After asking readers to help me decide whether or not to stand in Epsom for Libertarianz (see here), I now find that the poll I started on the subject is as ambivalent as I am.
At the time of writing 228 votes have been cast, 43% saying "Yes, Run for Your Life!" and 50% telling me" No! Don't Do It!" Not very useful, but more useful than the 7% wondering where Epsom is -- at least that's more than are wondering where ACT is in the polls. But I digress.
To paraphrase the prime arguments for each position, I have on the one hand been accused of seeking to destroy the ACT Party*! Well, shucks. If little old me is all it takes to destroy ACT then it's probably time they were made to walk the plank. As Ayn Rand once observed, when you hear cries of "Don't rock the boat!" it generally mean that there's a boat that need rocking good and hard.
The other camp have been arguing that I should save my time, energy and remaining funds and keep tapping away at this here keyboard, and keeping my blog full of good readable content.
So what to do? Well, here's my idea and it has two parts.
First, I have readers who constantly tell me that ACT is really a libertarian party. If that's true then I will surely expect to see fewer irrelevant personal attacks in Parliament, and policies from them this election that clearly call for an increase in both personal freedom and economic freedom. One of each would be 1) a call for an end to the disgraceful and disgraced War on Drugs, or at least for cannabis to be legalised (see Libz arguments here); and 2) a call for the abolition of the Resource Management Act and the reinstitution of common law protection of property rights. (See my arguments here.)
Second, if that doesn't happen -- is the Pope Protestant? -- is Act a 'liberal' party? -- I will undertake to do whatever the poll says when the first answer reaches 250 votes. That is, if the first to get to 250 votes is 'Yes! Run!' then that is what I will do; if it's 'No! Don't' then I won't.
You choose. Vote down there on the sidebar. Or in the Tip Jar. ;^)
*The argument here is apparently that ACT's poor general polling (eg., 0.8% in the Herald's last 'snap' poll) means that it needs to win a constituency seat in order to get back into Parliament. With ACT's rejection of John Banks's reverse takeover bid, that means they have to win Epsom -- every Epsom vote is therefore important. To ACT.