He's the one making absurd claims about libertarians, he should have to prove his claim. It's called "burden of proof", something conservatives generally avoid. But let's take a look at you trying to support Underseer's claim.
From the article:
In 2004 libertarians swung away from Bush, anticipating the Democratic victories of 2006. In 2008, according to new data in this paper, libertarians voted against Barack Obama.
In 2004 libertarians were anti-Bush, in 2008 libertarians were anti-Obama. That proves they consistently vote Republican, because the singular of "trend" is "instance."
See. Had you even one citation we've be having a discussion now rather me showing your failure to do so on the basis of 'burden of proof' and things wold have livened up.
Evidence free discussions are easy to fix. I just did it. Agreed?
So instead of responding to your information I responded to your assertion and the effects of the information you brought up were probably lost forever. Agreed again?
The article that was offered as proof shows that libertarians are not consistent with either party. Underseer's claim, which you tried to support, was that libertarians are consistent supporters of the Republicans. The first line of your offered proof contradicted Underseer's assertion.
Moreover in the details of the article you find further contradictions, this time with their methodology. It amounts to "These people do not refer to themselves as libertarians, but I the test conductor consider them libertarians. These people who I consider libertarians voted Republican, thereby proving that libertarians vote Republican." Do you see a problem with that methodology?
I'll show you the problem with that methodology. I hereby, as a thought experiment, temporarily define everyone on this board as a libertarian. In 2008 and in 2012 a majority of the members of this board favored Obama over McCain or Romney respectively, and of those that could vote in those elections and also bothered to vote in those elections a majority voted for Obama. That proves that the libertarians of this board consistently favor Democrats.
The problem is, now that the thought experiment is over, is that a majority of the people on this board wouldn't self-define as libertarians. So what does my thought experiment prove? As much as the CATO article does.
See, since you're doing Underseer's job, we are able to dissect the nature of the supporting information. We found it wasn't very good, but we were able to do so. Which is more than Underseer has ever done because, as a conservative, he not only knows that libertarians don't vote Republican, he is actually very angry at libertarians for not voting Republican.
So, why do libertarians go to the polls? We know our candidate won't win, but we go there anyway. You probably define our actions as "wasted time", "throwing away our vote", and other such bromides. But the only way to send the message "this is what we want the government to do" is to vote for the candidate that most closely represents our views. And as the data shows, that's not the Republicans.
So now answer this question - why would a Republican in California or a Democrat in Texas go to the polls?
