Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Is Fusion bad?  (Read 12074 times)

EMOR

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 351
  • I'm a llama!
Is Fusion bad?
« on: July 08, 2003, 09:51:28 am »

I am thinking that having to win 14 seats on one ballot is not going to happen or even 8 to get to the majority. I think it would be great if it could happen, but I also think it would be great if I won the lottery.

Like Jason said fusion is good if you want to win a small number of seats, but we are going for the majority. If that is the goal of the FSP then fusion not better than any other method of electing officials.

Any other ideas?
Logged
WY>SD>AK>VT>ND>DE>MT>ID>NH>ME

Rearden

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 748
  • We're supposed to be activists, remember?
    • Free State Project
Re:Is Fusion bad?
« Reply #1 on: July 08, 2003, 09:57:46 am »

Fusion is a massive advantage, especially when combined with large multi-member districts.  It's importance in getting people elected, especially the initial few, cannot be overstated.

I say this as someone who runs political campaigns as a profession.  It's very frustrating trying to convince others of this; to me, it's a big "DOH!" <smack self on head>.

I'm working on a report on this right now.  Should be finished today, and I will post it here.
Logged
Government can do only one thing: It can break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say, &quot;See?  If not for the government you couldn&#039;t walk.&quot;

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re:Is Fusion bad?
« Reply #2 on: July 08, 2003, 10:11:46 am »

I am thinking that having to win 14 seats on one ballot is not going to happen or even 8 to get to the majority. I think it would be great if it could happen, but I also think it would be great if I won the lottery.

That is a point I've been trying to make.  Fusion is good, to answer your question.  Is it as good as term limits?  Not even close.  Is it as good as having small districts?  Not a chance.  However, it is one of the best things NH has going for it (even though NH's fusion is indirect).

What really scares me about fusion is that it would allow both major parties to team up and run all of there candidates under fusion in an effort to prevent any FSP candidates from getting elected.  This can not happen in states that do not have fusion, like Wyoming.  The NH RP and DP could work together and prevent a LP candidate from getting any districts if all of there candidates ran under fusion.

In that way, even something that might be very useful, like fusion, could be used against us.  In Vermont, the socialists and the DP or another party could team up against us.  It can happen in any state with fusion.  
Logged

Sebastian

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 535
  • Elderado
Re:Is Fusion bad?
« Reply #3 on: July 08, 2003, 10:17:47 am »

Quote
it would allow both major parties to team up and run all of there candidates under fusion in an effort to prevent any FSP candidates from getting elected.
Fair enough, but this could actually be a positive turn of events. By doing so, those parties would acknowledge the power of the FSP candidates. It could be a major campaign boost. (a bit of wishful thinking, I know :))
Logged
Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for yourself.

JonM

  • First 1000
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1969
Re:Is Fusion bad?
« Reply #4 on: July 08, 2003, 10:18:36 am »


That is a point I've been trying to make.  Fusion is good, to answer your question.  Is it as good as term limits?  Not even close.  Is it as good as having small districts?  Not a chance.  However, it is one of the best things NH has going for it (even though NH's fusion is indirect).

What really scares me about fusion is that it would allow both major parties to team up and run all of there candidates under fusion in an effort to prevent any FSP candidates from getting elected.  This can not happen in states that do not have fusion, like Wyoming.  The NH RP and DP could work together and prevent a LP candidate from getting any districts if all of there candidates ran under fusion.

In that way, even something that might be very useful, like fusion, could be used against us.  In Vermont, the socialists and the DP or another party could team up against us.  It can happen in any state with fusion.  

Now while I can see the possibility of individuals writing in the republican candidate on the democratic nomination and vica versa just to be michevous, can you REALLY see the republicans orchestrating such a thing with the democrats?
Logged

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re:Is Fusion bad?
« Reply #5 on: July 08, 2003, 11:18:23 am »


That is a point I've been trying to make.  Fusion is good, to answer your question.  Is it as good as term limits?  Not even close.  Is it as good as having small districts?  Not a chance.  However, it is one of the best things NH has going for it (even though NH's fusion is indirect).

What really scares me about fusion is that it would allow both major parties to team up and run all of there candidates under fusion in an effort to prevent any FSP candidates from getting elected.  This can not happen in states that do not have fusion, like Wyoming.  The NH RP and DP could work together and prevent a LP candidate from getting any districts if all of there candidates ran under fusion.

In that way, even something that might be very useful, like fusion, could be used against us.  In Vermont, the socialists and the DP or another party could team up against us.  It can happen in any state with fusion.  

Now while I can see the possibility of individuals writing in the republican candidate on the democratic nomination and vica versa just to be michevous, can you REALLY see the republicans orchestrating such a thing with the democrats?

Yes I can.  The DP and the RP work together in every single state to keep the barriers very high for minor parties.  On a national level they do the same thing.  This is common practice for both parties.  

For example, NH used to have a better fusion system, however, a couple of LP members got elected to the NH state house and the NH RP and NH DP worked together to make it harder for the NH LP to use fusion.  So far, it has worked.

Look at the Prez debates, both parties are always trying to keep other people out.  They would not even let R. Nader watch the debates in 2000.

The RP and DP will do ANYTHING to stay in power and control of things.  I repeat, anything.  The less of them the better.  If a state only has 1 stong major party, that can be very good.  It is much easier to take on one major party than two.

However, I am still not saying that fusion is a bad thing.  It is just nothing like term limits or small districts or few districts, or large urban clusters, etc.
Logged

Radar

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 192
  • Constitutional Scholar
Re:Is Fusion bad?
« Reply #6 on: July 08, 2003, 11:20:07 am »

I realize I've posted this in another thread, but it belongs here too...

Fusion is not a positive.  It's major NEGATIVE points for the states who allow it.  It only muddles the line between parties and puts them in cahoots against us rather than having people elected on their own merits, and own beliefs.  

In the free state, the Libertarian party will not need the support of any other party, nor will any other party require the support of the LP.  

This is just another attempt by New Hampshire supporters to take one of the many HUGE negatives about their state and attempt to put a positive spin on it.  The New Hampshire supporters have done this over and over recently.  

It's like telling people it's great to become crippled in an accident because you get fantastic parking spots.  They would tell people it's fantastic to have a murdering dictator take over our country because things are done quickly.

Here is a partial list of negative things about New Hampshire that they've tried to mislead people into thinking were a positive lately...

  • Fusion Voting
  • A huge number of Representatives
  • Representatives that only earn $100
  • Higher Population
  • Multi-Seat Districts
  • More Republicans
  • Less Libertarians

There are more, but these are off the top of my head.  Each of these things work against the goals of the Free State Project.  Each of them will make it more difficult for the FSP to gain the power necessary to make the required changes.   All of them will damage our chances of experiencing freedom during our livetimes.  Some of them will prevent our children or grandchildren from experiencing it too.  

If you value freedom, as most FSP members do, and want an actual chance of living in a truly free state during your lifetime, New Hampshire is among the worst choices for these and many other reasons.  I'm not tearing down their state.  That was done long ago.   I'm just stating the facts.  

Don't be fooled by anyone who claims fusion voting, 400 representatives that make $100 per year, multi-seat districts, etc. in a less libertarian state with higher population, higher real estate prices, less land available, and old world/old money politics is anything other than a horribly negative situation for the FSP.  Combined, these things will virtually eliminate any chances of the FSP working at all.  

In short, if you want the FSP to actually work, the worst thing you can do is choose New Hampshire.

« Last Edit: July 08, 2003, 11:23:12 am by Radar »
Logged
Work like you don't need the money.
Love like you've never been hurt.
Dance like nobody's watching.

--Satchel Paige


Oh yea, and New Hampshire Sucks!  It's the worst choice for a free state because it offers us the worst chance for success.  - Me

JonM

  • First 1000
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1969
Re:Is Fusion bad?
« Reply #7 on: July 08, 2003, 02:00:27 pm »

$100 a year is a negative?  Take Massachusetts, the only thing that keeps the Commonwealth from complete meltdown is the fact that the people have elected a Republican, or in most cases a RINO governor to balance the completely democrat controlled state legislature for the last 13 years.  Those state legislators got a constitutionally mandated pay raise amendment adopted a few years ago based on some rather deceptive language.  Their base pay is $53.381 a year, but anyone designated as having a 'leadership' position earns $5000-$15000 a year extra.  When a clean elections initiative petition passed they voted themselves a doubling of their per diem and office expenses to fight the publicly funded elections.  Then they repealed clean elections.  Just now a move to allow the speaker of the house to designate even MORE $7,500 leadership positions was vetoed.  If they override that puts one man in financial control of just about every member of the house.  Don't vote his way?  He'll cut your pay.  Couple that with a disturbingly generous pension plan and you have yourself a political class of people who do nothing but siphon off the state and walk in lockstep with whomever is speaker of the house.

$100 a year means that's a part time gig of civic responsibility, not a full time job.  I can't begin to explain to you how much a positive that is compared with the alternate.

If you want someplace with more Democrats and virtually no Republican party (they couldn't field a competitor for the U.S. Senate the last two elections) come to Massachusetts.  You only have to deal with the fact that every one who works for the state, or has a relative who works for the state, will block vote against you.  That can really add up.  Try to mess with the firefighters, every other union, every member of their family, every friend they can wrangle in, will side with them against you.  That's the reason that out of 50 states, Massachusetts is the only one requiring paid police details at road construction rather than flag men.
Logged

Penfist

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 814
  • Work together to build something that lasts.
    • Penfist
Re:Is Fusion bad?
« Reply #8 on: July 08, 2003, 02:10:58 pm »

Preach it brother. Other than the portion of your quote I didn't cut out, I totally agree.

As far as Democrats and Republicans, I can do without either. I'll tolerate them if they vote for less government instead of more. That's it.

I saw several of those police details you mentioned driving through recently. How asinine.

If you want someplace with more Democrats and virtually no Republican party (they couldn't field a competitor for the U.S. Senate the last two elections) come to Massachusetts.  You only have to deal with the fact that every one who works for the state, or has a relative who works for the state, will block vote against you.  That can really add up.  Try to mess with the firefighters, every other union, every member of their family, every friend they can wrangle in, will side with them against you.  That's the reason that out of 50 states, Massachusetts is the only one requiring paid police details at road construction rather than flag men.
Logged
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.
--Thomas Jefferson

Radar

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 192
  • Constitutional Scholar
Re:Is Fusion bad?
« Reply #9 on: July 08, 2003, 03:02:43 pm »

$100 per year will keep the best candidates from running because of financial hardship.
$100 per year is exclusionary and will ensure that only wealthy people will be able to run.
$100 per year will ensure people will be easily bought by wealthy corporations, individuals, and special interests.

If people are paid a fair salary for what they do and can pay their bills ($100 per year isn't fair) they are less likely to be bribed.  
Logged
Work like you don't need the money.
Love like you've never been hurt.
Dance like nobody's watching.

--Satchel Paige


Oh yea, and New Hampshire Sucks!  It's the worst choice for a free state because it offers us the worst chance for success.  - Me

Sebastian

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 535
  • Elderado
Re:Is Fusion bad?
« Reply #10 on: July 08, 2003, 03:15:31 pm »

Quote
$100 per year will keep the best candidates from running because of financial hardship.
Says who? Perhaps enough people will believe in him and financially support him. Perhaps that candidate can afford to have a low income (retired, wealthy, etc).
Quote
$100 per year is exclusionary and will ensure that only wealthy people will be able to run.
I wonder what our Founding Fathers thought politicians should be paid.
Quote
$100 per year will ensure people will be easily bought by wealthy corporations, individuals, and special interests.
$10,000 per year would prevent that?
Quote
$100 per year isn't fair
IMHO, the word 'fair' doesn't have a place in politics.
Logged
Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for yourself.

Radar

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 192
  • Constitutional Scholar
Re:Is Fusion bad?
« Reply #11 on: July 08, 2003, 03:23:58 pm »

Quote
Says who? Perhaps enough people will believe in him and financially support him. Perhaps that candidate can afford to have a low income (retired, wealthy, etc).

Working class people who represent most of America can't afford to lose thier jobs.  And having private parties support him is EXACTLY what we're trying to get away from.  Nobody gives money for free, they expect something in return.

Quote
I wonder what our Founding Fathers thought politicians should be paid.

They did and that's despite the fact that most of them were wealthy.

Quote
$10,000 per year would prevent that?

How many people do you know pay thier mortgage, car payment, utility bills, food, gas, and other bills for $10,000 per year?  Because if someone gives up their job to serve in public office this is what you're asking them to do.  It's unreasonable to expect people to serve without compensation and it invites corruption.

Quote
IMHO, the word 'fair' doesn't have a place in politics

IMHO it's precisely that attitude that has brought America into our current state.
Logged
Work like you don't need the money.
Love like you've never been hurt.
Dance like nobody's watching.

--Satchel Paige


Oh yea, and New Hampshire Sucks!  It's the worst choice for a free state because it offers us the worst chance for success.  - Me

Penfist

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 814
  • Work together to build something that lasts.
    • Penfist
Re:Is Fusion bad?
« Reply #12 on: July 08, 2003, 03:29:19 pm »

Quote
Nobody gives money for free, they expect something in return.

Bullcrap. I give about half my income every year for FREE! I don't get a damn thing back from the government.

If I could get rid of most of those taxes, I would gladly donate large chunks of money to anyone I thought would work to keep it that way. I would donate privately without being prompted.
Logged
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.
--Thomas Jefferson

Sebastian

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 535
  • Elderado
Re:Is Fusion bad?
« Reply #13 on: July 08, 2003, 03:29:47 pm »

Quote
Nobody gives money for free, they expect something in return.
If giving to charity falls under the category 'expects something in return', then, yes.

I guess you'd rather have someone take the money from you to then give to the politicians. That's of course a much better system than for you to just give the money directly to those candidates you prefer...

Quote
They did and that's despite the fact that most of them were wealthy.
How much did they think politicians should be paid?

Quote
How many people do you know pay thier mortgage, car payment, utility bills, food, gas, and other bills for $10,000 per year?
My wife doesn't work at this moment. She could get paid $100 per year and we'd make exactly $100 more than we do now.

Quote
It's unreasonable to expect people to serve without compensation
Ah, this must be why President Bush wants to create a paid army of volunteers.
Logged
Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for yourself.

JonM

  • First 1000
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1969
Re:Is Fusion bad?
« Reply #14 on: July 08, 2003, 03:36:18 pm »

$100 per year will keep the best candidates from running because of financial hardship.
$100 per year is exclusionary and will ensure that only wealthy people will be able to run.
$100 per year will ensure people will be easily bought by wealthy corporations, individuals, and special interests.

If people are paid a fair salary for what they do and can pay their bills ($100 per year isn't fair) they are less likely to be bribed.  

New Hampshire does not have a full time legislature.  It is a citizen legislature, which afaik meets now and again during the first six months of the year (unless they say, can't pass a budget the governor will sign).  As a member you're expected to either be retired or have a real job on top of your additional civic duties as a state representative or senator (it's called giving back).  Having a legislature made up of people who know what it is like to run a business or earn a paycheck is far superior to a legislature made up of people who can say "I've never worked a day in my ****ing life" as so eloquently put by Patrick Kennedy.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up