Senate Votes To Ban The Libertarian Party From Ohio Election

By: Joshua Cook
165

Since 2008, the idea of third parties started to gain more popularity across America.  Principled conservatives and libertarians united against both the Democrat and Republican establishment started to explore methods of opposing Washington elites and the status quo.

The Tea Party had some success – and has continued most successfully – with primary campaigns which put principled people like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul in races as the Republican candidate.  Once they won the GOP nomination, winning the general election was often pretty straightforward.

Yet many liberty activists have become disenchanted by the two party system and are turning to other options. Third parties have been the other option, employed for a variety of reasons both practical and ideological for many voters.

box_libertarian_party_stickers_door_hangers

Third parties are becoming more popular in the U.S.

In 2012, both the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party executed impressive grassroot campaigns to get their candidates on the ballot in most states. Both parties created milestones by debating each other on a national stage, the first ever third party presidential debate, moderated by Larry King. In this historic event, many Americans heard their message for the first time, while streaming live over the internet. Third parties around the country are gaining momentum because there is a growing outcry for real political change and people want more options than just a two party system in American.

In 2010, for instance, the American Constitution Party earned major party status in Colorado when its gubernatorial candidate earned more votes than GOP candidate Dan Maes.  After Maes suffered a series of scandals, it became apparent he could not win, and he refused to drop out of the race.  His primary opponent, Tom Tancredo, who had stayed on the ballot as the ACP candidate, quickly became more popular, and may have won if Maes hadn’t siphoned just enough votes away to seal a victory for Democrat John Hickenlooper.


It’s in this environment that the Ohio State Senate has passed this bill which would essentially eliminate all third party candidates from ballots.  In the bill, only candidates from parties which earned 3% or more of the vote in a presidential election would be placed on the ballot; all other candidates would be write-in options.  Newly qualifying parties must also submit petitions with at least 55,809 valid signatures.

The bill would, in many ways, solidify the placement of the Democrat and Republican parties at the center of American politics.  Voters must look up and remember the names – something which should be simple but many people simply vote party line, and this will create a discrepancy amongst parties – and write-in candidates must apply to be counted.  Write-in votes are also counted much more slowly than others, if at all, meaning they will not be discussed in the initial analysis of election results.

In addition, many third parties choose to build support by running in small, local campaigns before progressing to expensive and challenging presidential elections, but the Ohio bill only bases its judgment on presidential elections.  Any third party candidate from a party which chooses to focus its limited time and money on winnable campaigns would be at an immediate disadvantage.

Many Americans who want limited government are dissatisfied with both parties. They feel there is no real opposition party that seeks a responsible fiscal policy. Establishment Republicans are threatened by the growing competition from tea party supporters and liberty activists who are say they may support a third-party challenger to incumbent moderate Republicans.

A statement from the Libertarian Party of Ohio’s website says, “The bottom line is that the John Kasich Re-election Protection Act would disenfranchise every Ohio voter by taking away their right to vote for a candidate for governor other than a) John Kasich, a governor who has miserably failed the state of Ohio and betrayed millions of fiscal conservatives who expected him to follow Ohio law and oppose Obamacare, or b) the nominee of the other big-government party who is promising to double down on most of Kasich’s failing policies.”

If Ohio’s proposed law passes it will be yet another rule which helps the establishment maintain power.  The Ohio bill will have a similar effect of creating different standards for different candidates in America’s democratic process.

The following two tabs change content below.

Joshua Cook

Joshua Cook is the acting Chairman for the Republican Liberty Caucus of South Carolina. Joshua Cook's articles have also been cited on sites such as InfoWars, Reason.com, WND.com, Breitbart.com, DailyCaller and FreedomOutPost.com. If you have any tips please email me at [email protected] Like me on FB and follow me on Twitter.

  • jwhitehawke

    Ohio / D / R bastards.

  • TruthNova

    The solution is to have no names on the ballot and have everyone write in.

    • Randy Anderson

      The trouble with this is that you’ll get some screw-headed ACLU lawyer screaming discrimination against those who cannot write in English.

      • me

        A name is a name…I didn’t know you had to write a certain language in order to write a person’s name.

      • TruthNova

        Generally lawyers are predisposed to cause trouble. That’s partially why the _original_ Thirteenth amendment outlawed major federal offices from those carrying a title of nobility, include esquire.

    • lastresort09

      The solution is “Alternative Voting System”. Look it up.

    • TruthNova

      Even better, besides everyone writing in, is you get to write in a first and second choice. And if your first choice is out of the running, your vote defaults to second choice. Vote tabulation is sophisticated enough today to make that happen, and then there would be no excuse for not voting your conscience. Candidates with hard to spell names would best be allowed to registered an alternate name that’s easier to spell.

      • hotgrandma

        I have enough trouble remember the correct names of people. Go give them an easy to spell name and I’ll bet I’ll get them all mixed up.

    • LocalHero

      Even better. Don’t vote at all. Be a grown-up for once.

      • TruthNova

        You’re the most passionate non-voter I’ve heard from in a while. But, as to who’s a grown up? For once? Come on.

  • Nick

    This seems a bit sensationalist – it sounds like they are trying to avoid having 10000000 options on the ballot, however, I’m sure they could adjust their threshold so there were only 5 or 6 listed.

    • Lucky Leisuresuit Larry

      Statist idiot. It’s too tough to let the people choose…let’s just give them a few options (that are invariably working for the same people) because that’s put our country in such a great place!

      • hotgrandma

        Not voting at all is as irresponsible as intentionally voting for the worst person. Nothing even has a tiny glimmer of hope when you all refuse to vote for a Libertarian who advocates smaller government. If the voting is rigged, why do the Republican and Democratic parties challenge every single signature on a petition to get someone’s name on the ballot??? They have to pay people to do that. Why bother if it’s rigged? I will vote for all Libertarians. I personally know one candidate quite well, and she is as honest as they come. She is running only because she wants to get the crooks out of Washington. If she doesn’t run, she believes that we will absolutely elect another crook! Everyone who believes that the Democrats and Republican parties are crooked, need to vote 3rd party. At least try to get rid of them. And LLL, not every person is working for the same people. The lady I know doesn’t know any of those kinds of people.

    • Stephen Stingel

      I can guarantee that this is very intentionally designed to mitigate any threats to the establishment’s control. It reeks of corruption from what I’ve read so far.

      I can speak from experience that having a large number of names on the ballot is not a bad thing. I ran for federal parliament in the seat of Bendigo last month in Australia’s federal election, and we had 13 people on the ballot here. Our senate voting paper for Victoria was over a meter long and had 93 candidates on it. Crazy stuff. :)

      With a normal single vote system, this means that it’s much more difficult to win a clear majority of votes, so we have a two party preferred system and preferential voting. It’s certainly not perfect though, as you’re forced to number each candidate which means, ultimately, your preference will flow down to a major party candidate. This proposed bill for Ohio is along those lines of rigging the game in the establishment’s favour.

      Restricting the number of people on the ballot would restrict people’s freedom of choice; there’s already enough of that manipulation via the media and restricted “debates” that exclude minor party candidates.

      Unfair hurdles and barriers should not be put in place to prevent people from seeking office. Each candidate ought to be judged on their suitability for the job and let the people decide.

  • Zechariah Edwards

    Lets follow Ron Paul’s and the Tea Party’s example and convert the Republican party from the inside out. Elect more conservativea like Rand and Ted. A thord party option is unwinable

    • r3VOLution IS NOT republican

      Actually Ron Paul SUPPORTS third parties and the Constitutional Libertarian Tea Party HAS NOTHING TO DO with your LEFTIST republican party.

      Third parties, like the WELL-ESTABLISHED Constitution Party and Libertarian Party are THE ONLY WAY out of this republican/democrat (same thing) HELL. Well… third parties and State Nullification.

      • Tom Hanson

        Ron Paul supports third parties? Paul just ran over Robert Sarvis in Virginia and endorsed the establishment Republican.

        • ghendric

          How well do you know Robert Sarvis?

          • Tom Hanson

            How well does Ron Paul know Ken Cuccinelli?

        • r3VOLution IS NOT republican

          Correct. He made public statements in 2008 supporting the inclusion of third parties (which actually gave his lying REPUBLICAN detractors a wonderful propaganda smear in 2012 of: Ron Paul “endorsed” Cynthia McKinney in 2008 – an absolute lie). Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin in 2008, the man I voted for.

      • LocalHero

        There is no way to fix this system and voting is equated with acceptance. Do not vote. Let the system rot.

    • Randy Anderson

      We can no longer elect good and honest people to high offices except by sheer luck or intervention by gods! THE VOTING IS RIGGED six ways from Sunday in most districts, and the abominable Electoral College still has the final say in Presidential elections. So go ahead and vote if it makes you feel like you’ve done something, but in reality it makes NO DIFFERENCE.

      • ghendric

        Yeah pretty much.. I think the problem is that delegates are clumped unevenly across the country. The hugest numbers being in the huge inner city areas where poor people live and like free stuff. California is a prime example of this. This gives a huge advantage for the guy running for president that promises free stuff to them.. The last election, the Republicans won the majority of the states but the Democrats got the majority of the delegates because the majority of them were in these areas. If they were spread out evenly, we would have a Republican president right now..

        • bankrs suc

          And everything would be pretty much the exact same.

      • LocalHero

        No. Don not vote at all. Voting connotes compliance and acceptance.

    • Tom Hanson

      I disagree agree with you. In California the GOP is going to fall off the map and become a minor party. Nothing can stop this now. So a growing principled third party is the best option here. California is the future of the GOP. A sordid disorganized confederation of various political groups all fighting over a shirking voter base.

    • ed

      I agree, primarily because adding a third (conservative) party only tends to split the vote between the GOP and the new party, benefiting neither.

      • r3VOLution IS NOT republican

        Actually no. You’ve INVERTED reality. No, the LEFTIST republican party SPLITS THE CONSERVATIVE VOTE to clear the runway for their PARTNERS the democrat party.

        Exhibit A:
        2008

        Exhibit B:
        2012

        Soon-to-be Exhibit C (mark my words):
        2014

      • Me

        Actually 3rd parties take from both sides…Just how many in the GOP will vote for a candidate that wants to end all overseas wars/intervention and defend/fix our country? Ending the war on drugs? Wanting federally legal marriage equality? Ending the IRS and instituting the Fair tax program? Not making abortion a huge issue except having a cut off at 22 weeks? Not many. I’m libertarian, I’ll be voting Libertarian unless there is no option, if that’s the case I won’t be voting for anyone.

      • Brian Shank

        Forcing a voter to choose only one candidate even though more than two are on the ballot is what causes this vote-splitting problem. Getting rid of this very harmful and freedom-robbing plurality voting rule would eliminate the vote-splitting problem and permit voters to freely support any number of independents or third party candidates they prefer. Combining approval voting and making elections nanpartisan would be an awesome combination for allowing third parties to grow and develop. Parties would still exist, but they would behave more like candidate endorsement organizations and much less like ballot access political machines.

    • ghendric

      The idea that a third party option being unwindable is the brainwashing that the mainstream news media has been beating into every last American in the country. If you really think that, you have been successfully brainwashed and don’t even know it. That’s why I don’t watch the news anymore.. its a brainwash fest…

    • Jote’ Thompson

      Lets not follow Ron Paul! He never had any intention of winning the Presidency but took a lot of my money deceiving me. Now he’s supporting a neo-con in Va which flies in the face of his convictions. I’m supporting Libertarian only and taking off my Ron Paul bracelet!

      • bankrs suc

        Ron Paul has always been a wolf in sheeps clothing. He is a 32nd degree mason, ie, a nwo guy through & through.

    • LocalHero

      Let’s not. Only a masochist would vote at all in the first place. This system is the equivalent of letting prisoners vote for what’s for dinner tomorrow while the warden knows full well that chicken is being prepared in the kitchen. It’s all theater. The system is rigged and only an idiot would participate. It’s already rotten to the core – let it implode.

    • me

      Have you read Any of Rand’s stances? The reason why registered Libertarians have a chance at beating out Democrats, is the fact that We are the true middle ground…as soon as word gets out about Rand’s “life at conception act”, (I’m pro-life…but I think going after the B-pill is sheer stupidity) he’ll be screwed. Rand even voted against labeling GMO’s. I hate to break it to ya, but by 2016, the leftist brainwashing from highschool and college will have all the new voters, standing on the democrats (hijacked from the real Libertarians) idea of being socially tolerant…I have no desire to be ruled by someone who will legislate morality to me based on their personal beliefs, and I don’t want to be told what to do with my money by some lofty minded washington idiot, who was never worked for a dime in their life…I also don’t think anyone should have the right to tell me, that I can’t grow a flower in my own backyard, or that I can’t ingest that flower in the privacy of my own home. And I don’t think that a person who has never met my child, somehow know’s the best way to teach him, and the best methods to test him… I also don’t think anyone has a right to force my kid to take a vaccine, that has a 30% chance of messing up my kid for life, but a 40% chance of preventing them from getting something that they only have a 50% chance of catching to start with, and if they do get it, it only has a 15% chance of long term damage…makes so much sense to take the risk to “protect” my kid doesn’t it? It’s not impossible for us to win anything, if we tell people that Rand Paul Is Not our poster child…our poster children are getting excluded from the news, blocked from polls, and barred from debates. Most people who hear our candidates actually like what we have to say; Only 10% of voters knew about Gary Johnson and he got 1% of the national vote, so 1 in 10 voted for him (most liked him, but didn’t want to”waste their vote”). We could always talk about our options, to our friends and family and then work from there. I’ve found the our america initiative website, to be quite helpful for people who want to get to know the Real Libertarian options. We do have the power of social media now, so there is no real reason for people to be so uninformed on the next go round.

      • Mike

        Yeah, preventing murder (abortion) is “legislating morality”.

        • me

          Actually, I was referencing Rand’s full support of the war on Cannabis (between incarceration, and running the DEA, we spend over 55 Billion dollars a year to keep folks from getting the munchies), and his statements about Gay marriage…nice try though. I don’t need anyone telling me who I can or cannot marry, or what I can or can not put in my body. He also believes that our world-wide military intervention, is a necessary evil…even though we obviously don’t have the money for it.

    • 3rdpartyvotesforobma

      Exactly! Horray, somebody finally gets it! You have to work with what you’ve got and change that. The third party split the vote that could have gotten obama out! Do you really think that if romney (or whoever, other than obama) would have been elected that America would be going through everything it’s going through now? Obama probably loved all the ron paul voters who helped get him elected!

  • r3VOLution IS NOT republican

    EXCELLENT report! The republican/democrat (same thing) party reminds me of the movie The Predator. In the end, when the alien warrior is beat, the best thing he can think to do, is let out his maniacal giggles as he nukes the whole area. THAT’S the republican/democrat party! They KNOW their 50-year scam has just about run it’s course, so they’re RACING LIKE WILD DOGS TO DESTROY EVERY BRICK of our Constitutional Republic before their parties fade to black. THEY are America’s predator.

  • Randy Anderson

    It’s quite simple: There was never supposed to be a “two-party ” system in America! The two current major parties have stolen our political system from one end of the country to the other. What’s more, the difference between them, as far as those who have been in power for decades, is a complete sham! They pretend to fight each other, then they go off and play golf together. It is time for bloody insurrection in the USA.

    • https://twitter.com/JordanDJohnson Jordan

      When I found out the Commission on Presidential Debates is owned jointly by both parties I lost all belief in the lie that they’re different. For some of you older readers, I’m sure thats not news to you but for us younger folks, thats not something we’re taught in school…

      • RonWillison

        Jordan. I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings my friend but. Our 2012 Elections proved beyond doubt to anybody that really paid attention that We The People have not picked our presidents since 1913 with the enactment of the Trojan Horse we call the Federal Reserve Banking Act. Our elections have been scripted made for TV illusion. The opinions we have been allowed to have were given to us. The biggest reason why Ohio’s Senate passed this nonsense is because of the blatant in your face election fraud, rigging and other dirty tricks used to make sure Ron Paul would remain UNELECTABLE that were so extreme. That even the stupid sleeping masses couldn’t miss it. Its that groundswell that has all the entrenched career politico’s feeling like somebody drug their underwear through the nearest patch of Poison Ivy and Oak. They are scared. They know the blew it.

  • ed

    The solution is to have no party noted on the ballot. Let people figure out who they like according to what they represent, and let the uneducated voters stand around confused at the polls.

  • lastresort09

    Although i agree with the point raised, the title of the article is misleading and sensationalism. Keep in mind the difference between Ben Swann and the rest. Ben Swann doesn’t lie or mislead people to get a greater audience.

  • Ronald Schoedel

    Good article, sad state of affairs…but a correction is in order. The first ever third-party presidential debate happened in 1996, with Harry Browne (Libertarian), Howard Phillips (Constitution), Ralph Nader (Green), and that whack-job from the late Natural Law Party, and they have been happening ever since.

    My proposal is that party names be prohibited from the ballot altogether. Let the voters decide based on the candidate and her/his merits, not based on the lazy route of looking at party affiliation.

    • Mr. Jonz

      Better yet, outlaw all political parties. The founding fathers mistrusted them and for good reason, as today’s two criminal organizations masquerading as political parties prove.

    • Liz

      We already have that in CA and believe me it doesn’t help. People are stupid and only listen for what they can get personally. I am afraid the freebie crowd is here to stay, at least until the money is gone.

      • Thomas

        You have to be joking! If you think people are stupid then, by proxy, you should think the whole idea of the Libertarian party is stupid. I don’t think people are stupid and I agree we should have less government intervention but this article is super partisan. What about the Green Party, the Social Democratic Party or the Communist party? I also agree you they shouldn’t take parties off the ballot, but this guy is obviously supporting the Libertarian Party. Libertarians are for less government so they should be happy that they aren’t forcing the government to put every possible party on the ballot. This is less government oversight, or are you only for less government when it is to your benefit?

  • jd

    Sir, write about the specific incident first, then provide background. You’ve done the reverse, and it makes your article feel like a bad college essay, not a news story.

    • LocalHero

      Attention Deficit Disorder? Who cares how it’s structured, “sir” as long as the info is relevant.

      • RandomJerk

        Journalism 101. It matters how it’s structured if you want people to read it and understand it. This blog post is poorly written, the author doesn’t get to the point until more than halfway through. Many of us became fans of Ben Swann because of good journalism – which this is not.

        • jwclark

          Yes, it should have been done with more care, i.e., a form of love. When properly done, writing is a sacrificial act. JWC

  • guest

    This is nonsense. A poorly constructed argument about nothing.

  • David McElroy

    I was born and raised in Ohio. I left in 1979 and have never regretted it. This article is just another reason to spell “Buckeye” with an “F” to describe Ohio’s government!

    • d c c

      we are happy that you left

  • Nate

    A bill # would have been nice so that we could go to http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/search.cfm and read the bill ourselves. I can’t believe a word you say when you’re the only one reading it and you leave out such a simply step as to provide such basic information…

    • lastresort09

      Thank you.

  • GD

    I love the Libertarian Party! Been so proud when I walk away from the voting booth to not have voted for the lesser of 2 evils.

    • fudog73

      yes but until many more feel that way we only throw away our vote not that there is much difference between the other 2 lol

    • jwclark

      Yes to vote for the lesser evil is a vote for evil. Then what happens to the nation’s moral foundation? JWC

    • 3rdpartyvotesforobma

      Yeah, you’re so proud to have voted Obama back into office! Thanks!

  • supersajin

    Who said bi-partisanship is dead in America??

    • Wheezer

      They’re only bipartisan when they’re threatened.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/IAmDeepSpace Deep Space

    Doesn’t really matter. When American Revolution 2.0 kicks off, We The People aren’t going to vote out the Traitorous, Oath-Breaking puppets in Office. We are going to TAKE them out.

  • Time To Hesitate Is Through

    You talk about a self-serving act of treachery. It is essentially a one party Soviet state.

  • John

    The Libertarian Party must now guard themselves from planted candidates.

  • forRP

    The Italians have coined a phrase, “If voting could change anything it would be illegal”. And apparently it is.

  • dspringer57

    In my opinion, we no longer have a TWO party system…there’s not much difference between the Dems and Repubs…they’re both crooks!

    • Caniac Steve Henderson

      if you look at how the establishment candidates and current members of both houses …are deeply embedded and all sound alike,…what makes you thing since the 2nd term of GWB we haven’t been a party nation

      • dspringer57

        What did I say that makes you think I haven’t thought that??? Making a pretty big assumption, aren’t you?

        • Caniac Steve Henderson

          I based my “conclusion” based on the evidence seen..and so far..nothing …

      • jwclark

        What? Is that a drinking party? Please clarify. JWC

        • Caniac Steve Henderson

          JW if you look back during and just after 9/11/01 the McCain’s Shumer’s were all sounding alike..especially with the Patriot Act…look and go back to their election 7 re-election speeches throw those in with what is going on today..they all sound and all but say the same thing..

  • Hillbilly Jihad

    Well welcome to the Soviet Socialist Republic of Ohio. How the hell can a “government” anywhere in America outlaw a political party? I know the Democran/Republicrat coalition of corruption has worked a long time to keep interlopers out of political office but I have never seen a move this naked. What a bunch of criminals! When there is no peaceful recourse left there is only violent revolution to effect change. These parasites are digging their own graves.

  • http://www.anarchocapitalism.us/ Ethan Glover

    I don’t support any party that seeks to force its system on me. Third parties are just another lesser evil.

    • Caniac Steve Henderson

      so who do you vote for ?? the lesser of the 2 evils ?? after several election cycles..wouldn’t that get rather old ? or as a millennial you can’t be bothered with facts like that ?

      • http://www.anarchocapitalism.us/ Ethan Glover

        Why is everyone on the internet so aggressive? What kind of response do you expect when you insult someone and show no curiosity at all? I’m an anarcho-capitalist like Murray Rothbard, Lew Rockwell, most of the Mises Institute and (secretly) Ron Paul. Another word for Anarcho-capitalist is voluntarist. (L)ibertarians can not by definition claim the title.

        • jwclark

          Ethan: Stop whining and explain yourself to start with. Then a conversation is possible–on the basis of you having actually said something. And even your 2nd post is not very helpful/educational. JWC

          • R4F1

            Not everyone believes in government, is his point. Individual rule over democratic rule, is what he likely endorses.

          • jwclark

            I know very well what he is talking about R4F1. And, indeed, when it comes to the need for individual self reliance I may have a lot more in common with Ethan than he is able to imagine. But then individuality is not worth much if it is just a posture and one is not taking full responsibility for what one says and does.
            Here’s the rule: If you think you have something important to say, then you (Ethan) ought to say it with as much care (love) as you can and make sure that you actually communicate what you hope others to hear and understand. Anything else is just, well…………..JWC

          • http://www.anarchocapitalism.us/ Ethan Glover

            I don’t talk to people that talk like you do. You’d rather complain and apply your own idiot assumptions of tone than be a little bit challenged.

          • jwclark

            Ethan: First of all you are still talking to me. Why. Put some teeth in your convictions and just shut up. You can do it if you try.
            Next, “Challenged,” by you? Now that is funny. You should stick to comedy. There may be a future there for you.
            Lastly, writing is a sacred act; it is ruled therefore by love. So remember that care is a form of love and thus you need to put more care in what you say. Anything else is just self indulgence and a failure to honor your calling. This is my last word to you. But if you know better, please go your own way. JWC

        • Caniac Steve Henderson

          ok so you got the academic philosophical principals down…but what “practical”real life experience do you have ? No one is being “hateful” just asking you to account ( as we all have to do in real life) and explain in your mindset what your ideal way to get,support a candidate who is NOT from the establishment wing of either major party

          • http://www.anarchocapitalism.us/ Ethan Glover

            I don’t support ANY candidate or ANY government. Why do you want me to choose an owner? Everything you ask is a loaded question. You want to force your system on others and others want to force your system on you. Welcome to government. It doesn’t get any better.

  • Larry Price

    ohio, new name of USSR where the government tells us who and what we can vote for or represent

  • RandomJerk

    Joshua – you buried the lede. The headline says Ohio but you don’t say anything about Ohio until below the fold, more than halfway through the article. A statement from the aggrieved is not until the 2nd to last para. Is Ben involved in any of these stories, editorially?

  • TheLoneRanger

    After Hitler and the German national socialists were voted in to power, they formed an alliance with an other party and from there they proceeded to outlaw other parties.

  • jd

    Great comments…You all should see or hear the interview with Jeff Rense and Larry Nichols on you tube…according to Nichols… Hilary Clinton is going to be our next president like it or not! Great Stuff…

  • Caniac Steve Henderson

    so has anyone from the Libertarian Party contacted say the evil ACLU or ACLJ and talked with either and see if there is a pre-emptive way to stop the Ohio State senate ?

  • Adam Pohl

    The House is scheduled to vote this Thursday, 10-17-13! All Republicans except one voted for this in the Senate. Please contact House Republicans and politely advise against voting in favor of this bill!
    http://www.ohiohouse.gov/members/member-directory

  • joespenthouse

    Not an immediate reply to the topic but thought u needed to hear this.

    Facebook
    is removing Veteran Amputees photos’ and calling them offensive and
    against the Community Standards of Facebook. Please Share,

    • BlueVet

      To hell with Facebook! I’ve never used it, and always been outspoken against it.
      Why anyone would want to show the world (with all the sickos and the dangers they represent) all their private info.
      Where they live, work, who your kids are, what your doing, when your home or on vacation…endless private details people CHOOSE to make public…its ridiculous. Its also why it is so closely monitored by all those three letter agencies we are so fond of.
      So to hell with Facebook and their BS policies.
      As to the disabled American Servicemen/women…know this…the actions of a few, even if its the wimps running Facebook, DO NOT reflect the views of the overwhelming majority of this nation. They hold our respect and our thanks…and photos of them are NOT offensive.

    • HE3

      Off topic

  • Ncrdbl1

    Do not see it withstanding a legal challenge.

    • bankrs suc

      Then you don’t know who owns the judges.

  • MootsaGootsa

    Maybe they should ban all parties in Ohio and just vote on people. Next they can say the only party on the ballot had to be the party that won the presidency. Vote against any politician that supports a dumb law. With Obamacare there seems to be a lot of dumb laws going around.

  • Dave T

    Misleading title (actually, an out-right lie)

    We have similar rules in my state, “only candidates from parties which earned 3% or more of the vote in a presidential election would be placed on the ballot; all other candidates would be write-in options. Newly qualifying parties must also submit petitions with at least 55,809 valid signatures.”

    It doesn’t “ban the Libertarian Party” – it says that any party, even Greens, or the Constitution Party, or even Socialist Workers Party, have to have a minimum support to be included on the official ballots. Certainly, we need reform, perhaps run-off style voting, and more inclusion, but running some inflammatory and incorrect article about a “ban” on the Libertarian party only makes the party and the author look like fools… maybe that was the intent?

    • Tim

      “Misleading title (actually, an out-right lie)”

      You mean it’s a misleading law which disguises itself and truly intends to suppress the rising liberty movement. Politicians across the country have made a wise calculation based on growing dissatisfaction among conservatives with the Republican Party, that these dissatisfied conservatives will jump into another party in the near-future. I know this will likely happen because I’m a former Republican who is now a Libertarian who believes the Republican Party is now too far left and too Globalist for my liking.

      This is a move by the 2-parties to keep us American voters on their reservation. It’s illegal, immoral and no one should stand for it.

    • Brad Kirby

      You don’t seem to understand the scope of the issue. They are using Presidential elections to determine what party can run on local tickets. The PE should have nothing to do with local government ballots.

    • Grant Abbott

      The fact that 4 people upvoted you is misleading. It’s a ban, as it connects federal/state elections to local elections

  • Joe Eckstein

    The petition process is hard, but they have no other way of gauging public interest… non story!

  • Tom Kiefer

    In the private sector, a move like this would be called (and investigated/prosecuted as) anticompetitive collusion. So why is Government doing the same thing treated as okay? :-/

    • anonfreepress

      Government INVENTED collusion! Have you ever heard of govt protected cartels?

  • anonfreepress

    The Liberal says you better vote, and vote democrat, or else the bad republican will get in.

    The Conservative says you better vote, and vote republican, or else the bad democrat will get in.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_QRSKqDSL8

    • Chris Moschini

      And in a 2-party winner-take-all system they’re generally right. The chances of any candidate reflecting the majority of any of our views in our system are a snowball’s chance in hell, because you’re really voting for this person at the top of Money Flood A or this other person at the top of Money Flood B. The only real reason you see Libertarian even showing up on the map as a third party isn’t support – it’s that there’s a third flood of money coming in with the name Libertarian on it.

      At the local level there’s a lot of opportunity for reforms like Instant Runoff Voting that would allow third parties a more serious place in politics.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE

      That takes real change at the town, county and state levels. At the federal level, we can’t hope for things to improve much until the local levels see significant reform. Until then we have to accept that the Libertarian money tree can at best swallow the Republican money tree, rather than become a legitimate third party, and whatever might happen on the left (like Occupy did) is just flapping in the wind without a giant flow of money (Occupy, again).

      • jdat747

        you are mistaken sir … we Libertarians have no money

        • Chris Moschini

          Sarcasm? The Libertarian money flood is massive. Here’s just one candidate’s campaign receipts:

          http://influenceexplorer.com/politician/ted-cruz/11b86e4675ad46da80a0c00af4f1f66b?cycle=2012

          And that ignores all the money spent on “issue ads” by outside groups that favor his positions without saying his name, so they don’t have to tie it to his campaign or say where they got the money from (SuperPACs).

          I’m game to believe you’re not doing so well – that’s a lot of Americans regardless of party. But if you can find me someone in Congress, I can find you millions of dollars pouring their way to get there, Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian.

          • jdat747

            One might be hard pressed to find a “Libertarian Party” member of congress. Even Ron Paul ran on Republican ticket because he knew there was no chance getting past the brand recognition issue of the Libertarian party. We are the rebels; we run to make the next leg of the race easier for those who will follow us. We vote to try and get 1% or 3% of votes for our party so the next guy has the right to have his name on the ballot. I conceed that if we had a chance of winning, there would be money and corruption at our door. For now I assure you, we have no money.

          • Chris Moschini

            Ron Paul, Ted Cruz, Michelle Bachmann – they’re all well-known Tea Party congressmembers. It’s fun to believe you’re the underdog in a fight, but when there’s a hundred million pouring in in what amounts to corporate bribes to the candidates carrying your issues forward into Congress, that’s a vain hope.

          • Grant Abbott

            Tea Party isn’t Libertarian. They may be closer to Libertarian than NeoCon Part of the GOP but obviously they don’t care about the individual liberty as much as the fiscal liberty. Ron Paul was the exception, though he was pro-life (I am as well, but not really the Libertarian position) he was a moderate libertarian running under the GOP Banner (about the only one) in my opinion. I like Ted Cruz, but he’s a conservative simple as that. Truth is if Libertarians was getting tons of money, we would be winning elections. Trying to say Tea Party = Libertarian Party is like saying Worker Unions = Green Party. Similarities doesn’t equate to the same. However Democrats and Republicans end up supporting 98% of the same thing.

          • jdat747

            Thank you Grant for explaining that. I do happen to run on the Libertarian ticket every 4 years for a low level County Commissioner position. I don’t get any campaign contributions, nor do any of my friends who run. Even for higher offices, we who run, bear most of the cost of our campaigns. Chris, your point is valid though, the money in politics is still a huge corrupting factor … and the rules to fight that corruption do little more than make it more difficult for honest, yet poor candidates to have a chance.

          • hsmom2004

            I would stipulate that one cannot have individual liberty without fiscal liberty. Without fiscal liberty, the one who is in debt or dependent is the slave to that which provides the funds. Until we get our fiscal house in order, there is little chance of retaining even what liberties still remain. Our government utilizes deficit spending to provide nanny services – most of which are corrupt, politically charged services keeping fat cats fat while taking away individual freedoms and destroying the free market. Additionally, keeping the public in a perpetually dependent state on the government by overtaxing wages and employers further adds to our fiscal irresponsibility. We are not helping people up, but digging ditches for them – with an inefficient use of tax dollars toward “aiding” the poor, widowed, orphaned, or disabled. These federal services should be community and church offerings.
            I inadvertently offended some who do not comprehend that the desire to get back “their” money in SS and Medicare is a falsehood. They are not getting back “their” money. “Their” money was a tax. It was already spent. Because it goes into the general coffers (since Johnson), any surplus is simply spent – not set aside in an interest bearing account. There is no interest on their taxes being returned to them. I do not mind paying SS and Medicare taxes that I know are going to help the elderly who are counting on it. I simply know that it is a tax and I will never see that money again. I do not want my children and grandchildren taxed to pay for my SS and Medicare and not be able to invest for their own retirement due to the burden of all these taxes. Yet, I hear many say that they want their children to get SS and Medicare. Let’s get off this ride and set a date that after that, no new people but the disabled and those already on it gets it. Where else can one “invest” for their retirement, be told how old they have to be to receive any of it, have the age increase for them to get any of it as they work, and then when they retire, should they need to work some extra to provide for their needs, even though they pay taxes on that money they earn, they are told that they can only earn so much before they stop receiving their retirement funds? Where else can the cost of living increase be capped because people can no longer afford name brand foods and are having to buy generic foods, so the COLA is newly adjusted based on generic purchases instead?
            For those who need just a little extra help getting by during difficult times, they find that if they make more than $200 per month, they can get very little help for their families, but if they bring in less than $200 per month, the government gives them more than one working full-time even somewhat above minimum wage. What incentive is that to work?
            We are a nation in fiscal slavery. We can only be a free people when these shackles of indebtedness and dependence are removed. That includes our government, as well.

          • http://www.vitaminlawyer.com/ Ralph Fucetola JD

            Chris, (1) Ron Paul is no longer in Congress. (2) When you accuse people of taking “corporate bribes” (a crime) you are committing libel unless you can cite actual evidence (that’s called the Defense of Truth).

            For example, while Goldman Sachs people contributed a bit over a million bucks to Romney campaign, they also contributed several hundred thousand to Obama campaign. I see no GS contributions to the Libertarian Party or the Tea Party, so who is “bribing” whom? http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000085

          • Chris Moschini

            I’m surprised to find someone who imagines no one takes bribes in Congress. It’s sad you might view it as “only the guys I don’t like do.” Open your mind a bit. This podcast walks you through how bribes work in a Congressional campaign. Given how long campaigns run now, those campaigns are eternal.

            http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/take-the-money-and-run-for-office

  • LPjunkie

    I would blame the Senate… but it is the people that continue to send the same old same old back to their state offices.

  • LibertyChick

    If we want just 2 parties, it’s time for the Republican party to go away and become the Constitution Party. You’re either for or against the Constitution. Democrats hate the Republicans so much even though they have never been more alike. Lets really have a choice, and we don’t seem to have that between Reps and Dems.

    • SC

      I agree. IF we’re only going to have two parties, the GOP must give way to the Constitutional Liberty Party (combine the LP, the ACP, and the parts of the GOP that don’t love fascism), and the Democratic Party must give way to the Progressive Socialist Party (combine the Green Party, the Socialist Party, the RCP, and the parts of the Democratic Party that don’t love fascism).

      However, I don’t want just two parties. A two-party system is not much more resistant to corruption than a one-party system is… especially given the ‘winner take all’ system and gerrymandered districts determining legislative representation. Party-line proportional representation, with a run-off elections system and the elimination of legislative districts smaller than entire states would be more effective. We already know that politicians don’t give much more than lip-service to the constituents in their district area anyway… so let’s go with a system that keys-in on what representatives are really basing their votes upon – ideology.

      • LibertyChick

        I’d also like to see money limits on campaigning. You can’t spend over “X” amount or you are disqualified. Then they have to use their money effectively and efficiently, and if they can’t, they probably won’t manage our money well either. The Senate election in NJ had the Rep candidate spending about $1million and the Dem spending $100million to win by about 10 points. That’s a lot of wasted money, mostly from out of state contributors. So, if you function in a corrupt way with campaign financing from people you don’t represent you win. I don’t feel represented by that.

  • J. Nev

    Well it may not be who you vote for but who counts the votes after all.

    Voter says machine cast vote for (OBAMA) wrong candidate twice 10/25/12

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAFRDhh4OGo

  • tymothymichel

    write them in. I’m fed up with these monkeys

  • sharonsj

    You forgot to explain that in Ohio, both houses and the governor are Republican dominated. Funny how only the Republicans like to pass laws restricting voters….

    • Davin T.

      Several states have had similar battles, and democrats have stepped up to the plate many times in support of restricting voter rights and suppressing third party candidate. The republicans are happy to have your hatred because they exist to perpetuate the myth that Democrats and Republicans are enemies. They are not.

      • bankrs suc

        Exactly.

    • Allen Thomas

      Take that happy horse shit somewhere else, a New Hampshire Democrat outright said she wants to take freedoms away from conservative candidates and people in her state in hopes they will leave or not go there at all.

  • jdat747

    3% We’re up for it! I’m Libertarian and that’s a crappy way to play, but 3% is a good goal for us as a party. Gary Johnson is already campaigning and if things keep going south in the ol’ USA, 3% should be easy as pie for him.

    • J.R. Stoelting

      Libertarians got less than 1% last election.

      • jdat747

        that would be why I said 3% is a good “goal” for us

        • J.R. Stoelting

          Hopefully, people would realize that voting for, say, Romney instead if, say, Johnson, so they won’t “waste” a vote, is of itself, a wasted vote.

      • Realist

        That number would have been higher if Gary Johnson was allowed to participate in the National debates.

  • Matthew Reece

    “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” – John F. Kennedy

  • bankrs suc

    I’m certain this law will be used by every other state to make sure one of the bankers’ puppets have no opposition. Or maybe the US will go the way of greece and just arrest anybody who is not a demican or republicrat.

  • Marc83

    Questionable scholarship to say the least. Case in point, Hickenlooper (D-CO) was elected with 51% of the vote. Even adding all other voters together behind a single candidate, he still would have won by two points. The fundamental inability of the writer to perform basic arithmetic or research his talking points erodes any semblance of credibility going in. I know that in the business world no one points out the boss’ incompetence, but in politics/academia you don’t get a free pass.

    • JellyRev

      “may” have won. Not would have, or should have. Questionable comprehension by Marc83

      • Marc83

        No. That is mathematically impossible. Only if he had won with less than 50% of the vote could there be said to be a spoiler. 51% beats 49% every time.

        • Allen Thomas

          That is not true, with the other candidate dropping out we do not know what the election would have been. So it isn’t a matter of math. Stop sniffing your own farts and you might understand more.

          • JP

            No disrespect intended here, but I think you need to re-examine your logic-I have to agree with Marc. Hickenlooper garnered 51% of the total vote, which means the other two candidates were fighting for a losing share of the remaining 49% of votes cast. Regardless of a GOP drop out, the best the ACP could have hoped for was to garner 49%. The only way the outcome would have changed, was if the ACP attracted additional voters from the left or got non-voters to vote, but there was nothing stopping that from happening as it was, I just don’t see that as a credible argument, but you’re free to disagree.

          • SC

            Likewise, no disrespect intended to you JP, but YOU’RE ALL CORRECT… you’re just not really arguing the same points.

            Marc83 and JP are correct in that the mathematical facts that we KNOW support the notion that Hickenlooper would still have won.

            JellyRev and Allen Thomas are correct in that, if Maes (the Republican) would have dropped from the race, the number of voters allocated to all ballot candidates may have changed.

            That being said, it is likely that Tancredo could only have beat Hickenlooper under two ideal conditions:

            1. All votes that went to Maes would have had to go to Tancredo, instead. These voters could not have opted to simply stay home or not cast a vote in the gubernatorial race, and they certainly could not have switched their votes to Hickenlooper (not that I think they would’ve).

            2. Some votes that went to Hickenlooper would have had to switch to Tancredo.

            The likelihood of both of these ideal conditions would have been satisfied is doubtful. Plenty of the GOP’s voters are rather opposed to certain aspects of the ACP platform, and it isn’t unreasonable to think that many would have stayed home or otherwise declined to vote for Tancredo.

            As for the second condition, it may at first appear that some Hickenlooper voters would be willing to support Tancredo in the absence of a GOP candidate… but that is made unlikely by the fact that the GOP candidate didn’t have a chance in hell of winning. If they were willing to support Tancredo in absence of Maes, then they were also likely to support Tancredo with Maes on the ballot under the actual conditions in which that election took place.

  • disgvnv

    They have already done this in Oklahoma. I suspect ALEC is behind this outrage, an insult to Democracy, Liberty, and Freedom.

  • JJ Bilimek

    I had no idea, and I’m an Ohioan. This is BS! What can we do now?

  • James Dutton

    This is just the beginning they will ban opposition parties then ban speech against their party then limit us to “Free Speech Zones” oops! They are already doing that aren’t they? VOTE that is the cure, and cast an EDUCATED VOTE!

  • Steve

    The Ohio Senate has just commented treason. The voters of Ohio should make their Senate accountable.

    • Kenneth Parrott

      committed?

      • Steve

        Thank you. My spelling is really bad when I get upset. lol

  • Eduardo Blanco

    Infuriating.

  • handgunnar

    The Ohio Senate provides an invaluable service to it’s most important constituency…ITSELF!

  • Stephanie Snyder Staker

    Joshua, you have done the same thing as another journalist here on this news site. You MISLED us with the headline. That is a typical MSM tactic and it is wrong. It is not true journalism. Most of us who try to stay current with the news scan headlines and read as much depth as we can. The headline here says “The Senate” and I am sure there are others like me who assumed that you were referring to the U. S. Senate. The fact that this is happening in the Ohio Senate didn’t appear until the 6th paragraph! This is Ben Swann’s website’s 2nd strike. A third and I am done with it. I was so hoping that this would be true journalism here and it is appearing that is not so.

    • Grant Abbott

      um Senate refers to Senate, in this case Ohio’s Senate. Obviously you must not understand law if you think the Federal Congress can dictate individual laws (without changing federal law).

    • Davis Gilmer

      It straight up says ohio election in the title. And even if it didn’t, you’re focusing on the wrong things and completely missing the point. How arrogant can you be, lady? Your reply here only serves to make you sound woefully ignorant, instead on commenting on the content of the article you make nit-picky criticisms on how he worded the title. The problem is not his journalism, its your ability to read. Either you have an agenda, or you’re an imbecile.

    • gregholston

      Reading isn’t easy.

    • Jacob Nyhart

      Stephanie, there is nothing misleading about the headline. “Senate Votes To Ban The Libertarian Party From Ohio Election”

      I’m not sure what you are reading to make the leap to the U.S. Senate knowing that the U.S. Senate would have no authority to accomplish this task at the state level. Could it have been worded differently? Sure – but it shouldn’t be misleading for people with a basic understanding of civics.

      On the flip side, I have been very critical of a few of the articles here. There has been a lack of journalistic integrity on more than one occasion, and I’m surprised when I see it given Ben’s accomplishments. He’s in a tough spot since he is allowing others to leverage his name and reputation. I sincerely hope he can clamp down on some of the crappier reporting to which we’ve been subjected.

      In this case, however, the headline is fine as written.

  • Michael Johnston

    And somehow no mention of the fact that the Democrats in the Ohio Senate voted against this bill, even though three of the four minor parties in Ohio have appeal to left-leaning voters. Because Democrats in Ohio understand a free market of ideas.

    • Chris Weaver

      I would not get ahead of yourself there…As constitutional citizens coalesce they will always pull votes from the supposed conservative Republican party. Sooo…If there was a left wing group that would pull votes away from democrats…I support their right too..
      it is self-serving…as nothing democrats offer is shaded in liberty.

    • Steve

      There never should have been a vote. Since when does the Damcrats and the Rebloodlican have a right to say who and who not may be on a ballet.

    • RogueR

      Kudos to them for standing against this. Hopefully they will block it.

  • george234234234234234234523

    dirty pool!

  • Kenneth Parrott

    Anyone still voting for Republicans and Democrats is a damn fool

  • RogueR

    I hope the people of Ohio stop this. We need a federal law to prevent this crap.

    • Keith Hutchison

      WE need a law?
      That’s the problem to begin with! Laws do not protect liberty they ensnare it. And at that a FEDERAL LAW! No the thing to do is bring about an equal protection law suit to the courts with a free lawyer from the ACLU. It’s discrimination based on political preference. Surely with all the crap they can get struck down this should be a no brainer.

  • Sully

    Eliminate the party system in its entirety. Make candidates run on something more than an arbitrary letter of the alphabet, like, I don’t know, their stances on issues perhaps.

    • Tannim

      How about blind, nameless resumes?

  • sung

    The USA is a free country. Our freedom must be protected.

  • Marcia Everett

    It’s time to change VOTING. We need to have CHOICE of REPRESENTATION (find it on facebook) Every candidate “wins” but only has the voting power of the amount of people that voted for them. Time to have more than 435 representatives. Time to have more than each of the states have too. A complete list of VOTING RULES that need to be changed found here: http://www.change.org/petitions/bill-of-rights-for-voting-equality-voters-fourth-branch-of-government

    • vapensiero

      good. something concrete. thank you.

  • vapensiero

    What should we be doing about this? Ohio is important. Is someone organizing a petition against this? Is there a Senator we should be writing to? Is there a newspaper that would take up the cause. Could we have more reporting on this issue please?

  • Slim_Strontem

    There is a potential upside to this… And I do Not mean one that benefits the establishment.