libertarian Party of Orleans County, said she, too, is appalled at the efforts to block third parties.

The actions taken by the Board of Elections are meant to suppress voters, said Tkach, who in 2019 received more than 12 percent of the vote for a seat on the county legislature. Im confident we will win.

Read more here:

Libertarian, Green parties file injunction in lawsuit aimed at state efforts to quell third parties - The Daily News Online

Flown by many protesters at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, the Gadsden flag has a design that is simple and graphic: a coiled rattlesnake on a yellow field with the text Dont Tread On Me. But that simple design hides some important complexities, both historically and today, as it appears in rallies demanding President Donald Trump be allowed to remain in office.

The flag originated well before the American Revolution, and in recent years it has been used by the tea party movement and, at times, members of the militia movement. But it has also been used to represent the U.S. Marine Corps, the U.S. Navy, the U.S. mens national soccer team and a Major League Soccer franchise.

As a scholar of graphic design, I find flags interesting as symbols as they take on deeper meanings for those who display them. Often, people use a flag not because of what is explicitly displayed, but because of what the person believes it represents though that meaning can change through time, and with ones perspective, as has happened with the Gadsden flag.

The flags origin isnt entirely clear. It seems to begin with a simple illustration accompanying an essay by Benjamin Franklin in 1754, 20 years before American independence. The image, possibly drawn by Franklin himself, portrays the American Colonies as parts of a divided snake, simply stating Join, or Die. The essay it accompanied addressed the major current issue for British colonists in North America: the threat of the French and their Native American allies.

Later, as the American Revolution took shape, the image took on a new meaning. Colonists hoisted various flags, including ones depicting rattlesnakes, a distinctly American creature believed to strike only in self-defense. The flag commonly known as the First Navy Jack had 13 red and white stripes, and possibly a timber rattlesnake with 13 rattles, above the words Dont Tread On Me.

In 1775, as the American Revolution began, South Carolina politician Christopher Gadsden expanded on Franklins idea, and possibly the red-and-white flag as well, when he created the yellow flag with a coiled rattler and the same phrase: Dont Tread On Me.

For most of U.S. history, this flag was all but forgotten, though it had some cachet in libertarian circles.

The First Navy Jack version resurfaced in 1976 on U.S. Navy ships to celebrate the nations bicentennial, and again after 9/11, though today that flag is reserved for the longest active-status warship. Its use remained largely apolitical.

In 2006 the slogan and the coiled snake saw some commercial use by Nike and the Philadelphia Union, a Major League Soccer team.

Around the same time, though, the flag took on a new political meaning: The tea party, a hard-line Republican anti-tax movement, began using it. The implication was that the U.S. government had become the oppressor threatening the liberties of its own citizens.

Perhaps as a result of the tea party movement, several state governments around the country offer a Gadsden flag license plate design. At least some of those plates charge additional fees for the special plate, sending proceeds to nonprofit organizations.

The Gadsden flag has appeared at other political protests, too, such as those opposing restrictions on gun ownership and objecting to rules imposed in 2020 to slow the spread of the coronavirus. Most recently the flag has been flown and displayed at some post-election protests, including events where demonstrators called for officials to stop counting votes and both inside and outside the Capitol building in Washington, D.C., during the counting of the electoral votes on Wednesday.

Because it is commonly flown alongside Trump 2020 flags and the Confederate battle flag, some may now see the Gadsden flag as a symbol of intolerance and hate or even racism. If so, its original meaning is then forever lost, but one theme remains.

At its core, the flag is a simple warning but to whom, and from whom, has clearly changed. Gone is the original intent to unite the states to fight an outside oppressor. Instead, for those who fly it today, the government is the oppressor.

[Deep knowledge, daily. Sign up for The Conversations newsletter.]

Read more:

Yellow Gadsden flag, prominent in Capitol takeover, carries a long and shifting history - The Conversation US

Syracuse, N.Y. About 17,000 Onondaga County voters have a decision to make by Feb. 14, according to letters that went out in recent days:

They can keep their current enrollment status in the Green, Independence, Libertarian or Serve America Movement party. That means they can still vote in 2021, but only in the general election, not in primaries, elections officials say.

Or, these minor party members can chose to enroll in one of the four remaining parties on New Yorks ballot: Democratic, Republican, Conservative or Working Families.

Lastly, the voters can also choose to become a non-enrolled voter another category that means theyre not enrolled in any party and limits voting to general elections.

The options come after four of the six minor political parties in New York failed to get enough votes in 2020 to automatically qualify for a ballot spot this year.

In past years, the minor parties had to get 50,000 votes during a gubernatorial race to remain on the ballot.

But a change last year made securing that spot harder for the smaller political parties.

Now, minor parties must get 2% of the vote in a presidential or gubernatorial year. That threshold set last November was about 173,000 votes, according to the states certified election results.

These four parties fell well short of that in the Nov. 3 election in New York.

Statewide, just 60,234 Libertarians voted for Jo Jorgensen. Another 22,587 Independence members voted for Brock Pierce. The SAM party didnt run a presidential candidate.

And Green Party candidate Howie Hawkins, of Syracuse, got 32,753 votes in New York.

The ballot change doesnt mean the parties are going away.

Also, no voter registered in these parties will lose their ability to vote, Elections Commissioners Dustin Czarny and Michele Sardo said.

If they choose not to make a change, they will still be registered and the county will continue to track their current party status, Sardo said.

That could be important if the parties re-qualify for ballot status in 2022, the next gubernatorial race.

But going forward, these voters wont be allowed to vote in primaries in the other four parties, Sardo and Czarny said.

To be eligible to vote in 2021 primaries, the deadline to change your registration is Feb. 14.

Got a story idea or news tip youd like to share? Please contact me through email, Twitter, Facebook or at 315-470-2274.

The rest is here:

17,000 Onondaga County voters have a decision to make: Should I enroll in another party? - syracuse.com

Will you be Hamilton or Burr? Major changes to election rules and attempting to launch all-mail balloting just months before the 2020 election was always a setup for a nasty, partisan duel.

And now its moved beyond lawsuits and debate. As I type these words, C-SPAN is showing scenes of protesters breaking into the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C.

Wednesday morning (January 6th), the House of Representatives was debating alleged violations of Arizona elections rules. Objections were raised to an extension of the voting registration deadline saying that under the U. S. Constitution, election rules are to be set by the legislature, and the rules were changed without legislative action. It was looking to be a pretty boring day of legal minutiae and grandstanding.

For two months, friends have been sending links with claims of fraud, honestly concerned over election integrity. Dear friends on the other side have resorted to name-calling toward anyone who even dares ask questions. One called me this morning to vent four years of anger. He said hed already had a lot of practice with his family. Brother against brother. The divisions make my heart hurt.

Ignoring questions doesnt make them go away. As Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers said in her statement earlier this week, millions of Americans have questions that have not yet been answered. Letting debate drone on for days might have helped defuse the anger. The optimist in me was hoping so.

Vice President Mike Pence has been solid, following the U.S Constitution and sticking courageously to his appropriate role. He would have kept the debate civil, boring and in accordance with the rules. But President Trump has always been the wild card.

As a conservative with libertarian leanings, I have struggled with the last four years. President Trumps administration has carried out a strong conservative agenda. He has appointed judges committed to the philosophy of judicial originalism. Streamlining regulatory red tape has been a reality. The economy was picking up speed until hit by the pandemic, although no president deserves as much credit as they are given for either the rise or fall of the economy.

Internationally, ISIS has been defeated and weve seen breakthroughs toward normalization of relationships in the Middle East. The U.S. Embassy was finally moved to Jerusalem as Congress directed in 1995, after being ignored by three presidents. We have not become embroiled in any new undeclared wars and were winding down those underway for over two decades.

But then theres the man himself. President Trump is a self-centered party of one who cant resist saying whatever pops into his head. If I had a dollar for every time Ive heard a Republican say if only hed stop tweeting, Id be paying off my mortgage tomorrow.

He has consistently been his own worst political enemy and a threat to the Republican Party. His ranting rhetoric over the last two months has been a tremendous disappointment. Legal maneuvering is the American way but a blustering phone call to a state election official is not. Exhorting a protest crowd to never accept the results of an election is blatantly irresponsible.

And then the fire pager interrupted with an EMS call. National events became irrelevant just as President-elect Biden was saying something civilized while challenging President Trump to fix what hes broken. A half-hour later while kneeling in my neighbors living room, I caught a glimpse of a caption on the TV reading Trump: Leave Peacefully.

Donald J. Trump captured the Republican nomination in 2016 by working the party rules better than any other primary candidate. He needs to follow the constitutional rules now and leave peacefully.

On Tuesday, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers optimistically supported having the discussion and airing the questions, but yesterday she had the courage to change her mind. Her full statement following the break-in at the Capitol soundly condemned the violence, saying in part, What we have seen today is unlawful and unacceptable. I have decided I will vote to uphold the Electoral College results and I encourage Donald Trump to condemn and put an end to this madness.

Take her advice. To Trump supporters, accept the Electoral College results. And to everyone, end the madness of brother against brother. Choose to be Alexander Hamilton, with the courage to pull your shot, confident in your ability to debate another day. Or will you be Aaron Burr, who sings with regret at the end of Hamilton, the Broadway musical:

I was too young and blind to see I shouldve known the world was wide enough for both Hamilton and me

Contact Sue Lani Madsen at rulingpen@gmail.com

Read the original post:

Sue Lani Madsen: End this madness of brother against brother - The Spokesman-Review

Across the globe, 2020 has proved to be one of the most tumultuous years in recent memory. From COVID-19 to the US Election, gain insight into some of the many events of 2020 with our curated reading list from theWhat Everyone Needs to Knowseries:

Presidential elections are the crown jewel of American electoral democracy, but there are some very important issues looming. Is the electoral college the most reliable way to measure a presidential election, or should we be looking at other systems? The primary and pre-primary phases are long, expensive, and arduous. There are several ways our system could be made better. Will we ever create a better system?

Read chapter five, Presidential Elections, from Dennis W. JohnsonsCampaigns and Elections: What Everyone Needs to Know here.

Commentators use few words to describe the American political scene as frequently as they use the word polarized. But unfortunately, the terms polarized and polarization have taken on such a wide variety of meanings among journalists, politicians, and scholars that they often confuse, rather than clarify, the problems that our political system faces.

Read chapter two, What is Political Polarization?, from Nolan McCartysPolarization: What Everyone Needs to Knowhere.

How is the word immigration defined? TheOxford English Dictionarystates that [immigration] is the action of entering into a country for the purpose of settling in it. The definition conveys a sense of individual freedom. What are the meanings of exile and refugee? Are all Latinos Immigrants? What is the overall position of Latinos on Immigration?

Read chapter four, Yearning to Breathe Free, from Ilan StavanssLatinos in the United States: What Everyone Needs to Knowhere.

Somewhere between one-tenth and one-third of Americans are libertarians. Many libertarians do not self-identify as libertarian. They call themselves liberals, moderates, or conservatives. Many of them vote Democrat or Republican. Thus, to know what percentage of Americans are libertarian, we cant just ask people if they are libertarians.

Read chapter nine, Politics: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow, from Jason BrennansLibertarianism: What Everyone Needs to Knowhere.

The worlds wealthy democracies all have relatively honest governments. However, that wasnt true a hundred or two hundred years ago, when they looked like governments in todays poor countries. How did they do it? How do countries escape a high-corruption equilibrium?

Read chapter eight, How do Countries Shift from High to Low Corruption?, from Ray Fisman and Miriam A. GoldensCorruption: What Everyone Needs to Knowhere.

When we move toward an analysis of inequalities in the wider world, we are required to cope with far more complex and uncertain data, and at the same time to seek simpler and more abstract theories. But to come up with a theory that has common application across many countries, we need measurements of inequality across countries and through time that are reasonably comprehensive and reasonably reliableand this is a major challenge.

Read chapter seven, Causes of Changing Inequality in the World, from James K. GalbraithsInequality: What Everyone Needs to Knowhere.

Politics in authoritarian regimes typically centers on the interactions of three actors:the leader, elites, and the masses. What are the major goals of these actors? What is the difference between an authoritarian leader and an authoritarian regime? What is the difference between an authoritarian regime and an authoritarian spell?

Read chapter two, Understanding Authoritarian Politics, from Erica FrantzsAuthoritarianism:What Everyone Needs to Knowhere.

Environmental protection is a relatively new idea. Today, environmental protection, however one defines it, has taken root around the world. Why does the environment need protection? How did protecting the environment become a societal concern?

Read chapter one, Environmental Protection, from Pamela HillsEnvironmental Protection:What Everyone Needs to Knowhere.

What climate change policies are governments around the world using to fight climate change? What is a carbon tax? What are cap-and-trade and carbon trading? This chapter will explain the most commonly used or discussed climate policies around the world. It will also explore some of the issues involving climate politics.

Read chapter five, Climate Politics and Policies, from Joseph RommsClimate Change:What Everyone Needs to Knowhere.

The marine environment covers not only the ocean, but estuaries (e.g., bays), which are coastal areas where the seawater is diluted with freshwater coming from rivers and streams, or sometimes groundwater. Much of the pollution is concentrated in these shallow coastal areas, which are often next to urban centers and other concentrations of humans who are responsible for the pollution.

Read chapter one, Introduction to marine environment and pollution, from Judith S. WeissMarine Pollution: What Everyone Needs to Knowhere.

A vaccine is a substance that is given to a person or animal to protect it from a particular pathogena bacterium, virus, or other microorganism that can cause disease. The goal of giving a vaccine is to prompt the body to create antibodies specific to the particular pathogen, which in turn will prevent infection or disease; it mimics infection on a small scale that does not induce actual illness.

Read chapter one, What is a Vaccine and How Do Vaccines Work?, from Kristen A. FeemstersVaccines: What Everyone Needs to Knowhere.

A novel infectionnew and previously unconfrontedthat spreads globally and results in a high incidence of morbidity (sickness) and mortality (death) has, for the past 300 years or more, been described as a pandemic. Who declares a pandemic? Should the pandemic classification system be refined?

Read chapter two, Pandemics, Epidemics, and Outbreaks, from Peter C. DohertysPandemics:What Everyone Needs to Knowhere.

Fear and anxiety are normal in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. We do not want to pathologize this normal fear and anxiety. We hope that people can use their good coping skills to deal with this unprecedented situation. We know we are in the thick of it, but we do not know exactly where we are in it.

Read the final chapter, Afterword in the Face of the COVID-19 Pandemic, from Barbara O. Rothbaum and Sheila A. M. RauchsPTSD: What Everyone Needs to Knowhere.

As we reach the close of 2020, we look ahead to a hopeful 2021. With the forthcoming events of 2021, stay up-to-date on the most important topics leading the discussion today in politics, health, global affairs, and more with theWhat Everyone Needs to Knowseries.

Featured image by Kelly Sikkema

Read more:

What everyone needs to know about 2020 | OUPblog - OUPblog

When Boris Johnson addressed his party this week on a Zoom call, it had all the makings of a horror show. The prime minister had, the day before, announced a third national lockdown for England an action he had once likened to a nuclear deterrent and one that his lockdown-sceptic backbenchers had previously said would lead to a huge three-figure rebellion.

Over the past six months, Johnsons relationship with his party has come under severe strain over the Covid restrictions, which are opposed by the Conservatives libertarian wing. At the last lockdown, in November, he was accused by MPs of pushing the UK closer to an authoritarian coercive state as well as failing to live up to his supposed Churchillian values.

Yet on this weeks 45-minute call something unusual happened. Not a single Tory MP used the Q&A session to quibble with the proposed seven-week lockdown, which will be nearly as strict as the one imposed last March. Instead, the questions were focused on whether it could run longer without parliamentary consultation, the vaccine rollout, and mitigating the consequences of shutting schools.

It was a different world compared to how these sessions went a few months back, says one attendee on the call.

The conventional wisdom in November was that rebellions on the issue already big enough to demolish the prime ministers majority of 80 would only grow in size. But ahead of last nights vote, aides in No 10 were the most relaxed over the numbers they have been for some time.

A combination of factors, from the vaccine to new insight on the spread of the virus, has led to a step-change in how Tory MPs view lockdown measures. While theres still no love for the restrictions, there is a sense that this time around they could be necessary.

Dont expect many speeches on freedom in the coming weeks, one Conservative MP tells me. In a pandemic when a million people are infected, there are fewer diehard libertarians.

The vaccine had not initially been enough to convince party backbenchers that hard suppression was the right approach. The new variant has changed that.

The data that is coming in is hard to argue with, says a minister. While in the past, meetings of cabinet ministers featured debates between the lockdown hawks and doves over the severity of restrictions, this has now changed. In the Covid-O meeting on Monday and the subsequent conference call with MPs, there was unity.

The figures comparing now to where we were in March were seen as particularly alarming. Those who have pushed for strict measures from the beginning are keen to point out that the chancellor, Rishi Sunak formerly seen as the chief anti-lockdown hawk has been comparatively quiet of late.

This change is reflected, too, in the parliamentary party. While there are still MPs opposed to the new lockdown they are, according to one colleague, the hardliners. And even they admit they dont have the numbers to bring about any change in policy.

Those MPs who support restrictions have often been the quieter section of the Tory party. But they have grown louder in recent weeks. Neil OBrien has become a vocal critic of those dismissive of Covid, taking his party colleagues to task on social media. While thats gone down badly with some Tories, few are in the mood for a Twitter spat.

The pragmatists can see that the situation has changed and that means our position has to as well, says an MP who voted against the second lockdown. Others put it more bluntly. Were not headbangers, one explains. The data in the past has been dubious but this time things do appear different and theres also a vaccine route out of indefinite lockdowns.

Its for these reasons that the anti-lockdown MPs are in large part turning their attention to the next battle rather than fighting the old one. Their new priority is to make sure their voice is heard in the upcoming debate on when restrictions should end.

Mark Harper the chair of the Covid Recovery Group has issued a call for the government to start relaxing restrictions next month. The questions over Zoom to Johnson from this group focused on what the UK could learn from Israels fast rollout, and when two vaccinated people can meet.

Lockdown-sceptic Tories view the prime ministers commitment to publish daily vaccine numbers as a way to keep his feet close to the fire on his mid-February vaccination pledge for the most vulnerable groups. Their hope is that granular data on those receiving it will allow informed interventions that No 10 will find hard to ignore.

However, in government the most imminent concern is to protect hospitals over what one minister describes as scary numbers of patients in the coming weeks. Theres a sense that there can be no early freedom until that pressure has passed and there is no sense yet of when it will. This is where the friction will come.

The lockdown sceptics are also keen for a roadmap to ditch all restrictions in the coming months rather than a gradual relaxation with no clear endpoint. However, in yesterdays Commons debate on the lockdown, Johnson said there would be no big bang moment he is reluctant to set any firm date for the freedom his party craves. No 10 is also braced for warnings from scientists over the risks to the non-vulnerable from lifting restrictions.

Its this argument that the lockdown sceptics are looking ahead to. Fight the third lockdown? No. For them the real debate is how many need to be vaccinated before all restrictions go.

The rest is here:

Boris Johnson's lockdown rebels have gone quiet. But it won't be for long - The Guardian