No one will ever win on an L ticket....EVER. The only chance anyone has is as D, R or I; D or I when it relates to Hawaii.

People don't realize that party association is everything. People in the L camp are always harping on the fact that they got 4% of the votes in the country, like it actually means something.

The only way to even have a chance is to pick a party or run as an I and then sway in the direction you feel most comfortable with. Until an (L) wins a race in a MAJOR election (as in spotlighted congress seat or presidential seat), the masses will not give two shits about the L's, and will continue to vote pro-D or pro-R.

Truth sucks, but it is what it is. Better to vote for the lesser of two evils if it has even a small chance of winning than wasting a vote on what we know to be the right party that can never win.

Until then, people who keep putting L's next to their names, as well as those individuals that vote for them, will continue to giving the D's their needed victories and driving this country into the shitter.

You actually just did try to tell me how to vote, by saying that picking a more common sense vote is the problem. Davis never had a chance to win because 1) the libertarian party has yet to establish a solid policy, 2) the libertarian party has yet to establish a presence among voters and 3) people like Davis (who probably just wanted to make himself stand out) keep running as libertarians, yet are terrible representations of libertarians or have no idea what the party is about. During every debate, he looked like a complete idiot that had no real platform or real plan.

D, R, I, L...it really doesn't matter if the person we are voting for is standing for principle and to defend our rights. If a democrat were to have the courage to go against party lines and do what is right, you bet your ass I would vote for them. The problem is that there have been no D's from Hawaii that have had these qualities; at least not in my generation. Therefore, I will vote for the next person who I believe supports my ideals the most, and has a chance to win.

Actual change is not going to come from voting someone who isn't going to win in the first place. Do you know why the libertarian party isn't gaining any traction locally or nationally? It's because they haven't reached out. Why haven't they reached out? Because they have no idea what their platform is, or what their major talking points are. The only person with a libertarian edge to come close to winning a major race was Ron Paul, what was that he had next to his name? Oh yes...an R. Why? Because even Ron Paul knew that running as a libertarian wouldn't have gotten him anywhere, because the libertarian party has no base. The same thing is happening with Rand Paul who is also libertarian in nature, yet knows that advertising himself as a libertarian won't get him to the white house. So what is he doing? Exactly what every major libertarian has said to do: infiltrate the Republican party and try to change it from within, which is exactly what Rand is doing at the moment. So instead of trying to 'spoil the win for either side of the 2 party system', maybe you should follow pace with what die hard libertarians are trying to do, which is convert the republican party into what it once was and stood for, and what it should have been all these years.

This makes no sense, as everyone knows that The state congress would still have been controlled by democrats. There were only two spotlighted elections for republicans because the democrats were expected to win by a landslide everywhere else. So how could we know what it would be like when it is common sense knowledge to know that this state would never turn red during this election? Last I checked, the state has been under democrat control for 50+ years and isn't going to change anytime soon.

Actually, these parties have been around since the founding of the nation, only they had different names. The democrat party had its roots with Andrew Jackson, who was actually a neo-Federalist that rose up to challenge Jefferson's Democratic-Republican party, which was the newer version of the original Republican party. That is why you will never get rid of the two party system, as both parties were integral to the building of our nation. The name changes, but the spirit of both parties will remain.

I find it hilarious when people who are jumping on the libertarian train to be cool try to demonize the republican party, as it was the party of Jefferson, who happens to be one of the greatest influences on the libertarian party movement as well. As stated, it has already been discussed by the leaders of the libertarian party that the best path in the near future is to focus on transforming the republican party back into what it once was. Until then, people who keep putting L's next to their names, as well as those individuals that vote for them, will continue to giving the D's their needed victories and driving this country into the shitter.

As stated, it has already been discussed by the leaders of the libertarian party that the best path in the near future is to focus on transforming the republican party back into what it once was. Until then, people who keep putting L's next to their names, as well as those individuals that vote for them, will continue to giving the D's their needed victories and driving this country into the shitter.

So lets keep this simple: There are three choices - R, D and L.

Mr. L is the best of the three, but he is guaranteed going to lose every single time for the near foreseeable future.
Mr. D wants to make your life complete shit because his political party is rooted in statism and government control
Mr. R is not as bad as Mr. D, and actually has some things that you like, but is almost as bad as Mr. D.

"Hmmm....you know what, I'm going to vote for the guy that is going to lose because I wanna stick it to the man with my 2-4% of the vote!" said no smart voter ever.

Please explain how voting for a losing party that guarantees the worst of the three parties wins is somehow a winning strategy. If it came down to Ige was 100% going to approve of some bullshit regulation on gun control here in Hawaii, while Aiona and Davis said they wouldn't, with Aiona far ahead of Davis and neck and neck with Ige, who would you vote for?


You do realize that the sole purpose of a strong, centralized government is to impose the will of the government by force, in order to consolidate more resources/power/influence, right? So of course a powerful government is going to expand and abuse it's authority. That is why people like Rand Paul are harping on the message of reducing government influence over the people and reducing government overreach.

Have you actually followed Rand Paul's stance on the issue of our war on terror? And why wouldn't you want to put down a threat to the United States? You honestly think that if we just leave them alone now, that this will all go away? Get real. Should we involved in everyone else's business? No. But we also should not take threats to America lightly. If you wanna push America, you best be sure that we are going to knock your ass out with a right hook if you don't back off.

And so what if Jefferson had bad qualities? Every person will have good and bad points about them, founding fathers included. The whole point is to utilize his doctrine and focus on his good points while learning how not to use his bad points.

Precisely, which is why people like Rand and Ron Paul and Ted Cruz are trying to change the Republican party from within.

I'm curious: how do you as an individual use D and R to 'fight each other', and then somehow influence the entire election with your vote for neither party? And it's funny you quote Machiavelli, because even he knew about playing your cards SMART by picking the side that best serves your interest and has the better chance to win.

But when a prince declares himself gallantly in favour of one side, if the party with whom he allies himself conquers, although the victor may be powerful and may have him at his mercy, yet he is indebted to him, and there is established a bond of amity; and men are never so shameless as to become a monument of ingratitude by oppressing you. Victories after all are never so complete that the victor must not show some regard, especially to justice. - Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter 21

How does this apply to politicians we vote for? "Now you owe me for getting in office. Fuck me over, and you're out."

And there it is.

So does this mean you are an anarchist? If so, why even waste your time voting if you do not believe in the institution of government, as does this not compromise your belief that government is the problem anyway?

The fact of the matter is that the people jumping on the libertarian bandwagon and claiming to be libertarian watch too many movies, read too many fictitious stores about how they are going to revolutionize the world with their one vote against the system; it won't. Real strategists, like Machiavelli, knew that this was facile thinking of the oppressed and ignorant, and could be used to the advantage of the state to manipulate them in supporting their goals; i.e. Democrats in Hawai'i guaranteeing wins by supporting individuals who run as independents and libertarians, know it will only solidify their numbers as these other candidates will only pull numbers from their real threats.

So while you may think that you are sticking it to the man by not supporting the lesser of two evils, in the end, you aid in the effort to screw us all over; just like what happened with this governors race, thanks to hannemann and Davis. The smart thing to do is to vote for the party that is closest to your beliefs and has the better chance of winning when you know that the best choice out of all of them has no chance at all. Until there is a revolution of thought and spirit on a mass scale in the US, the libertarian party isn't going to ever be mainstream or influential.

I've already said voting for evil will still get you evil. Even you identify that, this is a fact. Somehow at that same time you also state that libertarians give you the platform you want but won't vote for them. That voter mentality is the problem with why our government is where it's at right now.

To your views on the war on terror, you fail to realize the US government has been bombing the middle east for over 30 years now. Do you really honestly believe this is a defensive war? Do you think they really hate us for our freedom?

why do i even bother voting if i don't approve of the system?
does the govt stop taxing me if i don't vote?
do i get to ignore laws i don't agree with by not voting?

voting is the initiation of force
voting is a weapon
voting is political self defense

voting republican will not change the republican party
voting democrat will not change the democrat party
voting libertarian will change both of them

http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/13926/Hawaii-Election-Results-Highlights.aspx?utm_source=November+9%2C+2014+News+from+Hawaii+Free+Press+&utm_campaign=November+9%2C+2014+Email&utm_medium=email

Duke Aiona and Charles Djou are both losing.  Djou’s First and Second read 45% is equal to the total of Mufi’s 11% plus Duke’s 34%. 
On third read Djou's margin tightens to 47.5% to Takai's 51.2%.  Djou's final (5th) read 47.4 is only 0.9% less than the total of
Duke's 36.7% plus Mufi's 11.6% = 48.3%.  This demonstrates that the vast majority of Mufi's votes came at the expense of Duke
Aiona.  Splitting the electorate three ways is an old Hawaii Democrat trick.

Democratic Texas State Representative Ron Reynolds is in trouble…again. Named by Texas Monthly as the ‘Worst Legislator of 2013,’
Reynolds hasn’t exactly made a name for himself with his policy decisions.

Reynolds, who is also an attorney, had been under felony indictment for 10 charges of ambulance chasing (officially known as
barratry) in Montgomery County, Texas, leading into his third-term election. Even with these charges, he managed to win by 67
percent over his Republican opponent, David Hamilton.

But Reynolds didn’t get to celebrate his victory for long. Just three days later, he was convicted on six misdemeanor charges of
‘solicitation of professional employment.’

According to the Houston Chronicle, there was a ton of evidence against Reynolds–about 12,000 pages of documents, which
included recorded audio interviews, phone records and multiple bank statements.

Breitbart reports that Reynolds could have gotten off on misdemeanor charges if he’d pleaded guilty, resigned from his State
House seat and withdrawn from the election prior to the jury’s decision.

Instead he took a gamble, presumably thinking that he would win his election and also be found innocent by the jury.

This is what you get in office when sheeple vote straight party ticket with no concern for the individual candidates' qualifications ....

Candidate with Felony Indictment Wins Re-Election by a Landslide…
Then Gets Convicted for Misdemeanor 3 Days Later.