2014 Election

[twincitizen]

MN Independence Party formally demoted to "Minor Party" status, for the first time since 1998: http://www.mprnews.org/story/2014/12/31 ... ty-demoted

Other registered minor parties in MN are the Green Party, Libertarian Party, Grassroots-Legalize Cannabis Party, and Legal Marijuana Now Party. Those last two should really meet up and consider merging. What possible policy differences could they have that are worth splitting that vote over?

Just looking at results of the 2014 election for statewide offices in MN, I think in any race that had a single 3rd party candidate could have easily collected 5% of the vote. You probably can't talk the Libertarians into it, but between the other 3 they should definitely run some coordination of their candidates. The "problem" I suppose is that anyone can file and get on the ballot if they pay the fee and collect the signatures (or whatever hurdle it is the minor party folks have to jump). Even the IP had attracted a bunch of pro-legalization folks in recent years, making it a keystone of their platform. Hannah Nicollet was obviously running on that platform, though she was a not-so-secret actual Libertarian (capital L). With the demotion of the IP, those pro-pot folks* really ought to organize (led by NORML) and catalyze around a single party. They could gain major party status in 2018 with only minimal effort (basically not splitting up their vote).

*By "pro-pot folks", I meant the people who already vote solely based on that issue, not reliable Repulican or Democratic Party voters who also support legalization.

[MNdible]

I find it completely baffling that, amongst all of the important issues in play at the state level, anybody would vote for a candidate whose only known position is pro-legalization of marijuana.

[David Greene]

Really? I find it quie believeable. Single-issue voters abound.

[mattaudio]

I think it's weird when people are single-issue to a fault. But at the same time, I love it when issues break down under conventional vs unconventional logic instead of party lines. There are plenty of examples, war on drugs included, where the "mainstream wisdom" is adopted by both parties (because corporatism et al) despite real, measurable negative outcomes. And I say that as someone who has never had any interest in or affiliation with or use of illegal substances, but I'm sick of seeing my tax dollars wasted on a program that is ineffective while also destructive to the hope and wellbeing of our fellow humans. We need more people who are reformers that question conventional wisdom. But I hope we see reformers with a broad lens and agenda rather than a narrow one.

[MNdible]

Really? I find it quie believeable. Single-issue voters abound.

I know that they exist. I still find it baffling.

[twincitizen]

I find it baffling as well. I mean, I think it's great that anyone is motivated enough to get out to the polls, especially in a non-Presidential election year where >50% of the population stays home. But the combination of motivation to go vote, but only based on that one issue, for a candidate(s) that stands zero chance of winning, is particularly strange. I'm 100% with them on legalization and everything, and wish them the best, but the amount of turnout for that single issue is truly baffling.

[IllogicalJake]

I find it completely baffling that, amongst all of the important issues in play at the state level, anybody would vote for a candidate whose only known position is pro-legalization of marijuana.

It's not so unusual when an aspect makes up a major, everyday part of your life. For example, an awesome economical stance won't make me vote for someone that is anti gay marriage, as I'm gay, well, every day..

Another example that also applies to me - I have totally bad anxiety, have seen psychs about it, am medicated... but nothing makes me feel more "normal" than pot itself. It's not a "herp, derp I need drugs to survive!" it's "I've tried all of the medications out there and they don't help. Pot doesn't hurt me, is approved for medical use is many states, and helps me tremendously, like night and day." I can only imagine how it would help cancer patients dealing with painful chemo. Anyway, tangent aside.

So yeah, don't rule out single-issue voters. When that single issue influences every single day of your life...

[Viktor Vaughn]

I think when someone votes for the cannabis party, they're making a few statements. One, they actually care enough to vote. Two, they don't feel like either of the viable parties are representing their interests, and three they support the legalization of marijuana.

But beyond that, keep in mind that that one issue is really a cultural cue and a stand-in for other issues. I don't know anything about the legalization candidates, but I think it's fair to assume they're on the backside of the political spectrum. This is the policy positions where Rand Paul and Al Franken can agree (or a more authentic/grassroots version of the libertarian right and liberal left). Civil liberties, net neutrality, anti-imperialism, pro-privacy, anti-corporate welfare, etc). This would be the opposite side of the political circle where establishment Democrats and Republicans usually come together (pro-military & security state, corporatist favoring policies, etc).

So, one could argue they're not voting for one issue, but really voting in favor of an entire political philosophy and against the entire political establishment.

I've long railed against one-issue abortion voters who vote against their own economic interests, a la What's the Matter with Kansas. But I suppose you could say many are not voting for one issue, but a whole slate. Teach my kids in school the world is 6,000 years old, don't unplug human vegetables, evolution and global warming are liberal conspiracy's, etc...

Now to be clear, I haven't done the third party protest vote in a competitive election since voting for Nader in 2000, I do understand the sentiment, though.