Gov't employees update

Free State Project Forum

264423 Posts in 21119 Topics by 34812 Members / Latest Member: edwincfranklin

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 19, 2013, 05:31:55 pm

Join the FSP

POSTING GUIDELINES and ADVICE FOR NEW MEMBERS

Tony, I know you NH fans like to use per-capita numbers (to downplay the population problem), but in this context, the activism of our opponents, per capita numbers make no sense at all.

If we have 50,000 govt. employees in state X, from whom $20 per employee can be raised in a campaign (totalling $1M) and from whom 10% (totalling 5000) can be recruited to work on campaigns, then it doesn't matter if the overall state population is 500,000 or 1,000,000 or 1,500,000. We would still have to raise money against their $1,000,000 and work against their 5000 campaign workers.

Per capita numbers make sense in some contexts, but not this one.

Zxcv, I know you WY fans like to use absolute numbers (to exaggerate the so-called population problem), but in this context, the activism of government employees, absolute numbers make no sense at all.

If we have 50,000 govt. employees in state X, then it does matter if the overall state population is 500,000 or 1,000,000 or 1,500,000. Assuming most Govt employees can influence at least one and maybe up to five voting family members and friends to oppose our efforts to cut government, if the voting population is 500k then you've got between 20% and 80% of the electorate firmly against you before you even start. If the population is 1,500,000, this opposition would be roughly 7% to 27%, with the remaining 63% to 93% of the electorate including many more potential allies to help us as voters, activists and contributors to raise money against their $1,000,000 and work against their 5000 campaign workers.

Absolute numbers make sense in some contexts, but not this one.
Wink

It's the percentages that determine who wins or loses a vote, not the absolute numbers.

Joe, if NH is as statist and population is against us (porcupines), how come
- Craig Benson, long time independent, "masquerading" as Republican and in line with us was elected for the gov. office?
-how come Craig invites FSP?
- how come Craig signed up as the friend of FSP?
-how come he agrees with FSP / libertarians more than with his Republican friends?
What I am trying to say NH population is like nothing you know.
If you are faced by 10 bandits where is 50 other people not sympathetic to you, or you are faced by 20 bandits where is 150 people sympathetic to you what scenario do you prefer? (numbers got nothing to do with our states proportions)

Quote from: Joe, aka, Solitar on September 12, 2003, 03:11:52 pm

... in this context, the activism of government employees, percentage numbers make no sense at all because the FSP is going into the state with absolute numbers -- 20,000 -- not a percentage.

But Joe, you usually argue that this 20k will be a percentage - a smaller percentage of the total electorate in NH than in WY. You use THAT percentage to support your position, and then refuse to use percentages which do not support your preferences (such as percentage of government employees). This is inconsistent, and appears much like 'politics as usual' on your part. You should know better!

Quote from: Joe, aka, Solitar on September 12, 2003, 03:11:52 pm

But IF I concede your point of the "dilution solution to government pollution", the reverse is equally true. The statists can relish the "dilution solution to freedom pollution" by swamping those absolute 20,000 in a greater population.

Thus, the PER CAPITA (a measure that NH people love to flaunt) of Porcupines to Population is better for statists and worse for Porcupines in a high population state.

Exactly my point, see above. Of course per capita porcupines would seem at first glance to favor WY in terms of simple percentages, but you have to move beyond that most basic level in your analysis.

Per capita government employees is worse for porcupines, perhaps far worse given the relative impact on the percentage of voters, as my example indicates. If you narrow the range in my hypothetical example and say that each government employee is likely to be supported in their opposition to the FSP agenda by 3 other voters, then that's 4(50k) or 200,000 votes - 40% of the total 500k voters firmly entrenched and likely to include activists in opposition. That's getting uncomfortably close to the 50% needed to win or lose elections, and means that the Porcupines have to work that much harder to try to find and/or convince every single voter who will strongly support them rather than the opposition to break that 50% threshold.

I would rather have that same level of opposition in a state with a much larger percentage of potential allies and an underlying culture which favors small-L libertarianism rather than conservatism - if that same 200k votes are cast in a state with 1.5m voters, that's only 13.33% firmly entrenched and likely to include activists in opposition. For 20k Porcupine activists trying to pass their agenda with >50% of the vote, these are actually much better odds - there should be far more people who are going to be open to voting in favor of the FSP agenda, particularly if at least 50% tend to see that 13.3% as government hacks feeding at the trough that their tax dollars fill. The statists have to gain about 37% of the electorate to support them (555k voters), compared to only having to gain about 10% (50k) in the smaller state. Clearly, much easier for the Statists to beat the Porcupines with these odds!

Quote from: Joe, aka, Solitar on September 12, 2003, 03:11:52 pm

No state has adequately shown just what the percentage statists and "classical liberals" they may have now. Where does the figure lie between 20% and 80% of the electorate: firmly with statists or firmly with classical liberals? The evidence by looking at the present governments of even the most "libertarian" states is that the percentage has been firmly with the statist/communitarian/socialist/liberal/authoritarians. The Free State effort (post-FSP) needs as few of them as possible -- both in absolute numbers and in percentages. Are there any good answers to either of those numbers or percentages?

You left out statist conservatives, or perhaps you include them under the umbrella of authoritarians?

You're not likely to find a state with as few of them in absolute numbers AND percentages at this point, obviously, or we would already have done so. Again - when it comes to winning elections, winning electoral victories, it's percentages that count. You have to do all you can to keep the absolute numbers of votes you get as high as possible and the absolute numbers of votes your opponents get as low as possible, but anything beyond that one vote which pulls you above 50% is gravy.

I'd rather have 40% of the voters being 'squishy' potential allies than to have 40% in firm activist opposition, because the latter situation puts the opposition in a much stronger position to defeat the Porcupine 'outsiders'.

All right, Dad, you've got a point. It is more advantageous to have as opponents, 50,000 government workers in a state with 1,500,000 than it is to have them in a state with 500,000. But we are not talking about 50,000; we are talking about 40,920 in Wyoming and 67,580 in NH.

I have to question your view of how politics works.

I wonder if you've ever worked in a political campaign? You know, going over almost every day to knock on doors, make a run to the bank with checks, write literature, go to the printers, set up campaign events, and so forth?

I've done that. As far as I'm concerned, there are two things that make for successful campaigns: money and bodies. Where do you raise money from? The interest groups. Where do you get bodies from? D's get them from the public employee unions and some other interest groups (gays, oldsters, etc). R's get them from, I don't know, church organizations and that sort of thing. One other thing I've seen to win races was a candidate willing to wear out shoe leather knocking on doors - but we are not considering that side of things here.

I just don't see campaigns being won by people influencing friends and neighbors the way you are imagining. If govt employees really can do things that way, we are in trouble even in NH because influencing 3 others means the influenced people are 270,000, right at about half the voters!

Also, it depends on what the issues are. Wyoming has a high percentage of road workers in its employees. Yes, if the big issue is something like a public employee retirement package, then they are all going to be against us. But if it is cutting the school budget, road workers won't be any less inclined to agree with us than the general population is. They are not members of the NEA.

Finally, not all government workers vote! They certainly don't go out and try to convince strangers what to vote for. Most of their friends are also government workers, so there is no influence multiplication there. And honestly, do you vote how your brother, sister or mother does?

No, it's really much simpler than that. Money and bodies are what runs a political campaign, and that means the number of government workers are what will be important for us. When the actual vote happens, yes, we have a slightly larger deficit to make up in Wyoming because of the higher percentage of government workers (for some issues, anyway), but for campaigning, it's money and bodies.

NOTICE: The forum will be down for maintenance beginning at 7PM (NH time) this evening. It should be up again by 9PM. Please forgive the inconvenience and feel free to e-mail arick@freestateproject.org if you have any questions or support requests.