Pubdate: Tue, 17 Jul 2001
Source: Richmond Times-Dispatch (VA)
Copyright: 2001 Richmond Newspapers Inc.
Contact:  http://www.timesdispatch.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/365
Author: A. Barton Hinkle, Times-Dispatch Columnist

THE OTHER CANDIDATE

Sisyphus Has Got Nothing On This Redpath Guy

he Greek king Sisyphus, consigned to roll a stone forever up a hill only to 
have it roll back down, would look at William Redpath and say to himself, 
"Well, it could be worse." Redpath is the Libertarian candidate for 
Governor this year, and he has about as much chance of scoring as a lounge 
lizard in a lesbian bar. Some call him committed; others think he should be.

Consider the odds: His opponents, Mark Warner and Mark Earley, could raise 
as much as $30 million in campaign contributions. Redpath hopes to raise 
between $25,000 and $50,000. Nationwide, the Libertarian Party has almost 
as many members as there are Hell's Angels at a performance of La Boheme. 
Redpath will be listed on the ballot as an independent, because Virginia 
does not recognize the Libertarians as a party - so the vast majority of 
voters will not know his views on the issues.

Of those who do, many will scorn them. His campaign slogan - "Anything 
That's Peaceful" - sounds like the recipe for an afternoon nap. Finally, 
the statewide candidate for Lieutenant Governor, Gary Reams, has chosen to 
run on a single issue: legalizing marijuana.

All right, things are not quite that bad. Libertarians hold more than 200 
elected offices across the country (albeit most at the level of 
dog-catcher), and three in Virginia. Last year's presidential candidate 
received more than 15,000 votes here. Libertarians face obstacles the two 
major parties don't: Restrictive ballot-access laws, exclusionary debate 
rules, minuscule media coverage, the tendency of the major parties to 
co-opt their issues, and their own refusal to take government funds.

When you make allowance for all those factors, the Libertarians can claim 
some modest success.

So who is Redpath, and what does he believe?

Once a senior financial analyst for NBC in New York and now the vice 
president of a financial consulting firm, he went to Indiana University and 
received an MBA from the University of Chicago. He has been active in the 
party, and has run twice before: once for the House of Delegates and once 
for the Virginia Senate.

Spend much time around Libertarians and you get the sense some of them are 
a trifle - well, nuts. They will speak of pie-in-the-sky schemes to 
privatize all city streets and keep America safe by eliminating the 
military and leaving other countries alone. (Hey, it worked for Poland in 
1939.) Redpath is different. He calls himself "more of a Cato Libertarian" 
- - referring to the Cato Institute in Washington.

The nation can't eliminate all taxation, he says, so the goal should be to 
keep taxes as low as possible.

The right to keep and bear arms does not extend, say, to the private 
ownership of nuclear weapons.

On most other issues he comes across as mainstream: He favors initiative 
and referenda, supports a universal tuition tax credit, advocates 
market-based approaches to transportation (peak-hour congestion pricing and 
high-occupancy toll lanes), and opposes capital punishment (he would 
substitute life imprisonment without the possibility of parole).

But what really jerks his chain is the dominance of the two-party system.

He says most elections in the state are uncompetitive (true enough). In the 
1999 House of Delegates election, he writes in a position paper, 
"Forty-nine of the 100 seats had only one candidate's name on the ballot, 
while another 12 seats had no major-party challenger. Of the 39 remaining 
seats with two major-party candidates, 18 were landslide victories (i.e., 
the winning margin was 20 percentage points or more)." Hence the voters 
have no real choice, and no real interest in the political process. "Sports 
teams play up to the competition. We're in a political depression. More 
competitive races would increase participation."

HIS PRESCRIPTION: instant runoff voting and proportional representation - 
the latter the same idea that helped derail the Justice Department 
appointment of titanium-hard leftist Lani Guinier. Instant runoffs work 
like this: Voters rank the several candidates for a single office in order 
of preference. If a voter's first choice does not prevail, the vote goes to 
the second choice.

If that candidate does not win, the two votes go to the third choice, until 
one candidate has enough votes to win. (Think of the Florida recount under 
such a system.)

Redpath also advocates "interactive representation" in the Senate. He would 
do away with districts; voters would select 40 candidates through the 
instant runoff, and each Senator would have different voting power based on 
the number of votes each member had at the conclusion of the vote-transfer 
process. (Think of the recent budget impasse under such a system.)

H.L. Mencken observed that "for every complex problem there is an answer 
that is short, simple - and wrong." (Or something like that; a search in 
Nexis and on the Internet found roughly 5,983 variations of the quote.) 
Redpath, however, has produced an answer that is long, complex, and wrong.

And he assuredly has as much chance of seeing it enacted as he does of 
winning the Governor's office.

Still, everyone needs a hobby.

Politics, where the results really matter - unlike, say, sports - helps to 
pass the time, and is more fun than macrame. Besides, tilting at windmills 
seems a loftier passion than joining the big boys to beat up the little 
guy. Don Quixote might have been a tad off his nut, but he cut a fine 
figure riding off into the sunset.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth