Posted 9:56 PM by Floyd

InstantMan links to a snivelling -- excuse me, editorial -- by the National Review's John J. Miller. Miller notes that many close races in 2002 and earlier were decided by less than the vote total for the Libertarian party. Miller states "Libertarians are now serving, in effect, as Democratic Party operatives."

Let's have some fun with rhetorical questions and my friends <UL> and <LI>:

• Are all eligible voters required to vote?
  
  No.
  
• Is the proportion of voters who choose to vote the same in each election?
  
  No.
  
• Is there any evidence that a person who cannot vote for their favorite minor party will instead vote for a major party, rather than leaving the choice unmarked or not voting at all?
  
  No.
  
• Is there any statistical validity to the Libertarian Party's claim, quoted by Miller, that the small fraction of voters who preferred Libertarians would be more likely to vote Republican than Democrat?
  
  
  Not unless the LP took all the money that goes to Harry Browne's "consultants" and spent it on polling. (Briefly: No.)
  

Even worse is the end of Miller's article, where he blames Libertarians for Republicans winning, but not covering the point spread:

The next time they wonder why the Bush tax cuts aren't permanent, why Social Security isn't personalized and why there aren't more school-choice pilot programs for low-income kids, all they have to do is look in the mirror.

Hey John, buddy, you won! Congratulations -- sorry, my sincerest sympathy. And what is this nonsense about "permanent" tax cuts? Let's say the hypothetical Mondo Republican Congress passed a bill enacting tax cuts for "the next million jillion years?" Couldn't a later Congress undo that any time it wanted to?