link to original reddit post by /u/AdamasNemesis
I can't help but wonder if, as part of any strategy to concentrate our efforts in specific areas (even to the point of enclavism), we should give higher priority, all other things being equal, to jurisdictions that have more proportional voting systems, especially those that are purely proportional and have a large number of available seats, such as the Netherlands.
Election campaigns, after all, make good lightning rods for converts and centers of education and activism, and one can only assume that's even more true for a campaign that has a real chance to elect people to office. The more proportional the voting system the easier it is for political minorities, such as us, to gain legislative representation.
The powers that be know this of course, so proportional systems often use a threshold (e.g. Germany's 5%) to exclude the smallest parties. But not always. The Netherlands has pure proportionality and 150 seats, so to win a seat one need only 1/150 of the vote (2/3 of 1%). That threshold has been cleared by the US Libertarian Party in every House election since 1996, suggesting that at least in principle the existing libertarian movement contesting elections in such jurisdictions might result in actually winning at least one seat!
Arguably the "take advantage of proportional representation" strategy has already been successfully executed by libertarians in Australia; in 2013 and 2016 David Leyonhjelm won a federal Senate seat in Australia, which is elected proportionally (albeit not as purely as in the Netherlands), for the Liberal Democratic Party. In 2018 the LDP won 2 seats in the Victoria Legislative Council, which is also elected proportionally in the same fashion.
As far as the Netherlands itself goes, apparently they have a Libertarian Party, but in 2021 it was only able to get 0.05% of the vote; even that, however, was a record high, so who knows? Thierry Baudet, after all, formed the "Forum for Democracy" in 2016 and got 5% in the 2021 elections, much more in recent local elections where the FvD was a contender for first place nationwide (even entering into government in one region!); the very fact someone can do such a thing bodes well for future libertarian efforts. I mean, imagine someone trying to do such a thing in the US; even as stalwart an outfit as the Libertarian Party struggles to even be allowed onto the ballot there.
Though there is the Free State Project. New Hampshire too has electoral-system advantages that favor libertarians. Its legislature is by far the largest of any state in the United States, at 424, almost as large as the federal Congress! This also yields a very small district size, making persuading enough voters to get elected to a seat much easier than in a state like California. In addition, many districts in New Hampshire elect multiple members like in proportional systems (though the system there is distinct from proportional voting). Local libertarians, especially under the banner of the Free State Project, apparently made use of these systemic advantages.
Interesting stuff if you ask me. Now, we should keep in mind that when the rules start producing outcomes the political class don't like they usually don't hesitate to change them, and since such a strategy largely depends on them playing fair its utility might be limited.
Still, both this and crafting and advocating for citizen-initiated ballot measures (I'm especially thinking of how marijuana became fully legal in many states long before any legislatures were willing to touch it with a ten-foot pole; maybe many more issues could be pushed the same way) might be among the most fruitful strategies that don't get much attention within the movement. So what are your thoughts on all this?