I am a card-carrying member of the Libertarian Party, by which I mean that I subscribe to
the Statement of Principles printed on the back of my membership card: "We hold
that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives,
and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not
forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they
choose." (emphasis included on the card). In slightly more down-to-earth terms, laws
to force others to do what you think is a good idea are wrong: to force them to adhere
(e.g., through legislation) to your religious/moral agenda, or to force them to support
(e.g., through taxation) your social agenda, is wrong, even if you outnumber them.
Persuasion is preferable to coercion in almost every case.
Takeaway message: It's all about the power! What else would induce presumably-rational
men and women to spend full time for months -- well over a thousand hours -- and tens of
milllions of dollars (in the case of the California governorship, sometimes forty million dollars, and in 2010, over 140 million!) to
win an office that pays less than two hundred thousand
dollars a year? One clear sign that government has too much power is that people
are willing to spend so much time and money to get into it!
2010 Campaign - California State Board of Equalization
Largely a repeat of the 2006 campaign below, down to the issues and the incumbent. However, this year I was much more passive, not doing interviews, filling out surveys, etc., partly as a test of my baseline vote totals compared to my activity-driven vote totals. This year, the results looked like:
Result -- CA State Board of Equalization, District 1
Party
Candidate
Popular %
Democratic
Betty T. Yee (inc.)
62.2
Republican
Kevin R. Scott
32.1
Libertarian
Kennita Watson
3.0
Peace & Freedom
Sherli Berg
2.7
Interesting: I spent (significantly) less time and money, and garnered a (slightly) larger percentage of the vote, this year than in 2006. This suggests to me that approximately 3% of voters will select the Libertarian no matter what, and that no one else will, barring superhuman efforts.
2006 Campaign - California State Board of Equalization
Here are my answers to questions asked in an candidate interview conducted by the California Channel (in progress).
Since I'm not a professional politician, I'm not running an active campaign -- I don't plan to raise or spend money, partly to avoid the mountain of paperwork (and corresponding mountain of nosy questions about me and my contributors) that would result. I run to offer the voters in my district an alternative, and if perchance elected, I will serve to the best of my ability.
Break out the popcorn: here is a candidate statement that I recorded for The California Channel. Actually, it's only two minutes long (once it starts) -- enjoy! If the synchronization seems off, it's not just you. Take this video as proof positive that I don't do this professionally.
Right-click for some viewing options.
The results:
Result -- CA State Board of Equalization, District 1
Party
Candidate
Popular %
Democratic
Betty T. Yee
65.0
Republican
David J. Neighbors
29.2
Libertarian
Kennita Watson
2.9
Peace & Freedom
David Campbell
2.9
2002 Campaign - State Assembly
See here for my positions on the November 5, 2002 general election ballot propositions.
DISCLAIMER: I don't claim that my views on these issues are gospel,
or even that they are all fully-formed. At least in principle I am a
Pan-Critical Rationalist, by which I mean that any view that I have is
open to reasoned scrutiny and subsequent change. So if you plan to
vote for me because I hold a given fixed position, realize that if I discover
or am convinced rationally that another position is in the greater interest of personal
freedom and responsibility, I will embrace the new position. However,
I have thought out and discussed these positions and find that they have
been fairly stable over time.
For details of the Libertarian Party's positions on issues, and a fair swipe at
most of mine, see the Libertarian
Party Platform. In Issues and Positions, I expand on some issues that have been
brought up in candidate surveys and forums. For my views on a number of issues
and other things not directly covered here, see Musings -- Some
of What I Think.
See here for my positions on the March 7th, 2000 primary ballot propositions.
March 2000 Primary Election: 13th State Senate District
Candidate Party District total Percent, party Percent, total
John Vasconcellos Dem 92030 100.0% 68.7%
John Longwell Rep 35166 100.0% 26.3%
John H. Webster Lib 3768 55.3% 2.8%
Kennita Watson Lib 3048 44.7% 2.2%
Votes Not Cast in Race NA 17019 NA 11.3%
Here are the 1998 State Board of Equalization general election numbers, from
the League of Women Voters' Smart
Voter Project site:
Board of Equalization District 01
100.0% (6537 of 6537) precincts reporting as of the Semi-Official Canvass
District-wide Returns
Party
Candidate
Votes
Party %
Popular %
Democratic
Johan Klehs (incumbent)
954,172
100.0
77.7
Libertarian
Kennita Watson
274,540
100.0
22.3
State Assembly 23rd District 1986
John Vasconcellos (D-Inc)
?
67.7%
Lynn Knapp (R)
?
28.7%
Kennita Watson (L)
?
1.9%
Kerry Dean Williams (P&F)
?
1.7%
US House of Representatives 10th District 1988
Don Edwards (D-Inc)
?
86.2%
Kennita Watson (L)
?
13.8%
CA Secretary of State 1990
March Fong Eu (D-Inc)
3,592,566
52.0%
Joan Milke Flores (R)
2,775,888
40.2%
Kennita Watson (L)
206,462
3.0%
Theodore J. Nicholoff (AI)
134,120
1.9%
Evelina Alarcon (P&F)
127,111
1.8%
East Palo Alto Sanitary District 1992
non-partisan
~9% of vote (~18% needed to elect to one of multiple seats)
State Board of Equalization District 1 1994
Johan Klehs (D)
303,045
46.9%
Robert Strawn (R)
298,326
46.2%
Kennita Watson (L)
44,938
7.0%
Supporters
My campaigns have been conducted with the endorsement of the Libertarian Party, and the aid of many of its members. Supporting organizations include:
I am a card-carrying member of the Libertarian Party, by which I mean that I subscribe to
the Statement of Principles printed on the back of my membership card: "We hold
that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives,
and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not
forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they
choose." (emphasis included on the card). In slightly more down-to-earth terms, laws
to force others to do what you think is a good idea are wrong: to force them to adhere
(e.g., through legislation) to your religious/moral agenda, or to force them to support
(e.g., through taxation) your social agenda, is wrong, even if you outnumber them.
Persuasion is preferable to coercion in almost every case.