Free State Project Forum

Archive => Which State? => Topic started by: craft_6 on November 05, 2002, 12:06:37 pm

Title: 2002 Election Results
Post by: craft_6 on November 05, 2002, 12:06:37 pm
I'm starting this thread to track and discuss the results of the 2002 elections in the ten candidate states.  Items of interest:

1. Voter turnout, absolute numbers and percent of population (compare to 2000)

2. Political party results (Libertarian, Republican, Democrat, Green, Constitution, etc.)

3. Ballot measure results (especially those dealing with individual liberty or the size and power of government)

4. Campaign spending per state (how high is the bar?)
Title: Re:2002 Election Results
Post by: George Reich on November 05, 2002, 02:50:35 pm
New Hampshire has an interesting question on the ballot to clarify the power balance between the legislative and judical branches of government. I hope to God it passes with the required 2/3 majority.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/misc/voterguide.html


 :-\
Title: Re:2002 Election Results
Post by: George Reich on November 05, 2002, 05:49:18 pm
Coffee and donuts?? I've never seen those at a polling place in New Hampshire, but I guess it's an interesting idea!
Title: Re:2002 Election Results
Post by: mdlowry on November 05, 2002, 08:59:30 pm
Lib40, I voted at a school on the seacoast.  The 4th grade class was having a bake sale.  :)
Title: Re:2002 Election Results
Post by: George Reich on November 05, 2002, 10:33:40 pm
It's a wonderful idea and very New Hampshire-ey!

 :D
Title: Re:2002 Election Results
Post by: craft_6 on November 06, 2002, 10:33:30 am
Another online source for results:  http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2002/  (Choose the "Pick a State" pulldown menu.)

Interesting ballot measures:

South Dakota defeated the jury nullification proposal, 80-20%.  Not all libertarians support jury nullification, but I would guess that anyone who does support it would be sympathetic to libertarian reforms.

North Dakota defeated a proposal to pay young people up to $10K to stay in the state, 57-42%.  Not a libertarian solution by any means, but a sign that the state might welcome an influx of new residents of any kind.

Massachusetts voters defeated Question 1 to repeal the state income tax, but only by a 54-46% vote.  Even in one of the most statist states, there are a lot of people who think government has gone too far.  This also offers hope that the FSP could use ballot initiatives in a more liberty-friendly state for rapid statewide gains, while simultaneously working the longer-term bottom-up strategy.
Title: Re:2002 Election Results
Post by: craft_6 on November 06, 2002, 10:57:28 am
Percentage of Republican and Libertarian votes in national races in our ten candidate states:  (I=Incumbent, vI=vs. Incumbent)

Alaska
--------
Governor:  R-56, L-0
Senate:  R-79 (I), L-1
House:  R-75 (I), L-2

Delaware
------------
Senate:  R-41 (vI), L-0
House:  R-72 (I), L-1

Idaho
-------
Governor:  R-56 (I), L-2
Senate:  R-65 (I), L-2
House1:  R-59 (I), L-2
House2:  R-68 (I), L-3

Maine
-------
Governor:  R-41, L-0
Senate:  R-58 (I), L-0
House1:  R-36 (vI), L-0
House2:  R-47, L-0

Montana
-----------
Senate:  R-32 (vI), L-3
House:  R-64 (I), L-3

New Hampshire
--------------------
Governor:  R-59, L-3
Senate:  R-51, L-2
House1:  R-58, L-3
House2:  R-57 (I), L-2

North Dakota
-----------------
House:  R-48 (vI), L-0

South Dakota
-----------------
Governor:  R-57, L-0
Senate:  R-49 (vI), L-1
House:  R-53, L-1

Vermont
-----------
Governor:  R-45, L-1
House:  R-32 (vI), L-1

Wyoming
------------
Governor:  R-48, L-2
Senate:  R-73 (I), L-0
House:  R-61 (I), L-3

Looks like Libertarians did the best in Montana, Idaho, and New Hampshire.

Title: Re:2002 Election Results
Post by: craft_6 on November 06, 2002, 11:33:21 am
Looking at the Republican results above (and assuming some correlation between Republican success and a willingness to downsize government among the voters, even if the candidates don't actually do that when elected), I would conclude the following:

Alaska:  Solidly Republican.  Both Republican incumbents won big, and a Republican won the open race.

Delaware:  Not as Democratic as I would have guessed.  The Republican incumbent in the House won big, and the Republican challenger for Senate cracked 40% against an incumbent.

Idaho:  All Republican incumbents, all won comfortably.

Maine:  Republicans did not fare well here at all.  Coupled with the state's high population, this has to be one of the least favorable states for success of the FSP.

Montana:  The Republican challenger didn't put up a very good showing against the incumbent Senator.

New Hampshire:  A Republican sweep.

North Dakota:  The Republican challenger in the House did well against an incument.

South Dakota:  Senate race still very close -- a very good showing for the Republican challenger.

Vermont:  The Republican actually did pretty well in the Governor's race -- it appears headed to the state legislature to decide.

Wyoming:  The Governor's race was a downside surprise for Republicans, but the other candidates won.


My conclusion from this:  Most of the candidate states appear to be solidly Republican.  Vermont and Delaware might not be as socialistic as some have made them out to be.  Maine looks like a lost cause.
Title: Re:2002 Election Results
Post by: craft_6 on November 06, 2002, 11:50:33 am
Approximate voter turnout yesterday (numbers are to nearest 1K in US House races, with percent of precincts reporting in parentheses):

Wyoming (97%):     176K
Alaska (98%):         194K

Vermont (99%):       222K
Delaware (100%):    228K
N. Dakota (100%):   231K

Montana (100%):        310K
S. Dakota (100%):       337K

Idaho (100%):              401K
Maine (89%):                437K
N. Hampshire (100%):      441K


Title: Re:2002 Election Results
Post by: ZionCurtain on November 06, 2002, 02:19:57 pm
I think we need to make some changes to the states. I would like to see the 20,000 to be at least 8% of the voter turnout. I know that it would eliminate some of the popular states but aren't we in it to win it?
Title: Re:2002 Election Results
Post by: George Reich on November 06, 2002, 08:32:05 pm
ZionCurtain,

New Hampshire had a record breaking turnout because the electorate became outraged by a personal income tax proposal put forth by the Democratic party. Many of these people are independents who are fiscally conservative to a fault but are libertarian on personal freedom issues - so they can't bring themselves to register as Republicans.

Isn't this the crowd we'd like to turn out on election day??

Lib40

Story about the record turnout:

http://www.thewmurchannel.com/news/1770161/detail.html
Title: Re:2002 Election Results
Post by: JT on November 06, 2002, 09:12:34 pm
WYOMING:

(2000)
People of voting age: 358,000
People registered to vote:  220,012 (61% of voting age residents)
Ballots cast: 221,685 (yes 101% of registered voters)

U.S. Senate
Dem.- 47,087 (21.2%)
Lib.- 8,950 (4.0%)
Rep.- 157,622 (71.1%)

U.S. Rep.
Dem.- 60,638 (27.4%)
Lib.- 6,411 (2.9%)
Nat.- 3,415 (1.5%)
Rep.- 141,848 (64.0%)


(2002)
People of voting age: 364,909
People registered to vote: 241,200 (66% of voting age residents)
Ballots cast: 188,533 (78.1% of registered voters)

U.S. Senate
Dem.- 49,582  (26.3%)
Rep.- 133,758 (70.9%)

U.S. Rep.
Dem.-  65,962 (35.0%)
Lib.- 5,961 (3.2%)
Rep.- 110,239 (58.5%)

Governor
Dem.- 92,645 (49.1%)
Lib.- 3,912 (2.1%)
Rep.- 88,888 (47.1%)
Title: Re:2002 Election Results
Post by: Tyler on November 07, 2002, 05:28:10 am
The election in Delaware wasn't much of a suprise. I lived there for a over five years back in the early to mid '90s and met Mr Clatworthy when he was making his earlier bid against Sen Biden. Clatworthy has some decent ideas (six years ago he supported privatising social security-I loved the ads where Biden's people said he supported a risky scheme from Chile), but the people of Delaware are notorious for their love of incumbents (the only recent incumbent who lost was Bill Roth, who was beaten by a popular term limited governor named Tom Carper for the senate). Biden has held his seat since 1972 and I'm fairly sure that even if 20k of you did move there you'd still be hard pressed to beat him.

Still some truly atrocious figures were beaten around the country, so not all is lost.

And the Libertarian candidate for governor of Wisconsin got 10 percent of the vote. Let me qualify that by saying he's Tommy Thompson's brother, but that's still interesting

One final point, the Green party picked up their first seat in a State House in....Maine. 31st district in west Portland, if I remember right.
Title: Re:2002 Election Results
Post by: Solitar on November 07, 2002, 11:59:18 am
Tyler,
Welcome Aboard!

All is not lost - yet.
As you say in the "Bottom Five" thread about Delaware,
Quote
"the truth is that they are far too moderate and too complacent to really go out and do something as uncomfortable as to boot out their incumbent elected officials"
The liberty-minded people are outnumbered everywhere, even in the most free states, as evidenced by the state of liberty in even the most free states. Ten percent of the vote is still an embarrassing loss. After thirty years the libertarians can't even muster 20% or 30%.
Title: Re:2002 Election Results
Post by: craft_6 on November 07, 2002, 04:25:38 pm
More votes trickling in..... (US House races, approximate totals, according to CNN)

Wyoming   182K
Alaska       195K

Vermont     223K
Delaware   228K
N. Dakota   231K

Montana     328K
S. Dakota   337K

Idaho               404K
N. Hampshire   441K
Maine               480K

Title: Re:2002 Election Results
Post by: Tyler on November 07, 2002, 08:02:21 pm
If we look at Wyoming you'll see that the votes between the Democrat and the Republican candidates for governor were pretty evenly split, with 92,657 going to Mr Freudenthal and 88,887 going to Bebout. Throw in the vote for the Libertarian, Mr Dawson at 3,912, and you'll see an environment very favourable to the FSP, in my opinion. With 20,000 more supporters of liberty in the state Mr Bebout, assuming he cares about our rights, would have cruised to victory (I assume Mr Bebout was at least more liberty minded than his open, who was called the "Progressive governor Wyoming needs" and other such things by "The Wyoming Tribune Eagle").

I personally think, and as I am not a member of the FSP, nor do I plan on becoming one in the near future (my situation forbids me from committing to something of this magnitude) my opinion should certainly be counted less, that Wyoming offers you folks the best chance of success. However, that's another topic.
Title: Re:2002 Election Results
Post by: Robert H. on November 08, 2002, 04:52:39 am
With 20,000 more supporters of liberty in the state Mr Bebout, assuming he cares about our rights, would have cruised to victory (I assume Mr Bebout was at least more liberty minded than his open, who was called the "Progressive governor Wyoming needs" and other such things by "The Wyoming Tribune Eagle").

Very true.  I'll probably take some heat for saying this, but unfortunately, the libertarians did themselves no service in Wyoming.  Had they cast their votes for Bebout, a less statist party would still control their governor's mansion.  Not an ideal situation of course, but better than was otherwise realistically available at the time.  Had they done so, Bebout would have won by 142 votes.  Now, having won office in a traditionally Republican state, the new governor will be that much more eager to try and implement a Democrat agenda, which neither the Republicans nor the Libertarians will appreciate.

Quote
I personally think, and as I am not a member of the FSP, nor do I plan on becoming one in the near future (my situation forbids me from committing to something of this magnitude) my opinion should certainly be counted less, that Wyoming offers you folks the best chance of success. However, that's another topic.

I'm still weighing the states, but everything I've seen thus far seems to support your statement.  Wyoming may have elected a Democrat, but we see clear evidence that the lesser to non-statist vote still outweighed the statist vote.  

Also, political campaigns are fickle things, often based on personality more than ideals, and people will sometimes vote for change just for change's sake.  I'd look at a state's historical track record more seriously than a recent, mid-term election.  The election of Republicans in places like Maryland and Hawaii probably will not stand come the next election as those places are historically statist.  

A president's popularity can also do quite well for his party, as evidence suggests that Republicans picked up votes or boosts in the polls wherever Bush went to campaign.  And we should also keep in mind that a rogue governor (one whose party does not hold a legislative majority) can be marginalized in their effectiveness to implment an agenda.  Again, much of a governor's effectiveness can be based on personality as opposed to ideals, so you never know.  A governor can also stonewall legislation unless the legislature has the votes to overturn his or her veto.  I don't know if Republicans in Wyoming's legislature have that sort of majority.

But they easily could if we were there.   ;D
Title: Re:2002 Election Results
Post by: Penfist on November 08, 2002, 09:38:14 am
[/quote]

Very true.  I'll probably take some heat for saying this, but unfortunately, the libertarians did themselves no service in Wyoming.  Had they cast their votes for Bebout, a less statist party would still control their governor's mansion.  Not an ideal situation of course, but better than was otherwise realistically available at the time.  Had they done so, Bebout would have won by 142 votes.  Now, having won office in a traditionally Republican state, the new governor will be that much more eager to try and implement a Democrat agenda, which neither the Republicans nor the Libertarians will appreciate.

Quote

There are two ways of looking at this. Sometimes things need to get worse before they get better. Under Democratic rule, things will likely get worse faster. Hopefully, that will precipitate the sort of drastic reduction in government that is really needed.
Title: Re:2002 Election Results
Post by: ChrisforLiberty on November 08, 2002, 12:20:51 pm
To get election results in Tennessee, you can go to http://www.lpknox.org
Title: Re:2002 Election Results
Post by: ChrisforLiberty on November 08, 2002, 03:04:23 pm
Actually, Question 2, but barely. I enjoy it in Knoxville, but I do think within a matter of years, I will be living in another state.
Title: Re:2002 Election Results
Post by: Hank on August 30, 2003, 11:02:49 am
We're on a football field.
There are 20 of us and 182 of them.
oops
their friends just showed up
now there are 20 of us and 480 of them.
Even if 40 of them leave
we're still so outnumbered that we'll get stomped. :-\

How many of them can we get to defect to our side?
100?  Good enough in the first case.
200?  Not quite good enough in the second case.

So how's the 2003 elections shaping up?

After 2004 all the governors may have changed.
Title: Re:2002 Election Results
Post by: Karl on August 30, 2003, 11:32:40 am
We're on a football field.
There are 20 of us and 182 of them.
oops
their friends just showed up
now there are 20 of us and 480 of them.
Even if 40 of them leave
we're still so outnumbered that we'll get stomped. :-\

How many of them can we get to defect to our side?
100?  Good enough in the first case.
200?  Not quite good enough in the second case.

Your analogy is based on two false assumptions:

1.  Everyone on the "other team" is our enemy.
2.  We have 100 friends.

A strategy based on these assumptions is doomed.  If we start the game playing 20 vs. 182, we lose.  There will be no reinforcements.
Title: Re:2002 Election Results
Post by: freedomroad on August 30, 2003, 11:42:07 am
I forgot about this thread.  As long as it is around and is about the 2002 election, I'll poast the results of the 2002 election.


Average vote for LP candidates in 2002 for major offices
Includes US Senate, US House, and Governor races
Ranking:

1. Montana 3.0%
2. Wyoming 2.5%
2. New Hampshire 2.5%
4. Idaho 2.25%
5. Alaska 1.5%
6. Vermont 1.0%
6. South Dakota 1.0%
8. Delaware 0.5%
9. Maine No LP Candidates
10. North Dakota No LP Candidates
Source http://www.zayda.net/pipermail/wyolp/2002-November/000340.html

 

Percentage of total vote in 2002 according to the Libertarian Party website: All elections averaged
1. Maine 8.47%
2. Wyoming 7.62
3. Idaho 5.64%
4. Montana 3.28%
5. New Hampshire 2.68%
6. South Dakota 1.77%
7. Alaska 1.31%
8. Vermont 1.27%
9. Delaware 0.91%
The website does not have the results for North Dakota
Source http://www.lp.org/campaigns/results/highlights.php?type=percentbystate


November 2002 Election Results: Total Libertarian Votes by State
1. Idaho 197,900
2. Wyoming 43,944
3. South Dakota 41,314
4. New Hampshire 39,762
5. Vermont 29,927
6. Montana 22,560
7. Alaska 11,356
8. Delaware 4,642
9. Maine 1,440
ND N/A
Source http://www.lp.org/campaigns/results/highlights.php?type=votesbystate

Title: Re:2002 Election Results
Post by: Hank on August 30, 2003, 11:08:23 pm
Karl,
I thought you'd see what I was getting at.
Okay.
I'll make it simpler.

We're on a football field.
We have a choice of two opponents.


or


Either way we're still so outnumbered that we'll get stomped if we don't lure some defectors to our side or at least get them to sit out the game.

How many of them can we get to defect to our side?
100?  Good enough against Wyoming's state champions.
200?  Not quite good enough against Maine's state champions.

How many of them can we get to sit on the sidelines?
165?  It's good enough against Wyoming's state champions.
400?  Not good enough against Maine's state champions.

What if we get some of the opposition to defect to our side
and some to sit on the sidelines?
How many of each?
55 defectors plus 55 sitters to win against Wyoming's state champions.
155 defectors plus 155 sitters to win against Maine's state champions.

If

We would need a tad more than (441-20)/3 of each.
141 defectors (leaving 300)
plus 141 sitters (leaving 159 opponents)
for our 20+141 to win against New Hampshire's state champions.

Me?
 I'd rather take on the smallest team and hope for lots of defectors and sitters.
Even Vermont's state champions wouldn't be too bad.


We would need a tad more than (223-20)/3 of each.
68 defectors (leaving 155)
plus 68 sitters (leaving 87 opponents)
for our 20+68 to win against Vermont's state champions.

Throw all these calculations out if our guys are big and brutesome and the other team is a bunch of third string underweights.

But what if their guys are big and brutesome professionals
(ringers like in the M*A*S*H movie)
and our team is a bunch of amateur electron pushers? ???

Whose side are you betting on?
Will you bet your farm?