(1) The losing side says it’s a heartbreaking loss with devastating effects that will scar our country for years to come. They say they didn’t have a chance to set things right and needed more time, and they blame the other major party for its rhetoric unleashed upon the American public.

(2) The winning side thanks the voters and claims that their win is because the American public has spoken and is ready for the change. They then quickly settle into a routine, toss out a few ideas that they hope will win them re-election and maintain their majority hold, and go back to ignoring that American public that apparently got them elected.

That’s pretty much it: role reversal once in a while before any one party can do too much damage. I guess I should be glad they keep each other in check, but mostly I’d like the people I elect to actually do something for the good of everyone for once, not just the banks, labor unions, insurance companies, drug cartels, etc.

NOTE: This was a response I posted not long after the election in response to the following Indy article from one of the sore losers of 2010: http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/election-2010-missed-chances-dim-hopes

However, reading this email I just received, I’m just disappointed. You already decided to cling to Burr during your campaign instead of Beitler, but I understood that as Burr was the top of the ticket for your chosen political party. But now your campaign is going where I can’t follow… encouraging financial support for Ellmers.

This is a woman whose campaign spent thousands on TV ads about the misnamed, misrepresented, and completely irrelevant “ground-zero mosque” instead of how she hopes to solve the real issues facing our nation. That shows a lack of responsibility.

This is a woman who has lots of the same rhetoric as many socially conservative Tea Party candidates, but offers no solutions or alternatives to turn rhetoric into action. That shows lack of planning.

This is a woman who, on some social issues, is very anti-liberty. That shows lack of respect for an individual’s rights.

Ellmers is not for liberty… or logic… or even good sense! She is not ready to represent my parents (who live in her district) in Congress.

BJ, this isn’t about parties, it’s about people. Unless you have a contractual obligation to the Republican party beyond your voter registration, I encourage you to “go rogue” on this one. I’m not saying to come out in opposition to anyone in this situation, but let Ellmers and her supporters fight their own battles if there’s a recount. Don’t encourage your own supporters to set aside their individual values to support this party affair.

I am proud to continue to support Liberty in our state and in our country, and thus neither my money nor my support will go to Ellmers or Etheridge.

So why don’t the election numbers reflect this?

The voters can tell you that in their own words: they wouldn’t vote for Rose because they either (1) want to keep Ellmers from winning or (2) want to keep Etheridge from winning. Because they only have one vote, Rose loses support simply out of voter fear.

But Rose *did* beat the spread in what’s becoming a contested race where every ballot will be carefully counted. To date, neither Etheridge (48.64%) nor Ellmers (49.52%) can claim to have a majority of voters’ support. Unofficial results show the following:

• Etheridge-Ellmers spread: 1,646
• Rose’s total votes: 3,463

Now imagine that everyone who voted had a chance to vote for a second choice. As it stands, we don’t know how the 3,463 people who voted for Rose would have otherwise voted, or even if they would have shown up to the polls at all. With Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), though, we could find out. If you voted in the 2010 General Election in N.C., you saw the state’s first use of IRV for a judicial seat that came open after the primary had been held. It was a long list of names, certainly, but it was easy to see that the left column was your first choice, the middle was your second, and so forth.

Here’s how IRV could have changed the District 2 race and led to a true majority result:

• Those voting for Rose as their first choice could have put Ellmers or Etheridge as
  their second choice, confident that the vote would still make a difference even if
  Rose didn’t get the percentage he’d need to win.
• Those voting for Ellmers or Etheridge as their first choice could have put Rose as
  their second choice as a statement that they’re opposed to the alternative.
• Those who didn’t show up to the poll because they felt their votes wouldn’t make
  a difference may have shown up and voted with confidence that their votes really
  matter.

Will IRV grow in N.C.? I think it will for non-partisan seats, but I’m not sure about partisan races. The reasons state officials will give in opposition are the apparent concerns about long ballots and “voter confusion” on ballots. It’s the same arguments they have used in their defense against the Libertarian and Green parties who are suing the state for its unconstitutional ballot access laws. However, I think IRV has a chance for wide-spread adoption if grassroots activists will promote its logical benefits. One of the benefits that could ring true with all voters is how it can ultimately save taxpayer money: less money (for labor and ballot printing) is to put into special, low-attended runoff elections, plus less labor-intensive ballot counting is needed to determine the final winner in races with 3+ candidates.

Would IRV allow Libertarians to grow? That’s a hard call, but my instinct after seeing the Libertarian impact in two-way races across the state says “yes.” I have met more than one voter since Tuesday that said, “I voted for you, and I would have voted for Beitler, but I didn’t want [Burr to be re-elected] or [Marshall to win].” These voters are afraid to say “this is who I want to win” because they don’t want to risk electing someone they definitely do not want to win. IRV would encourage those voters to vote with confidence rather than out of fear.

I’m proud and excited that Tom Rose had 3,463 votes in a race where the winner may win by less than half of that. It’s is a big statement, and I think we should use this as an opportunity to show how IRV could have truly made a difference.

• Josh Stein 54.85% (31,999 votes)
• Mike Beezley 41.68% (24,315 votes)
• Stephanie Watson 3.47% (2,026 votes)

My approximate cost per vote is going to be about $1.

Thanks to all who supported me in what ways you could! I look forward to coming back even stronger in 2012 as a true contender! I’ll post some more post-election reflections soon.

Reasons to vote for me:

• I’m ready to serve. I have the background in research, writing, and collaboration that will be valuable when preparing legislation.
• I’m the only candidate ready to take an active stance sponsoring or co-sponsoring legislation for meaningful annexation reform, helping to restore property owners’ rights across the state.
• I’m the only candidate willing to promote parental choice in education by examining all our options and taking careful, well-planned measures to move away from the state’s ineffective one-size-fits-all approach.
• I’m the only candidate both ready and willing to make the reforms necessary to make sure medical patients have legal access to a natural product that is safer and more effective than today’s powerful prescription medications: marijuana.
• This is our Senate seat, not a career stepping stone. My only political ambition is to serve in that seat as long as you want to re-elect me. Then, I’ll step down when you’re ready for someone else to represent you.

Reasons NOT to vote for me… seriously, if you answer “I agree” to any of these,
you probably don’t want to vote for me:

• You appreciate that Stein’s campaign has spent over $280,000 for a seat that pays just over $20,000 per year.
• You’ve been wooed by Stein’s glossy mailers with empty promises, hyperboles attacking Beezley, and some of the same great posed pictures he used in 2008.
• You think that any Republican is better than having a Democrat in office… or vice versa.
• You feel that people aren’t able to think for themselves and, instead, need elected officials to do that for them.
• You have a few extra dollars you don’t mind the state taking from you by force at the end of the year, and you’re happy to pass that obligation on to your children and grandchildren.
• You think that even though the state is broke, deep in debt, and bound for further economic decline, it should still be spending more.

Click here to find an early voting venue in Wake County and to see the hours of operation.

Barry Coe from North Carolina Chamber on Vimeo.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

RALEIGH, N.C. — Stephanie Watson, Libertarian candidate for N.C. Senate District 16 in Wake County, invites the public to a casual Meet-the-Candidate event at Frankie’s Fun Park on Thursday, September 9, between 6:30 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. Frankie’s is at 11190 Fun Park Dr. off T.W. Alexander near US-70 in Raleigh.

This will be the second of two receptions this month for the Watson campaign. The first was held at Loco Lu’s Coffeehouse in Raleigh on September 2, and attendees filled the shop. At the event, Watson answered questions from the audience about state spending, transportation, education, and states’ rights.

Watson is a native to N.C. and a 1996 graduate of N.C. State University. As a Liberty advocate, Watson promotes freedom and personal responsibility. She explains, “Like many people today, I feel the Republican and Democratic parties in the United States have disenfranchised the voices of Liberty. The Libertarian Party understands that government intervention is at the heart of many of our issues, and that it’s more Liberty, not more intervention, that offers a real long-term solution.”

For the Thursday event, Watson is eager to meet more Wake County residents and discuss the local and state issues important to them. Watson encourages, “Come early, relax and enjoy some free food. Bring the kids, stay and enjoy the arcade and the park.”

###

Links: Stephanie E. Watson for N.C. Senate District 16, Campaign Web site: www.GoLiberty.net

For more information about this topic, or to arrange an interview, please contact Stephanie Watson via phone at 910-960-7833 or email stef@goliberty.net.

• EVENT: Meet-the-Candidate Event at Loco Lu’s
• WHEN: Thursday, September 2, 2010, 7-9 PM
• WHERE: Loco Lu’s Coffeeshop (www.locolu.com), 5210 Hollyridge Drive, Raleigh, NC (about 1 mile West of Crabtree Valley Mall on Glenwood, then right left onto Hollyridge)
• EVENT DETAILS HERE: http://www.meetup.com/GoLiberty/calendar/14100978/

The Frankie’s Fun Park event has been rescheduled. Be sure to make a note of the change, and bring the whole family out to meet Stephanie, discuss your concerns, find out where she stands on the issues important to you, and enjoy the fun and games at the park!

• EVENT: Meet-the-Candidate Event at Frankie’s Funpark
• WHEN: Thursday, September 9, 2010, 6-8 PM
• WHERE: Frankie’s Fun Park (www.frankiesfunpark.com/raleigh/), 11190 Fun Park Drive, Raleigh, NC (in the Brier Creek area, on T.W. Alexander Drive near the intersection with Glenwood Avenue)
• EVENT DETAILS HERE: http://www.meetup.com/GoLiberty/calendar/14486127/

Stephanie is having a meet-the-candidate event at Frankie’s Fun Park in Raleigh on Thursday, September 9st, from 6:00 PM until 8:00 PM.

Bring the whole family, and come early for food and a cash bar, and stay for go-carts, batting cages, and the arcade!

Most importantly, meet Stephanie, express your concerns as a voter, and discuss how Stephanie can take your concerns to the floor of the Senate next session. Bring your checkbook, too, so you can make your in-person donation!

For more information, and to RSVP (encouraged, but not required), see: http://www.meetup.com/GoLiberty/calendar/14486127/