Has the republicans had more pedos in their party or does libertarian?

1. No authoritative head‑to‑head count exists — media coverage is case‑by‑case

There is no source in the material provided that compiles a rigorous, party‑by‑party database of people charged with or convicted of crimes involving children; available items are investigative pieces, opinion columns, lists, and individual profiles rather than statistical studies, so a straight numerical comparison is not present in the reporting you supplied (not found in current reporting).

2. High‑profile Republican links are widely reported and politically consequential

National coverage has focused on Jeffrey Epstein and the political fallout, with Democrats and commentators accusing Republicans of protecting powerful figures and resisting release of records; The New York Times reported Democratic arguments that Republicans have shielded the rich — including alleged abusers — and that the Epstein affair became a political weapon in 2025 ^[1]. Opinion pieces and aggregations also catalogue numerous alleged Republican abusers or enablers ^{[4] [5]}, but these are not the same as a vetted, impartial tally.

3. Libertarian‑label cases are documented but isolated and often disavowed by the party

Nathan Larson is a repeatedly cited example of an individual who advocated for pedophilia and ran for office while describing himself as a “quasi‑neoreactionary libertarian.” FactCheck and mainstream outlets documented his activities and noted the Libertarian Party of Virginia censured and expelled him in 2017 ^{[2] [3]}. Reporting emphasizes his expulsion and that his views were outside party norms, showing how fringe actors can be tied to labels without being representative ^[2].

4. Watch out for advocacy lists and partisan narratives — they can conflate, exaggerate, or omit context

Some web pages present compilations with partisan framing (for example, sites that create exhaustive GOP "pages" or long lists of alleged offenders) but these are not neutral, peer‑reviewed datasets ^{[5] [4]}. Opinion pieces (e.g., Los Angeles Times, Lawyers, Guns & Money) make interpretive claims about party culture and motivations — useful for context but not substitutes for countable evidence ^{[6] [7]}.

5. Two distinct kinds of claims appear in reporting — individual criminality vs. institutional coverup

Coverage splits into reporting on specific alleged offenders and reporting on political behavior toward allegations. For example, Nathan Larson’s personal advocacy and legal troubles are documented as an individual case ^{[2] [3]}. Separate reporting discusses how political institutions and actors responded to Epstein‑era revelations, with claims that some Republicans sought to shield implicated networks — a political allegation rather than a headcount of perpetrators ^{[1] [7]}.

6. How to interpret the evidence and what is missing

From the supplied sources you can reasonably conclude there are documented instances tied to both parties: isolated extremist figures who’ve used the “Libertarian” label and many newsworthy controversies involving Republicans and Epstein‑related fallout ^{[2] [3] [1]}. However, there is no neutral, source‑verified comparative statistic provided here, and the presence of opinion pieces and partisan lists means caution is required before generalizing about the parties as wholes (not found in current reporting).

7. Practical next steps if you want a rigorous answer

Ask for (a) a dataset of charged/convicted individuals with party affiliation verified from court records and official filings, or (b) peer‑reviewed research or law‑enforcement compilations that track such crimes by party membership. None of the supplied sources supplies that kind of systematic dataset (not found in current reporting). If you want, I can summarize the specific cases documented in these sources (e.g., Epstein‑related reporting, Nathan Larson) or search for authoritative studies and government records instead.