I’ve written about libertarianism and the Libertarian Party many times over the years. I asserted that we all have a libertarian streak in us, in that there are always issues that we feel should be private and without government intervention, though we often disagree on what those issues are and to what degree government intrusion should be limited. The philosophy of libertarianism is, from a political science point of view, very interesting and can stimulate lots of important discussions.

Then there is the actual Libertarian Party, here in Colorado and nationally, that is now ensnared in a mess of conflicting claims and counterclaims as to who gets to be the Libertarian presidential candidate named on the Colorado ballot this November. As reported in Colorado Politics, this fight seems to be just getting started. And this squabble is illustrative of the point I repeatedly have made about the libertarians: all too often, they want to make symbolic political points, regardless of the risk or consequences in an election.

Simply put, under our Constitution, there is no way a third party is going to win the White House. The winner-take-all system means that finishing third is meaningless. True, they might be able to get a libertarian elected here or there to other political offices, but when you are talking about the presidency, a structural inability to win means you are just arguing over who gets to be a spoiler in a race. And if you are a MAGA type, you are thrilled that the Libertarians are fighting over who gets to be on the Colorado ballot.

As I’ve mentioned before, the United States has a history of parties rising and falling on the national stage. But if you want to win, you must be one of the top two parties, given our current structure. Third parties wanting actual electoral success must rise up and replace an existing party. We saw this in the mid-1800s, with the Whigs being supplanted by the brand new (and liberal) Republican Party. While some success is possible at lower governmental levels, the White House will remain out of reach of a true third party for as long as we stick to the state- based winner take all system in the Electoral College.

As CP noted, the state and national Libertarian parties are at odds over the top line on the ballot. The state party has made a bargain with the devil (ok, that may be a *bit* of an overstatement) and has embraced former Democrat Robert F. Kennedy Jr. who is running an independent campaign for president. Kennedy is, well, just nutty on many issues, but you need look no further than his stance on vaccines, in spite of his later denials. And that is far from the end of his, well, nutty views.

Like essentially all political parties, large and small, the Libertarians held a convention and nominated a person for president and another for VP. These are clearly the “official” nominees of that party. But Colorado’s state Libertarian board announced recently that in Colorado, Kennedy would be the Libertarian nominee. But before the state party could submit the needed paperwork to the Colorado Secretary of State to formally nominate Kennedy, the national party, through their national party secretary (from Castle Rock!) submitted paperwork to place the “official” nominees on the ballot.

And things are starting to get very weird.

As a spokesperson for the Colorado secretary of state stated, a single party doesn’t get to place multiple people on the ballot for the same office. And, the spokesperson notes, “Colorado law is silent on intra-party conflicts regarding candidate nominations.” In other words, the Libertarians need to get their act together.

But why would state officials want Kennedy? I’m sure there are some that find Kennedy’s message compelling and are working from their good hearts for his election with the very best of intentions.

But there is another and sneakier way of looking at things.

Remember please that we don’t have a national election for president. Rather we have a series of state-level elections, and those are independent and run by the states. To see the importance of that, we need look no further back in time than 2016, when Hillary nationally got nearly 3 million more votes than Trump. You’d think that the person who gets the most votes wins (e.g., when Doug Lamborn got lots more votes than I did back in 2008), but at the presidential level, that just isn’t so.

At that level, the Founders were worried about popular masses of voters being fooled or bamboozled by a presidential candidate who might be a fiery orator or otherwise a demagogue, who might sneak in. And the Founders thought the EC was the fix. The Electoral College affords, as Hamilton argued in Federalist 68, “a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”

Hamilton listed chiefly among the requisite qualifications’ ability and virtue. Clearly the Founders got this one at least partly wrong. To date, the EC has not turned back a single “unqualified” candidate for lack of these virtues or any other reason.

Now, in a presidential election where one candidate is far ahead in a state, a third-party challenger means little. But in what is expected to be a very close election in virtually all this year’s swing states, a spoiler can truly spoil. And whom does a RFK Jr. candidacy help the most? Surely it is Donald Trump. The Kennedy name along, coupled with his long history as a Democrat (heck, he started this current campaign as a Democrat running against Biden), means, I truly believe, that RFK Jr. will pull far more votes from Biden than he will Trump, though there will be some.

Is the Colorado Libertarian Party just a shill for Trump? I don’t think so, in that I truly believe that most of their membership believes in the philosophies and goals of libertarianism. But it would appear that at least in some of the party leadership, efforts are being made to hurt Biden and toss more votes Trump’s way. In an extremely close election, Colorado’s 10 electoral votes might prove critically important.

This case seems likely headed for court, as I don’t expect either libertarian faction to back down. As far as I know, this will be a new area of law to explore, and the results could be both interesting and impactful.

Stay tuned.