Pages: 1 [2] 
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: New Report: Voting Records and Voting Patterns (Read 9567 times)
|
|
Just_visiting
|
(snip...)
However, with Idaho projected to have over 2,500,000 million people in twenty years, it is questionable whether the FSP members will be able to have any impact that goes above and beyond the freedom already available in Idaho.
That would be 2.5 x 10^12 (2.5 trillion) people in Idaho by 2025, giving it a population density of 30 million people per square mile, or just over 1 square foot per person (makes those New England states and Delaware look good by comparison!).
Remember, all of the factors in this report are entirely objective.
I think that's overstating it a bit. But still, good work. Regards, Just visitin' |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Kelton
|
Or let's look at voting from another angle: practicality vs expressiveness.
(snip)
Idahoans knew who would win their state. There was no question it was Bush. So the libertarians there could feel free to vote L to express their desire for liberty without fear of wasting their vote. By contrast, in 2000 Maine went for Gore; to vote for Browne there was arguably a bad idea.
<A Little-bit OFF TOPIC > This is one of my strongest reasons for supporting Idaho in the strategy-wise sense, since Republicans dominate politics in Idaho, they run unopposed both in a few statewide races and to the point of running almost a quarter of all legislative seats entirely unopposed. The wasted vote syndrome would not be as big of a factor in a single party-dominated state like Idaho as where the Republicans and Democrats always run neck-to-neck. In fact, it seems feasible to squeeze the Democrats out into minor party status in Idaho and let the Republicans be the sole big-government opposition party, who we could also influence in primary elections too. </off topic> Good explanation, Leonard. I guess this 'practicality vs expressiveness' + the sheer number of paper candidates is the reason that Idaho has such a hugely disproportionate number of LP votes that were cast in 2002 compared to all other states. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 20, 2003, 01:24:18 pm by exitus »
|
Logged
|
. . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue --The U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address
|
|
|
|
Leonard
|
<A Little-bit OFF TOPIC >
ince Republicans dominate politics in Idaho, they run unopposed both in a few statewide races and to the point of running almost a quarter of all legislative seats entirely unopposed. The wasted vote syndrome would not be as big of a factor in a single party-dominated state like Idaho as where the Republicans and Democrats always run neck-to-neck. In fact, it seems feasible to squeeze the Democrats out into minor party status in Idaho and let the Republicans be the sole big-government opposition party, who we could also influence in primary elections too.
</off topic>
I think it would be more feasible to take over and reshape the Democratic party in Idaho than to work via LP. We would have the downside of being identified with the party of socialism. This would frighten some potential voters, especially the less informed ones. But as long as we were explicit about our economically conservative stances, I don't think the hit would be too large; meanwhile we would pick up all the "left" (such as it is), who would have nowhere else to turn. We could keep around the LP as a lighting-rod and opinion leader, much the way the Socialist Party USA functioned for the Democrats. Anyway, I agree with you that Idaho is a great choice for the FSP. Right up there with WY and NH, IMO. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
1DayAtATime
|
Barry Goldwater was viewed by many people as a racist because of his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I would guess that many of the tolerant people of New Hampshire had trouble with voting for him for this reason. Well, you can see that if you want. However, back them, most libertarians were against it and most libertarians that I highly respect are still against racism (the act was a racist act they tried to damage people just because of their race). |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 20, 2003, 03:12:21 pm by FreedomRoad »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
1DayAtATime
|
4. Average Percentage Vote for Libertarian Harry Browne in 1996 and 2000
(snip....)
Not sure exactly what you mean by "average". In all cases except Wyoming, the average really was the arithmetic mean. But the "average" you gave for Wyoming was a couple of points too high. Not enough to change the rankings, but hey. Regards, Just visitin' Thank you. I post .76 but it really is .74. I have corrected that because of your help. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
1DayAtATime
|
Contrast this with the vote totals by actual number to get a better handle on what these figures represent: November 2002 Election Results, : Total Libertarian Votes by State197,900 Idaho 43,944 Wyoming 41,314 South Dakota 39,762 New Hampshire 29,927 Vermont 22,560 Montana 11,356 Alaska 4,642 Delaware 1,440 Maine Thanks Kelton. I added that to the report  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jgmaynard
|
Thank you for starting a thread on voting record! It looks very good that the LPNH will have over 30 people in office by the end of the year. More than ALL the continental candidate states combined!  We currently have 27 people in 29 offices throughout New Hampshire, including our own Don Gorman, and John Babiarz, who is serving on (officially signed FSP friend) Governor Benson's Efficency in Government Commission. It's not enough yet, though, but it is a great start, and one no other candidate state in the continental US can lay claim to. JM |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The Light of Alexandria By James Maynard A history of the first 1,000 years of science, and how it changed the ancient world, and our world today. http://www.lightofalexandria.com
|
|
|
|
1DayAtATime
|
(snip...)
However, with Idaho projected to have over 2,500,000 million people in twenty years, it is questionable whether the FSP members will be able to have any impact that goes above and beyond the freedom already available in Idaho.
That would be 2.5 x 10^12 (2.5 trillion) people in Idaho by 2025, giving it a population density of 30 million people per square mile, or just over 1 square foot per person (makes those New England states and Delaware look good by comparison!).
Remember, all of the factors in this report are entirely objective.
I think that's overstating it a bit. But still, good work. Regards, Just visitin' I have to say, you are a sharper man (or woman) then I. I went back and corrected that  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
1DayAtATime
|
Our own political science professor, Dr. Jason Sorens recommended this be given a high weighting in the spreadsheet. I also think it is important and that is why I included it in the report and in another report. Yes, I like it a great deal. I am sure you know this, though, otherwise I would not have put it in various reports. However, if you look at older versions of the spreadsheet, Jason does not rate this factor high. Kelton, the last thing I would want to do is confuse some of our outstanding members. Even though in the very first part of the report I say that this is not the actual report and does not have the hyperlinks like the website version of the report does....I will change this version to include a link to Jason's comments. I hope this helps and I always thank you for your feedback. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Kelton
|
(From another thread) ....The nice thing about my theory is that it is readily provable with current voting statistics, . . . Yes, speculation, though based on the nature and results of certain political campaigns--but they could be exceptions. I vaguely recall reading something about the voting statistics you are referring to. Could you point me to them again so I can refresh my memory and perhaps correct my misperception? Well, I guess we're all just speculating here, I don't mean to discount your opinion so much. Here is one factor, (already brought-out in this thread). . . November 2002 Election Results, : Total Libertarian Votes by State197,900 Idaho 43,944 Wyoming 41,314 South Dakota 39,762 New Hampshire 29,927 Vermont 22,560 Montana 11,356 Alaska 4,642 Delaware 1,440 Maine Elsewhere, a few specific elections were looked at, but I can't find those at the moment. Probably the biggest example is how Carla Howell in Mass. managed to get (what was it) almost 50% of voters to vote for her anti- tax inititive, she had huge name recognition, participated in the debates, was well-received, yet absolutely flopped in the election results because the battle of D. vs. R was such a big one. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 04, 2003, 02:29:41 pm by Kelton, a.k.a. exitus »
|
Logged
|
. . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue --The U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address
|
|
|
|
DadELK68
|
Tying both positions together, it seems logical that if you favor the third/new party approach, going to a state dominated by a single party is theoretically best. If you favor working within existing parties and/or being what some would call by such terms as 'Kingmaker', 'Spoiler', etc., then the more closely divided states are theoretically best.
I tend to lean toward thinking the latter approach might yield more influence, more quickly - again using the Carla Howell example, she did have great influence statewide in a state dominated by one party but with significant representation of the other, yet her own third-party candidacy was dismal.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
johnadams
|
The excerpts you provided, Kelton, from that one chart are interesting, but they do not provide the overall long-term picture. Here is some data that provides a somewhat different perspective: 1996 Presidential Election: Libertarian Votes by % by StateLibertarian Candidate: Harry Browne State Browne Total Votes % for Browne 1 AZ 14,358 1,404,405 1.02% 2 NV 4,460 464,279 0.96% 3 AK 2,276 241,620 0.94% 4 NH 4,237 499,175 0.85% 5 WY 1,739 211,571 0.82% 6 CO 12,392 1,510,704 0.82% 7 MA 20,426 2,556,786 0.80% 8 GA 17,870 2,299,071 0.78% 9 DE 2,052 270,845 0.76% 10 CA 73,600 10,019,484 0.73% 14 ID 3,325 491,719 0.68% 18 MT 2,526 407,261 0.62% 22 ME 2,996 605,897 0.49% 27 VT 1,183 258,449 0.46% 29 SD 1,472 323,826 0.45% 43 ND 847 266,411 0.32% 1996 Presidential Election: Libertarian Votes by FSP State State Browne Total Votes % for Browne NH 4,237 499,175 0.85% ID 3,325 491,719 0.68% ME 2,996 605,897 0.49% MT 2,526 407,261 0.62% AK 2,276 241,620 0.94% DE 2,052 270,845 0.76% WY 1,739 211,571 0.82% SD 1,472 323,826 0.45% VT 1,183 258,449 0.46% ND 847 266,411 0.32% Source: http://www.ballot-access.org/1996/allvotes96.htmlNotice that NH had the most Libertarian votes of any FSP state in this election and was second percentage-wise. kelton wrote: Elsewhere, a few specific elections were looked at, but I can't find those at the moment.
Probably the biggest example is how Carla Howell in Mass. managed to get (what was it) almost 50% of voters to vote for her anti- tax inititive, she had huge name recognition, participated in the debates, was well-received, yet absolutely flopped in the election results because the battle of D. vs. R was such a big one. DadELK68 wrote:
Re:New Report: Voting Records and Voting Patterns
« Reply #27 on: Today at 03:34:06pm »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tying both positions together, it seems logical that if you favor the third/new party approach, going to a state dominated by a single party is theoretically best. If you favor working within existing parties and/or being what some would call by such terms as 'Kingmaker', 'Spoiler', etc., then the more closely divided states are theoretically best.
I tend to lean toward thinking the latter approach might yield more influence, more quickly - again using the Carla Howell example, she did have great influence statewide in a state dominated by one party but with significant representation of the other, yet her own third-party candidacy was dismal. You are correct, Kelton and DadELK68, that Carla Howell has had great influence statewide and is even recognized outside of the state, as the posts in this thread indicate. Carla Howell did poorly because the Republican candidate was exceptionally strong and ran a smart campaign that many Libertarians found appealing, and he personally, publicly and successfully campaigned for getting Carla Howell and other third party candidates into the debates ( Carla Howell Accepts Mitt Romney's call for her Inclusion in Tonight's Governor's Debate). To a certain extent, this supports my point--the Republican candidate (Romney) competed for Libertarian votes in an election in which both the Republican and the Democrat were competitive. Romney refused to call for tax increases, despite pressure from the media to admit that tax increases would be necessary to balance the budget, and he instead talked about making budget cuts, increasing efficiency and fighting patronage and mismanagement. So far, Governor-elect Romney has stuck to his guns and not raised taxes and has vetoed some budget excesses and proposed streamlining of government departments. So while the Libertarian candidate was not elected, the Libertarians do appear to have influenced the election campaign and the tenor of the elected governor's first term in office looks relatively good from a Libertarian perspective. On the other hand, Massachusetts is generally a one-party Democratic state rather than a swing state and nonetheless consistently ranks in the top ten in votes cast for Libertarian candidates. This would seem to contradict what all of us are saying and indicate that a one-party Democratic state offers the best chances for Libertarians. It sounds counter-intuitive, but there is some sense to it. If Republican politicians don't seem much chance of winning as Republicans they may switch to the Libertarian Party, figuring that if they are going to lose they may as well be more true to their principles. And they may notice that while the Republican Party is declining, Libertarian registrations have been on the rise for some years now in Massachusetts. [See Massachusetts LP welcomes GOP defectorsfor an example.] Here is some more data from the same chart Kelton provided that show how well Libertarian candidates do in Massachusetts despite it being referred to repeatedly in this forum as a statist state: November 2002 Election Results: Total Libertarian Votes by State197,900 Idaho 5.64% 43,944 Wyoming 41,314 South Dakota 39,762 New Hampshire 29,927 Vermont 22,560 Montana 11,356 Alaska 4,642 Delaware 1,440 Maine 590,450 Massachusetts 6.81% As you can see, Massachusetts delivered more Libertarian votes and at a higher percentage than Idaho. And let's not forget that "Carla Howell ran the most successful Libertarian campaign for U.S. Senate in the LP's History in the year 2000" ( LP 'High Profile' Race Comparisons) and she was only 1% behind the Republican candidate, who was not nearly as strong a personality as Mitt Romney and who did nothing to reach out to Libertarian voters. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
johnadams
|
As a matter of fact, BOTH the Republicans and Democrats have been becoming more Libertarian in Massachusetts as the financial and technology sectors have developed and created more libertarian-oriented voters. Both major parties are competing for the votes of the libertarian "office park dads." The following excerpts from a Boston Globe editorial bear this out: The simple "liberal" label is the one that has stuck. But if it is true, why did we vote twice both for Ronald Reagan for president and for William F. Weld for governor, the latter an inveterate tax-cutter and onetime darling of the libertarian Cato Institute? And why did we pass Proposition 2 1/2, which, together with California's Proposition 13, is the nation's most severe tax-cutting initiative? And how is it that, early in this campaign season, the Democratic candidate for governor, Attorney General Scott Harshbarger, proposed what was, up to that point, the deepest suggested tax cut in the state's history?
....
The truth of the matter is that the state's political personality has always been more complex than the easy labels would indicate. ....
But the strain that runs deepest in Massachusetts's political soul is a fundamental faith in individual liberty. It is that faith, coursing through our centuries from Sam Adams and other revolutionary leaders, through the abolitionists, to the present day, that shows up as part of the state's recent fiscal caution and its desire for less reliance on government to solve problems.
What is emerging here is an outlook that might be called libertarian liberalism.
Increasingly...the state Republican Party has come to be heavily influenced by persons of a libertarian bent -- government minimalists who believe that the state should perform only essential functions and leave individuals free to lead their lives as they choose. The term would generally apply to Ray Shamie, who defeated Richardson for the GOP Senate nomination in 1984; to former Senate candidate and political commentator Avi Nelson; to former governor Weld; and to influential voices on the right, such as Barbara Anderson, of Citizens for Limited Taxation and Government, and radio personality David Brudnoy.
As governor, Weld became one of the nation's best-known political leaders to claim the libertarian label. For him and others, a consistent libertarian philosophy means that government should not only minimize its bureaucratic reach, it should also stay out of personal decisions. This produces tolerant positions on issues such as abortion and gay rights. As a result, Weld was called a liberal by many Republicans around the country -- a testament to the inadequacy of that label, given his commitment to fiscal conservatism.
....
Libertarian tendencies among Massachusetts Democrats have not been as prevalent as among Republicans, but there is a clear trend among some leading Democrats to distance themselves from the assumption that direct government programs, often involving large bureaucracies, are the answer to most social ills.
In Congress, Senator John F. Kerry voted for the Gramm-Rudman deficit reduction amendment in 1985, and Representative Joseph P. Kennedy II has been a consistent supporter of a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution.
....
Source:
THE STATE WE'RE IN MASSACHUSETTS STILL GETS LABELED ``LIBERAL,'' BUT THE TRUTH IS MORE COMPLICATED.
Author(s): Robert L. Turner, Globe Staff
Robert L. Turner is assistant editor of the Globe's editorial page.
Date: October 18, 1998
Page: 16
Section: Sunday Magazine So good arguments can be made for the ideal political situation being any of at least three different situations: [1] a strong Republican state (Kelton argued that the wasted vote syndrome is avoided)
[2] a swing state (I, bIlluminati and DadELK68 argued that a swing state might be best because of the "Kingmaker" effect, with the competition from both major parties for libertarian votes)
[3] a strong Democratic state (Massachusetts has shown that a strong Democratic state can actually produce more Libertarian votes than most other states)
I now realize that a more comprehensive analysis of the OVERALL data and historical trends around the nation would be needed before we could make a conclusion as to which (if any) political environment can be seen as being most fertile for the Libertarian Party and the Porcupines. Until then, each state will have to be examined on its own merits and in its own special context. I still think that a swing state with a libertarian culture is best, but the evidence so far is too mixed for me to be certain about that. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 05, 2003, 10:40:23 am by johnadams »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Kelton
|
johnadams, I really like your last post, it is a good summary. However, I see a few problems with the prior post. I think all of the statistics from the LP are found lacking for our purposes. It would be far more useful to look at individual statewide races and compare, rather than composite races. For instance, I really don't think LP votes for national elections are a good way to test each of our theories, since their percentages are already so insignificant. For instance, if you had used the 2000 vote, my theory would still hold water:
Percentage vote for Libertarian Harry Browne 2000
. . .
Ranking:
1. Alaska .92 (the highest score in the country)
2. Idaho .70
3. Wyoming .66
4. South Dakota .52
5. New Hampshire .48
6. Maine .47
7. Montana .24
8. Vermont .27
9. Delaware .24
10. North Dakota .23
Also, you noted the percentages of votes for LP in comparing two states, Idaho and Massachusetts, the problem is that that is just an average of all different vote percentages, not an actual measurement of percentage of votes cast. If it really were a measurement of percentage of the vote that is LP, we ought to quit this whole project and move to Arkansas immediately since they received 100% according to the LP chart |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
. . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue --The U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address
|
|
|
|
Leonard
|
Massachusetts is generally a one-party Democratic state rather than a swing state and nonetheless consistently ranks in the top ten in votes cast for Libertarian candidates. This would seem to contradict what all of us are saying and indicate that a one-party Democratic state offers the best chances for Libertarians.
That's not how it seems to me. I see it only as proof that in certain states the variance in political opinions is greater than in other states. In particular, in real life I observe that people pick up political opinions from other people they know and must interact with. So we should expect states where people don't interact widely (wrt the whole population) to have greater variance in ideology. There are several ways I can easily identify in modern America where groups develop their own ideologies. One is college education. Another is race, especially closed inner city welfare societies. Yet another is cites/suburbs in general, where one can be quite anonymous most of the time. And one final one is the set of people with strong internet interest, especially the relatively "unanchored" ones that live in cites and suburbs. Massachussetts has lots of colleges and college-educated people. It also has large numbers of geeks. So it is not surprising to find libertarians there. It just a more ideological place in general than most states in America. If my theory is right, then in addition to large numbers of libertarians in MA, we should see even more greens, socialists, etc. at the other end of the political spectrum. In any case, the fact still remains that the center is the place that matters from the POV of what state policy will be. And that is leftish in MA. Hopefully it will slide further towards liberty, but there's a long way to go. Plus there is NH there for all of the tax-haters to flee to. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
