Talk:Libertarian Party (United States)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

link to libertarianism, and libertarian disambiguation articles?

is there support to add the links? also, i can not find information about the tag added june 2010 at the top, is there support to remove? Darkstar1st (talk) 07:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

are libertarians socialist, anarchist, geo, or transhuman?

the article libertarianism cites all of these beliefs, but no mention of that here, which of these ideas should we incorporate here? Darkstar1st (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Removal of relevant political context from article

UserVOBO has twice removed relevant information about the political context in which the US LP party finds itself in the US. I believe this information is relevant for the reason just given. Any other opinions? Yworo (talk) 19:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Re below, we don't really need a poll. A discussion is preferable. Why do some editors always pull the "poll card" before discussion has even started? Yworo (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This is the page about the Libertarian Party - not about "libertarian leaning" voters. The material I removed is obviously both off-topic and misleading too, since it could wrongly imply that the poll was somehow about the Libertarian Party itself, which it clearly wasn't. "Libertarian leaning" voters and the actual Libertarian Party are two very different things, and it's disingenuous to claim that the material about the former should remain because it's somehow relevant to the latter - there's no necessary connection between the two. UserVOBO (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The Libertarian Party doesn't operate in a vacuum. The political context in which is it situated is relevant both to its results and its platform. Since libertarian is spelled with a lower-case letter and it doesn't say "Libertarian Party", an intelligent reader would not make the mistake you are suggesting, that's a red-herring. We aren't writing to an audience of morons, after all. Yworo (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

That's simply a vague generality that doesn't answer my point. The fact that various voters may be "libertarian leaning" has absolutely nothing to do necessarily with the Libertarian Party itself, and nothing good is accomplished by including that information here - it tells us nada about the Libertarian Party. You're completely wrong to assume that readers wouldn't make the confusion you mention, and you insult people (the many people) who would indeed make that confusion by calling them "morons." UserVOBO (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you say so. It's nothing that can't be resolved with an improvement in wording, which I've done. Meanwhile, I find your attitude to be a bit belligerent, so if you don't mind, I'll wait for other editors respond rather then engage with you. Yworo (talk) 20:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You call my attitude belligerent, but it's you who has restored your preferred version of the article through doing multiple reverts - not me. You've argued that the material should be included because it's "relevant context", but that's simply not good enough. You need to explain specifically why this specifc material (which isn't even about the Libertarian Party per se) is so important to understanding the Libertarian Party that it absolutely must be included here - changing the wording doesn't justify including off-topic material of this nature, least of all in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD. The purpose of the lead is to summarize the article's main points, and while you might argue that this material belongs somewhere in the article, there's no possible way it's one of the main points because it's not even about the article's actual subject! It looks a bit like puffery designed to make the Libertarian Party seem somehow less marginal - something the article has been full of in the past. See what it looked like back before I started editing it in June. UserVOBO (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to note that the title you've given this thread ("Removal of relevant political context from article") is far from neutral, and looks like an attempt to bias discussion here. UserVOBO (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Guess what, editors are allowed to express their biases on talk pages. You are. Yworo (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Headings should be neutral; that's just common sense. It would be better if you could reply to the substantive points I made above - the material you restored is clearly inappropriate under WP:LEAD. UserVOBO (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's your opinion. But you and I are only two editors. Let's wait for other editors to express their opinions. There's no hurry, after all. Yworo (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's quote the guideline: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." It's a bit much to argue that what Kirby and Boaz found about "libertarian leaning" voters is one of the most important points covered in the article when it isn't even mentioned in the main body of the article. UserVOBO (talk) 21:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree it doesn't belong in the lead, but don't see it being a problem in some other section that mentions/focuses on larger political context. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see it removed entirely, but if other editors want to keep it in somewhere, fine, keep it in. It should be shifted out of the lead, though. UserVOBO (talk) 07:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I would have to concur with UserVOBO. The material seems to be well-suited for an article that focuses on Libertarianism in America, but not the LP's page.--Drdak (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Kirby/Boaz poll

Yworo has restored material I removed in August with the edit summary, "restore material removed in August w/o discussion on talk page." When I removed that material, more than a month ago now, I gave perfectly good, clear reasons for doing so; see the revision history of the page. Nobody objected at the time, and there was no need for discussion on the talk page, since the edit was not controversial. If Yworo wants to restore this material, he will have to give a better reason for doing so than that there was no talk page discussion. Since it isn't about the Libertarian Party itself, it's off-topic for this page, and misleading too, since including it here might wrongly imply that the poll was somehow about the Libertarian Party. UserVOBO (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Although I inserted the information, I've no strong opinion here. After reviewing both side's arguments, I'm in favor of removing the information from the lead. --Galactic Traveller (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I've moved the information in the Party supporters section.

“ A survey by David Kirby and David Boaz found a minimum of 14 percent American voters to have libertarian-leaning views. Using less stringent criteria, it is found as much as 44 percent Americans describe themselves as "fiscally conservative and socially liberal, also known as libertarian". ”

Thoughts? --Galactic Traveller (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Since this is about the Libertarian Party which supports non-interventionist foreign policy, a poll which only talks about fiscal and social issues really is not as relevant. I think it should be removed to avoid confusion. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. BTW (sorry for being off-topic) I think the article Political ideologies in the United States needs some work to include a separate libertarianism section as libertarians constitute a significant portion of the population. --Galactic Traveller (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Social leaning

Everyone knows it's "Left" on personal social issues, and "right" on collective social issues. It's usually referred to as "left" on social issues, though, in spite of an editor who insists on changing it to "Center" to "Center-right", without giving a single shred of a source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The LP opposed the Civil Rights Act. It is socially libertarian not socially progressive. Hence, centre-left to centre-right.--Drdak (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I suppose we need a definition of "social issues". I would have put the Civil Rights Act as a business issue, although not fiscal. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The Civil Rights Act in the United States was not a "business-related" issue. It was a social issue, as most people agree.--Drdak (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The Libertarian Party is not socially left nor right. We believe in leaving social decisions to individuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.255.227 (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Having looked more closely, we (Wikipedia) have no definition of socially liberal or socially conservative which the LP fits. None of the articles social conservative, left-wing politics, or right-wing politics have any intersection with what we have in this article as the libertarian position on social issues. I've replaced the social positioning with a ???, as we have no information as to what should be there. We can agree that the Republican Party are right, and the Democratic Party are left, but we don't have anything we can attach to the LP in the "social" realm.

As I said above, normally allowing individual acts in private is considered "left" (well, unless it wastes energy or involves cigarettes), and allowing businesses to discriminate is considered "right" (at least by some, unless it's on a "politically correct" position, such as smoking; i.e., allowing businesses to discriminate against smokers is considered left-wing). We know where the LP fits on those issues, but we don't have anything I can find on Wikipedia which describes the left and right positions on those issues. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

There are many primary sources, coming from Reason Magazine and prominent Libertarians, stating that Libertarianism is socially Left, particularly in America. I have added an RS from an academic journal to point this out as well. --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 15:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

As chairman of the local Libertarian Party I see some mistakes.

One for now is that we are "socially left-wing" is incorrect. We have some that are socially left, some that are socially right and some that are socially moderate. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.255.227 (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's nonsense. We know what the LP position is on (most) social issues, but we don't know which is left and which is right. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Libertarian Party policy, as well as the stated positions of the major Libertarian think-tanks and philosophers (like the Cato Institute [1])...would disagree with you. Regardless, the RS (from a peer-reviewed, academic journal) disagrees... If someone is socially "Right," then he/she is NOT a Libertarian...because Social Conservatism is "big government" Authoritarianism at its most anti-Libertarian aspect. "Libertarian" is not a synonym for "Conservative," regardless of what some Conservatives would have you believe. --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Political Stance on Intellectual Property

There's no mention about it in the article. However, I've got some information from the von Mises Institute that the opposition against IP rights among Libertarian thinkers is greater than among people of any other political ideology. So, what's the official policy in the LP if there's actually a consensus about it? Eyesighter (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Immigration

Some IP added some un-sourced nonsense about the LPUSA wanting to "deport" all immigrants or something, and referenced the LP party platform as a "source." The only reference to immigration in the platform is the following:

Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.

I hardly think that supports the IP's assertions. -- Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 18:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Ideology vs. positions

Re: this revert:

• Removal of that in underline: ideology = Libertarianism
  Classical liberalism
  Cultural liberalism
  Free market economics
  Minarchism or Anarchism
  Non-interventionism
  • Free market economics is either or both ideology or position??? Why remove it? From one or either?
  • Anarchism is already mentioned in the article as one position some LP members take
• Putting back Fiscal: Right-wing + Social: Left-wing
  • Left and right wing are NOT positions, they are ideologies, so that's just muddled and silly. You have a position on specific issues in economics or civil liberties or foreign policy, etc. Otherwise it's just all ideology.
  • In fact, This link doesn't supply enough info to know if source "Daniel Mosley" even uses "left wing", not to mention right wing, which seems unsourced.
  • If the article is going to use those terms it needs a section on how some call the LP left and/or right wing but the LP or many members do NOT consider it left or right wing.
• What evidence do you have that |international = Interlibertarians - which you put back - is anything but WP:OR??

Please respond with policy based arguments. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 16:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I was only concerned with the elimination of the "Political Position" elements. I didn't notice the others, and don't really have a "dog in that fight." As for your contention regarding "Political Positions," if you click on it, you'll note that it links to the Left/Right spectrum, so that section is intended to denote the "position" on the spectrum. Mosely used "Liberal" and "Conservative," rather than Left/Right, and that's the same terminology used by Libertarian groups like the Cato Institute and Reason Magazine, (i.e., "Socially Liberal and Fiscally Conservative,") and someone changed them for some reason. I'll fix them back to the original sourced information. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 16:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Caucus linkfarm

The External links section has more than enough links even without the prior campaign sites. Adding these various caucus sites will only get the article on Nixeagle's list. Moreover, they are variations of the official party site, which should be limited in number IAW WP:ELOFFICIAL.--S. Rich (talk) 00:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you for seeking consensus on this issue. First off, Nixeagle's list applies only to articles with more than 20 external links. The real point of including the "internal caucus" links, however, is just to show the different divisions within the party, so I suggest that the names of those divisions, and not necessarily the links to their websites, be incorporated into existing sections, like "internal debates".

Regards,

Gold Standard 01:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Done, but only used two. I didn't think the others really fit anywhere. I am fine with leaving the rest out. Gold Standard 01:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

There is not any real difference between 18, 20 (Nixeagle's number), or 22, etc. Nix picked a number and has provided a valuable service in doing do. Our editing analysis should be IAW the EL guidelines. In any event, I'm glad that you are working to make the article more encyclopedic. --S. Rich (talk) 05:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Introduction

The diction of the initial description seems biased and even exaggerating - "Hundreds of Libertarian candidates have been elected or appointed to public office, and thousands have run for office under the Libertarian banner," particularly. Additionally, the fact that the beginning of the very first sentence of the article mentions the size of the Party's membership and its growth suggests partiality. Though, that fact is certainly pertinent to the article and perhaps we should mention it later in the initial description.

• • That the Libertarian presidential candidates have never even one half of one percent of the popular vote might be mentioned in the leading paragraph. JHobson2 (talk) 09:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The above assertion is factually incorrect: Ed Clark got over one percent of the popular vote for president in 1980 (and several others have received approximately half of one percent). The earlier remark describing the text as "exaggerating" is also wrong: it is well established that the party has had hundreds of officeholders and thousands of candidates during its forty years. (In fact, both estimates are probably an order of magnitude to LOW.)Tripodics (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

More left than Democrats, more right than Republicans?

Can someone explain to me what this sentence, in the Introduction, means: "It is considered by many to be more left-wing than the Democratic Party but more right-wing than the Republican Party when comparing the parties' positions to each other."

This would appear to defy any logical understanding. I am assuming it is either a joke, or that the contributor meant to say the LP is more liberal than the Democrats on social issues but more conservative than the Republicans on fiscal ones? If so, perhaps it needs changing! 194.70.34.202 (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm with you on this one. I had to read it a few times to arrive at the same conclusion: more socially liberal and economically more right-wing. I also agree that it should either be reworded to explain this or removed. Would be nice to have a better consensus though, let's see what people think. Nyxtia (talk) 04:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

May I? My name is David Lango. It makes perfect sense to me. A lifelong registered Democrat disillusioned with our recent involvement in Libya prompted me to change my voting registration twice. I registered as a Republican so I could vote for Ron Paul in the California Primary, and then changed my voting registration to Libertarian after Ron Paul was dismissed by the GOP at the RNC. The Delegates from Maine were not even seated, and Boehner ignored the voice vote on Minority Rules. To present the facade of unity behind the establishment's pick, in order to avoid the brokered Convention we all deserved, enraged me. I voted for Gary Johnson Nov. 6, 2012 who said it best in his speech at the Tampa Bay Sun Dome, to answer your "more conservative (BALANCE THE FEDERAL BUDGET NOW!) and more liberal (LEGALIZE MARIJUANA NOW!)"? questioning of leftwing vs. rightwing.

I am personally disturbed to see the word "Democracy" in the first paragraph. It is horrible to me, that we are taught this word Democracy, as our founding fathers deliberately dismissed Democracy, and intended to give us a Republic ruled by law, law that keeps the government in check, and the people freer.

I attended a Ron Paul fundraising dinner event at the Ayres Hotel, Los Angeles May 1, 2012, where he was taking questions from the audience. His reply about less government regulation was to replace the present effort to create thousands of pages of regulations with a simple focus on enforcing laws and contracts, and prosecuting fraud.

The Libertarian Party achieved "looney-bin" status, in part from slander and avoidance by the complicit Mainstream Media's effort to disseminate the disinformation dictated by it's owner, the House of Rothschild, who for centuries have spewed the confusion created by this modern interpretation of the political spectrum of Left vs. Right. A more accurate interpretation of political spectrum would be a linear scale of 100% total government down to anarchy at 0%. Democracy is a rule by the majority and the early Greeks are evidence of it's failure as a form of government, and is why you will not find the term "Democracy" in the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, or in any State Constitution, as our founding fathers were fully aware of it's danger.

Until we put an end to the Federal Reserve, our form of government will resemble an Oligarchy, which is rule by a small group of global bankers.

It is not without personal trepidation that I consider the Libertarian Party to reflect my political views, as I would have registered with the Constitutional Party had Virgil Goode appeared on my California ballot.

I dedicated my page at http://lango.us to discussing political ideology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Joseph Lango (talk • contribs) 14:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

More Socially Liberal Than Democrats, More Fiscally Conservative Than Republicans...

A bunch of Know-Nothings keep changing the intent and meaning of the original statement in the lead, turning it into a sentence completely without meaning. As I have returned it to its original intent, it now says that the LP is more socially/culturally Liberal than Democrats, and more fiscally Conservative than the Republicans. The way it had been changed made it lose any semblance of meaning. Gary Johnson, in many interviews, re-iterated this idea of his (and by extension, the LP's) platform being this way. I remember him saying it on The Daily Show, and plenty of references are on the Internet. [2]. -- Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 13:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Left-libertarianism within the LP

Many members of the LP Radical Caucus identity as left-libertarian. In fact, the founder of the first manifestation of the caucus, Samuel Edward Konkin III, was the creator of agorism which many view as a form of left-libertarianism. Many agorists remain in the LP and the caucus today. I feel that left-libertarianism should be added as an internal faction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.211.75.253 (talk) 05:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

This may be true, but you need to cite your sources per WP:V and WP:FN. Make sure they are reliable, independent, secondary sources. Gold Standard 05:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall SEK III as being a member of the LP. Citation, please? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

According to the article for the LPRadicals caucus, he was the founder of one of its first manifestations. This would mean he was in the party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.123.72 (talk) 04:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Northwest Florida Libertarian Party

Would it permissible to link to the NFLP? It is a subset of the Libertarian Party of Florida. http://libertarianpoc.org/ PeaceDollar (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Link to it from the Florida LP article, not here. Linking here would entail linking every county party in existence.Libertopia (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Libertarianism vs. Right-Libertarianism

Given the wide variety of currents comprising modern libertarianism, shouldn't some qualifier be added to "Libertarian" in the ideology box? While it might be generally implied that this party advocates a laissez-faire/propertarian form of libertarianism by the mention of classical and economic liberalism further down the list, it nevertheless stood out as a potentially misleading statement to just refer to the general idea of libertarianism when there quite a few strains of libertarianism quite different than the sort advocated by this party (libertarian socialism, social ecology, etc.) I realize that in discussions concerning the "left" or "right" label as they apply to the two dominant parties that the attaching of qualifiers or spectrum positions to a party is a contentious issue; I'm not referring to an overall assignment of a spectrum position, just something that indicates this party's more or less minarchist-capitalist and propertarian stance within the broader context of libertarian philosophy. I will, of course, wait for feedback before adding anything, and anything I might then add will be reputably sourced. Not a big deal really, just thought I'd bring it up for specificity's sake. --Apjohns54 (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that the party is not representative of the whole of libertarian thought. As of now, I would agree that minarchist is the best term for the party. They have been moving more and more towards the libertarian-conservative train of thought lately, especially with the nomination of Bob Barr and the victory of the reform caucus. But I can tell you for a fact that most party members will flip shit if you apply a left or right label. --Estrill5766 (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely about the use of a linear spectrum location as a qualifier; in retrospect, it was a regrettable word choice. I have since gone over the talk page archives, and it seems that this subject has for the most part been addressed before. The same conclusion was reached about the use of a spectrum position as a qualifier for the type of libertarianism espoused by the party, and I guess the matter was dropped at that, which as far as "left" and "right" are concerned, I'm going to do here as well. I still think that the far more informative and far less controversial idea of stressing a minarchist or propertarian consensus within the LP would contribute useful information, and would therefore be justified. --Apjohns54 (talk) 02:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course it should be "right-libertarianism." Libertarianism is a left-wing thing in the rest of the world and this party is right-wing. People are always saying that Americans have no idea what "Libertarian" means, well Wikipedia isn't helping the situation. --sbrianhicks (talk)

It seems the problem here is that we don't have a mechanism for deciding what the right definition of a word is. When they conflict, who wins: the European or the American? If 2% hear "libertarian" and think "socialist", while the other 98% think "free markets", does that mean two separate articles, or does it mean one article with 50% coverage to the non-popular understanding of the term? 99.62.174.117 (talk) 00:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

While the party does attract a significant number of what Americans think are right-wingers, that does not qualify its ideology. For now I'll remove the "right" from the infobox. hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 00:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There are different meanings to terminology. Liberal in much of the world is in the classic meaning and is considered right wing while in the US it is in the social liberal meaning and is considered left wing. I suppose if the world wanted some uniformity than US liberals would need to change to social democrats or green, libertarians would need to change to liberal, conservatives would need to change to liberal-conservative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.146.64 (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Libertarianism in the US basically refers to forms of classical liberalism. In the US liberalism is use by the left social liberals so the US classic liberals use libertarian or conservative unlike much of the rest of the world were liberal means right wing and classic liberal. Basically US liberal equals EU social democrat, EU liberal equals US libertarian and conservative, US libertarian and conservative equals EU liberals, EU libertarian equals US anarchists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.255.227 (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I reject the POV that the Libertarian Party (LP) is a right-wing party. I reject the point-of-view (POV) that classical liberalism, propertarianism, anarcho-"capitalism," or advocacy for a free market are in any way right-wing. I reject the POV that support for huge governmental interventionism is anything other than right-wing, as well as the POV that opposition to huge governmental interventionism is anything other than left-wing.

Everyone agrees that the LP is left-wing on its foreign policy and its social policy, and the only reason anybody ever calls it right-wing is because of its economic policy. The LP supports replacing government aid with mutual aid (which was originally considered a left-wing idea, not a right-wing idea), slashing taxes (which was originally a left-wing agenda, not a right-wing agenda), and replace unworkable government regulations (which typically insulate big business from competition, and thus increases wealth disparity) with the natural self-regulation that spontaneously arises from market forces.

The libertarian objective is clearly left-wing. The libertarian (laissez-faire) means of achieving the libertarian objective was once considered left-wing, just as the conservative (interventionist) means was once considered right-wing. Then, one day, state socialists decided to adopt the right-wing, conservative tools of central planning to try to achieve their left-wing, liberal objectives. Classical liberals and libertarians, while sharing these liberal goals, reject the view that central planning will or even can achieve anything other than conservatism, stagnation, and a culture of status rather than equality. It seems the only reason libertarians or the LP are ever called "right-wing" is that, once upon a time, state socialists adopted classically-right-wing tactics while still labelling themselves "left-wing," forever after making people think that the classically-left-wing tactics of fighting state power was somehow "right-wing."

In conclusion, I vote against labelling the LP "right-libertarian."

Allixpeeke (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Please add mascot

Please add mascot: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Libertarian_Party_Porcupine_%28USA%29.svg Lance W. Haverkamp (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Duplication of list of state parties

The list of state Libertarian Parties is duplicated at List of state Libertarian Parties in the United States and Libertarian Party (United States)#State and territorial parties. I was going to redirect the former to the latter, but then it occurred to me that perhaps the inverse (using summary style) might be preferable. Obviously there's no need for the content to be in two places, so where do people think it ought to be? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Third?

I've seen current sources for 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th. In addition the the Constitution Party (United States) , which (in terms of official membership) is essentially a CA-state only party, the Green Party may have more members, and there's a NY-state only party. However, we need to report what is said in reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Provide reliable sources that give other numbers and editors can decide which are most reliable. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

This news google search will have a number of sources. Try to figure out which are the most reliable and recent. Vin S. is just repeating what every one says. Try ballot access news. They probably have pretty good info. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Ballot Access News says "5th", but the data says "6th"; the NY Independence Party, whether or not combined with the Reform party, is 4th, exceeding both the Green Party and the Libertarians. We need a self-consistent recent source. Replacing with "said to be 3rd", until we can figure out what's going on. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Footnote 1 and footnote 26 contradict each other, which is a significant problem. I have never seen a footnote like 1 (or2) anywhere else on wikipedia and I think its mere existence calls into question the entire sites objectivity. Third Largest should be replaced with something like "Major U.S. Alternative Party" or the accurate "6th" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.219.43.178 (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Footnote 26[3] is raw, primary data: "EARLY 2008 REGISTRATION TOTALS". Many of the sources in Footnote 1 are more recent and most are more authoritative. The "Registration by party" section should probably be rewritten to reduct the weight of the single source.   Will Beback  talk  17:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

If Ballot Access News is reliable, reporting that the LP is the 6th-largest party falls under WP:CALC; although only the Green Party resembles a "national party". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Applying WP:CALC to the December 2010 Ballot Access News reporting October 2010 figures, pulling out parties specifically named in the "Other" column with over 100,000 members,

1. D 43,140,758
2. R 30,700,138
3. AIP/Constitution 476,669 (almost all in California)
4. !NY Independence 426,005
5. L 278,446
6. !FL Independent Party 262,116
7. G 246,145
8. !NY Conservative 148,412

So, among national parties, the LP may well be third, although 5th among all parties and 4th of 6 in California. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• I mostly do reliable sourcing work, and I was drawn here by a discussion of Verifiability not Truth. Footnote two is a mess. You could probably rely simply on the two textbooks. There are a number of red flag unreliable-for-politics sources used in that footnote, and it would make me suspicious of the rest of the article. When people source by a litany, it discredits the point they're making. I'm fairly worried about the CALC stuff above, CALC'd material certainly isn't as reliable as academic texts for this. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the proposal that "When people source by a litany, it discredits the point they're making", so long as the individual citations each support the assertion. It makes no sense to me that providing two citations in support proves a point while providing 20 disproves it.

The BAN page is raw information. Party affilitiation at time of voter registration is not synonymous with party membership. State parties are not the same as national parties. 2008 is not the same as 2011. And so on. We should use the best available sources, and it's hard to see how our own calculations from a single table should be used to trump the considered conclusions of expert journalists and scholars.   Will Beback  talk  21:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It is misleading to rank U. S. political parties solely on the basis of the number of voters "registered" in each party by the various state Boards of Election. Election law varies greatly from state to state, some states do not even allow registration in certain ("unrecognized") parties, and there are many other reasons for supporters of a 3rd party to "register" in a major party (e.g. ballot access restrictions, participation in primary elections, being considered for government jobs, etc.)

Membership figures are likewise misleading because they indicate little more than financial support (i.e. dues payments) and many activists neither join nor pay dues directly to the party they support. Furthermore, some national and state parties do not have "memberships" or dues, and the major parties rarely disclose the number of voters who actually send financial support to the party (as opposed to campaign contributions).

The best measures of party "rank" would come from vote totals and number of members holding elective office (and I believe the Libertarian Party clearly comes in third by both of these measures!) Tripodics (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

According to The Tampa Bay Times,[4] the Libertarian Party may have the third-most registered members of any national political party. There are at least two political parties who only exist in one state each that have more registered members. The statement in the article would be correct if worded to only include national political parties. ~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Libertarian Party of California

Article (Libertarian Party of California) has no sources and information appears dated. It is questionable if there is sufficient notability for a stand alone article. To be honest, I seriously considered an AfD nom for this. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Slightly edited to clarify which article I am talking about. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, i think Ad Orientem is suggesting that the currently separate article Libertarian Party of California be redirected and merged into Libertarian Party (United States). At this point, the California article has no significant encyclopedic information, so I agree it should be redirected/merged, unless or until someone develops more material specifically about the California group, with acceptable supporting sources.--doncram 02:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with the same caveat as Doncram. Dougweller (talk) 06:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. M Carling 07:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Stubs should be expanded, not eradicated. -- 96.226.106.170 (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC regarding Stefan Molyneux

An RfC regarding Stefan Molyneux is here. – S. Rich (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Minarchists, really?

Of course the LP isn't a socialist party, however you're going out on a limb saying that the LP is minarchist. Minarchist beleive in a nearly non-existent state, where the market makes the rules and protects the rights of individual. There is absolutely nothing to back up this idea of the LP being "minarchist". Shall we change the Socialist Party USA description to label them as communists? Napkin65 (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes -- really. Did you read the first part of the ""Principle" vs. "Pragmatism" debate". Libertarian Party ideological debates have been between minarchists and anarchists. This is a debate I watched flame up in my own local LP just this week. Join your local LP -- you might learn something about it! 99.62.174.117 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC).

I concur. The modern LP does believe in very minimal government in all areas of society. That is the truth. Besides, didn't you know that they had a big internal argument about whether or not they believed in the state at all? The Dallas Accord fixed that, with the anarchists finally being marginalized. I am sorry if you were fooled by their propaganda machine into believing that they were in any way moderate. --Drdak (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Most LP members are minarchists. About one-in-ten of us are anarchists. I've no problem labelling the LP a minarchist party, despite my being an anarchist member thereof. Allixpeeke (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

We Libertarians are minarchists. The extreme viewpoint is "anarcho-capitalism." There are some anarcho-capitalists in the party, but they are not the norm; minarchism is normative for Libertarianism. --Lance W. Haverkamp (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Libertarian Party (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070416112128/http://www.lp.org:80/lpnews/article_769.shtml to http://www.lp.org/lpnews/article_769.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120313112908/http://www.ca.lp.org/lp20090420.shtml to http://www.ca.lp.org/lp20090420.shtml
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.lp.org/platform
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.lp.org/platform/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Symbols

I entered some info about the porcupine being used as a symbol of libertarianism in the U.S. (the reasoning is that it is defensive and doesn;t attack but when attacked the results can be brutal). Many people have accepted this rather than the penguin as a symbol because they too feel as though the porcupine is a good symbol for their live and let live attitude and their philosophy. Why was this taken down? I was under the impression this was a growing symbol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.202.88.131 (talk) 06:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! The porcupine is overwhelmingly the mascot for Libertarianism in the USA. The Statue of Liberty on the official party seal is not really a "mascot." The penguine has been abandoned most everywhere. Here's the porcupine Wikimedia link if we want to get it back on the page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Libertarian_Party_Porcupine_(USA).svg --Lance W. Haverkamp (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The Libertarian Party adopted a new logo The Libertarian Party adopted a new logo and the page should no longer be displaying the obsolete logo. http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/07/lnc-selects-new-logo/ http://www.lp.org/newlogo WCLibertarian (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)WCLibertarian

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Libertarian Party (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120804203026/http://www.mi.lp.org:80/default.aspx to http://www.mi.lp.org/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120715021309/http://www.lp.org:80/states/Pennsylvania to http://www.lp.org/states/Pennsylvania

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Ballot access in all 50 states

Gary Johnson says in this video that for 2016 the Libertarian Party is on ballots in all 50 states, up from 48 in 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.219.118 (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

He's just being hopeful. The LP is on the ballot in 31 states at the moment. That's on the high side for 3rd parties at this point in the cycle. The Green Party is currently on in 22 and the Constitution in 15. Four years ago at this time the LP was on in 29 states, the GP in 16, and the CP in 12. So the hope is that they'll be able to focus resources on fewer states, giving them a better chance at 50 state access. But, they're not there, yet. You can see the list here: http://ballot-access.org/2016/01/27/january-2016-ballot-access-news-print-edition-2/ 00:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AJPEG (talk • contribs)

Vote Percentages

Is there a reason that all of the vote percentages on this page are in whole numbers (mostly 0% or 1%) while most of the other wikipedia pages that report vote percentages go to one decimal place and some that focus on minor parties use two decimal places?AJPEG (talk) 07:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Look at WP:%. – S. Rich (talk) 08:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

What should I be looking at? Nothing jumps out at me to explain why this page only uses whole numbers while every other page that reports vote percentages that I've checked uses one or two decimal places.AJPEG (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Disputed 1.5 million

Where the hell is that number coming from? I look at the source and it says no such thing. Wouldn't it be much bigger news if the party surpassed a million members? Ghoul flesh (talk) 03:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

An article from the Washington Examiner correctly reported that the rate of daily membership applications doubled for one day after Cruz and Kasich dropped out: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/libertarian-party-membership-applications-double-after-trump-becomes-gop-nominee/article/2590367

Where it went from double to triple, I don't know.

People are confusing membership with registration and rate of sign ups with totals. There are 411,250 voters registered as Libertarian. That number is reported by the governments of 27 states and DC. Membership is an internal Libertarian Party number that counts how many people have signed the Libertarian Pledge. The Washington Examiner article correctly reports that the rate of membership applications - people who signed the pledge - doubled after Cruz and Kasich dropped out. That is, the daily rate of people who signed the pledge went from 46 to 99. For one day. Confused people misinterpreted membership as registered voters and rate of sign ups with totals. So they first changed 411,250 to 822,500. When some other article came out that said triple, they changed it to 1.5 million.

The 411,250 registered voters in 27 states reported by ballot access news is correct. That's a statistic reported by state governments which ballot access news compiles. Libertarian Party Membership - the internal party measure of people who signed the pledge - is 135,417 as of January 31, 2016. http://www.lp.org/files/20160220_LNC_Meeting_Membership_Report.pdf

The sad part is, there actually is a legitimate story in all of this that has been entirely missed. The normal rate of new donors to the LP was 100 - 150 per month in 2015. That has skyrocketed this year and hit 706 in April.

And since I'm explaining this stuff, someone also linked a Daily Caller which talks about the same thing. http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/04/libertarian-party-memberships-have-increased-more-than-fivefold-in-the-past-year/

Not clear in the Daily Caller article, and which most people might not know, is that the LP defines "members" and "active members" differently. Members are those who have signed the pledge. Active members are those who have donated to the party in the last year. It's new "active members" which are up 5 fold this year, having gone from 100 - 150 to 706. There hasn't been a doubling or tripling or five fold increase in people who have signed the pledge and haven't donated. In other words, what's basically happening is that a Trump-Hillary-Johnson election has slightly increased the rate of people joining the LP, but mostly it is motivating existing libertarians to start donating at levels that they haven't seen in years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AJPEG (talk • contribs) 02:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The source cited [5] states has Libertarian Party membership at 411,250 while the "other" category is listed at 1,618,073. At first glance it looks like someone has mixed up the "Libertarian" and "Other" categories. If anyone has a better source they should present it. Until then, we have to go by what the source says. Alexander Levian (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I've undone this twice more (from 1.6 million). One of the edits added a new source, but as far as I can see it did not support 1.6 million either. It mentions donors, but that is not not the same thing (and not 1.6 million of them either). Meters (talk) 03:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Forgot to list the new source cited: http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/04/libertarian-party-memberships-have-increased-more-than-fivefold-in-the-past-year/ Meters (talk) 03:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

IP users keep adding it and are just bypassing discussion. I've already reverted 3 times and don't want an edit war. I added a "not in citation given" tag. Maybe we need to request this article be given semi-protected status. Apparently the people adding content that isn't in keeping with the source don't have to discuss it with us or reach a consensus. Alexander Levian (talk) 04:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The supposed 1.5 (or 1.6) million figure has been undone by multiple editors, it's not in the current source or the new source, multiple editors have posted here against the new figures, and none of the editors attempting to add it (IPs or the recently blocked named editor) have posted here supporting it. That looks like consensus to me. Meters (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

protection requested. Meters (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Unless someone provides some WP:RS supporting the new number (1.5 or 1.6 million) I suggest that we move back to the number which is supported by the source. Meters (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with that. But (and remember that this is just my suggestion) if you do change it, I think that you should consider adding a disputed-discuss tag to it and include a link to the talk page. This is something that other editors are disputing and I'd like to hear their case. The editor that keeps adding 1.6/1.5 Million will be unblocked within the next 12 hours. I would like to take at least 48 hours to see if any of the editors adding 1.5/1.6 million will join in the discussion. If they do, then we can argue it out like reasonable, civil individuals. If they don't, then we can assume consensus from the talk page and remove the disputed tag. I really want to avoid edit warring and (as naive as I might be to say this) I really want to believe that TheLibertyLover was just being overzealous and will be willing to join in a constructive discussion when he is unblocked. I hope he joins in the discussion and we can all just move past that unpleasantness. Please consider my suggestion. Thank you. Alexander Levian (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't planning on moving it back immediately. The disputed tag is a good idea. I'll add it. Meters (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• I'd say use 411,250 until there is an updated source that is not vague "double" or "triple." By my understanding, the doubling after Cruz dropped out was a daily rise from like 45 to 90, and I thought these were dues paying members of the national party. — AMK152 ^{(t • c)} 15:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I searched for about a half hour online for a RS for the higher figure, and can only find vague, unreferenced claims of doubling or tripling (of what figure? nobody seems able to verify), so rolling back to 411,250 (with a date for clarity) for which there's a RS seems the obvious solution, till an RS can be found for the newer total. Little Will (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• It appears that we have reached consensus. We will change it to 411,250. We should also remove the [not in citation given] tag as this is the number in the source cited. This is my opinion - I think that we should keep the [disputed - discuss] tag for another 48 hours to see if any of the editors contesting this issue wish to present any arguments and/or sources for the 1.5/1.6 million claim. The reason for this is so we do everything we can to avoid an edit war. If no one presents an argument, we should consider the issue resolved and remove that tag as well. Does anyone see a problem with this or think that there is a better course of action? Thank you all for your patience. Alexander Levian (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

We've been more than careful enough with this one. It was contested almost a week ago and no one has explained the other number(s) or provided a reliable source. Meters (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it's been over a week. We've been very patient. No one has presented a single argument in this discussion for the inclusion of 1.5 or 1.6 million. The issue is resolved and there appear to be no disputes. I'm removing the "[disputed - discuss]" tag since we have reached consensus. Alexander Levian (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Libertarian Party (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150907205156/http://www.dc.lp.org/index.html to http://www.dc.lp.org/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Candidates at state and local levels

it is a glaring omission for this entry to have no discussion about LP candidates who run for state and local offices, including how many do so. Nicmart (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Libertarian in State Lower house

The chart in the info box states that there is a libertarian in one of the state legislators, but the text of the article says none hold that level of office currently. Which is it?74.105.134.233 (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

There are actually two as of a few days ago one in the Nebraska unicameral and one in Nevada. Colestewart55 (talk) 07:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

State and territorial parties

The "state and territorial parties" section contains many links to the websites of the branches of the Libertarian Party active in individual U. S. states. Per WP:EL, these links all need to be removed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Membership number

It bothers me that the infobox says there are officially 400,000 registered Libertarians, when that's only the amount from 27 states and DC. I know it says so in the article, but I feel something should be done about the number in the infobox. We likely won't get the official number from all 50 states until after the election, but if someone can think of something better to put in place of the 400,000 that would be appreciated. Ghoul flesh (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

We won't ever get the number of registered voters from all 50 states because almost half of the states don't register voters by party, including some big ones that are very libertarian friendly, like Texas. It's really lopsided, although better than it used to be. 30% of that 400,000 comes from California. In the 1980's, when only 3 - 11 states reported registration statistics, California would account for 90% - 97% of all registered libertarians.

The only other number that I can think to put there is "membership" - how many people have signed the pledge - but that's a much smaller number than registered voters, even though it counts every state. Membership is 136,797, as of March, 2016. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/attachments/20160401/be374ad8/attachment-0001.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by AJPEG (talk • contribs) 10:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

That is a problem. What about mentioning that the number is for 27 states and Washington DC? Maybe there's a way of putting it to the side in parenthesis. You all think that might work? Alexander Levian (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should treat this party any differently than any of the other "Major" or "Larger" American political parties. As far as I can tell we list the registered voters from the 30 (or however many it is) states that report these numbers as the party membership. Meters (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

It's 30+DC for the Republicans and Democrats, 27+DC for the Libertarians, 22+DC for the Greens, 21 for the Constitution Party... But yeah, I'd leave it as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AJPEG (talk • contribs) 07:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Given that the data reflect only registration in 27 states + DC, I would not mention membership in the intro and infobox. --Checco (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Libertarian Party (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071011212927/http://www.lp.org:80/organization/lncdirectory2.shtml to http://www.lp.org/organization/lncdirectory2.shtml
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120221021341/http://lpar.org:80/help/ to http://lpar.org/help/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120108210932/http://www.foreignpolicy.com:80/articles/2011/12/23/the_world_according_to_ron_paul?page=full to http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/12/23/the_world_according_to_ron_paul?page=full
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080605025750/http://www.lp.org/organization/bylaws.shtml to http://www.lp.org/organization/bylaws.shtml
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060727010345/http://www.lp.org/lpnews/article_769.shtml to http://www.lp.org/lpnews/article_769.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ca.lp.org/lp20090420.shtml
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150403014848/http://ca.lp.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Platform-of-the-Libertarian-Party-of-California-as-amended-in-Convention-March-3-2012.pdf to http://ca.lp.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Platform-of-the-Libertarian-Party-of-California-as-amended-in-Convention-March-3-2012.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110919032631/http://www.advocate.com/printArticle.aspx?id=100523 to http://www.advocate.com/printArticle.aspx?id=100523
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080528182629/http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml to http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mi.lp.org/default.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lp.org/states/Pennsylvania
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120620020716/http://www.lpwv.info:80/ to http://www.lpwv.info/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Heh heh...

"All the Libertarians are. That's why they become Libertarians."

— Jennifer Horn, co-host of Doug Stephan's Good Day, voicing her opinion on the prevalence of cannabis consumption within party ranks during a discussion of Gary Johnson. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 12:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

A libertarian just won a senate seat 97.83.172.183 (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Libertarian Party (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101102015759/http://www.lpradicals.org:80/pages/home/key-points.php to http://www.lpradicals.org/pages/home/key-points.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Libertarian Party (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019111212/http://facefwd.com/libertarianism/ to http://facefwd.com/libertarianism/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lp.org/lpnews/article_769.shtml
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101102015759/http://www.lpradicals.org:80/pages/home/key-points.php to http://www.lpradicals.org/pages/home/key-points.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

As of February 2017

To clear up a bunch of confusion, because these numbers keep being changed. Caleb Dyer and Laura Ebke are the ONLY sitting representatives from the party. Thus there is one member in a lower chamber (Dyer), and one member in an upper chamber (Ebke). Also, the party only has 143 municipal and county seats. The page on the party's website that lists elected officials, is outdated. The number listed at the top of the page (145) is correct, NOT the number of individuals listed in the table below it. Since there is 145 elected individuals and 2 of them are in a state lower house or a state senate, then the proper number to list under "Local Officials" is 143 (145 - 2 = 143).— Preceding unsigned comment added by AJinNYC2112 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)