Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TedApelt]

I just posted the following and the supporting data over at
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=1002;start=15

Another thread that I missed, and it is an incredible resource.  Thanks, Joe!

Without term limits, and there are none in Delaware, you won't be gaining control of this legislature in your lifetime!

Thus my comments earlier in this thread about bypassing the New Castle County Council and gaining the state legislature are moot.  At least Wyoming's preponderance of unopposed legislative incumbents will run into term limits in 2004. The first priority for Free Staters in Delaware will be term limits. But that will be one helluva fight against these entrenched power brokers!

I wouldn't be so worried about this.  In Palm Beach County, just north of where I live, we got term limits passed despite the fiercest opposition.  The county has something like three times the population of DE (and is a heck of a lot more liberal and Democratic!), and we didn't have 20,000 activists to work with, it was more like 20.

How did we do it?

The issue of term limits is something that brings people together like you wouldn't believe.  Liberal groups loved us.  Conservative groups loved us.  Gun control groups loved us.  Pro second amendment groups loved us.  Everybody was on our side, except the two major parties - they were the only ones.

A similar thing happened with Florida's Revision 11 in 1998.  Would you believe that both the NRA and Handgun Control, Inc. temporarily set aside their differences to work together on this project?  It happened!  Once again, everybody was on our side, except the two major parties - they were the only ones.

Florida is a huge state with something like 10 million people.  It is so huge that you can drive for over 500 miles and remain with in the state the whole time.  It has at least ten counties that EACH have over the population of DE.  It also has some of the most hard core statist places in the U.S.

We only had a few hundred activists at the most working on this project, not 20,000.  However, the R's and D's did not have a prayer against us.  We won overwhelmingly.

[Zxcv]

Great info on term limits, Ted. Sounds like a good thing to do in any state that has the initiative. Probably hard to get through the legislature in a non-initiative state, though.  

Oregon passed term limits by initiative not so long ago. Just before it was about to start kicking legislators out, it got taken to court and overturned! Our court is pretty bad that way. Beware...

[Robert H.]

Or, even simpler, we could just hold the vote with all ten individual states as planned, and the two top states win.  Given what we've seen, I imagine that one would be eastern and one western, and I don't think it likely that we'd see a higher population state reflected in the vote, so it would probably be quite safe.

Boy, I sure wouldn't make those assumptions, Robert! As you point out, most voters are not privy to these discussions. What's more, who knows who is going to control the information going out in the mailing to them?

We really need to make these combos explicit choices.

Well, that's why I threw in mention of making sure that the voting members are aware of the justification behind the two-state idea and how it would work, whichever way it was done.  The top-two idea was just another suggestion thrown into the "for what it's worth" category, but I too favor a more explicit choice.

[Robert H.]

What's more, who knows who is going to control the information going out in the mailing to them?

We will have a supportive paper for each state in the mailing.  My current idea is to let anyone who wants to to participate in the paper-writing process.  The Research Committee will be responsible for vetting the papers, however.

As far the present is concerned, and based on the likelihood that those not participating in these debates are getting their info from the website, I'd be willing to write up an article on a "hyper-state" approach, specifically with regard to WY/DE and WY/VT.  That would be one sure to way to test the waters and see if it would bring in more members.

Something similar could then be done at the time of the vote if the leadership decides that the approach merits being added to the ballot options along with the other ten separate state choices.  Or, we could add the hyper-state choice and remove one or two less popular state choices to keep from scattering votes too far and wide.

[mtPete]

The whole east-west split is something that the FSP has to address and if not worked out, will probebly be the downfall of the FSP. Look at history. The rural-urban splite goes back to the revolution (it had the potential to cause it to fail), it was behind the Civil War, and is one of the reasons our nation is in the position of non-freedom we are in now.

As far as westerners voting for a western state and easterners an eastern state: I have enough local knowledge, expirience and contacts to make a good desision between WY and its neighbors, but I havn't a clue about VT/DE and how the people there think.

[maestro]

Great info on term limits, Ted. Sounds like a good thing to do in any state that has the initiative. Probably hard to get through the legislature in a non-initiative state, though.  

Oregon passed term limits by initiative not so long ago. Just before it was about to start kicking legislators out, it got taken to court and overturned! Our court is pretty bad that way. Beware...

What was the basis for the court decision?  If you happen to have a link to the news story, I'd be interested in that as well.  I'm curious as to what a court could do to stifle referenda.

[Zxcv]

I just started a new thread about this. Look here:
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=20;action=display;threadid=1197;start=%200#lastPost

[varrin]

I have 4 (hopefully) quick comments here:

1:  Term limits exist in California for the state legislature.  It's still a disaster.  Term limits aren't the answer to bad government.  They might help a little but in practice, they simply facilitate the 'democratic' change from one bad representative to another.  The real answer is people who will vote for representatives who understand and believe in liberty.

2:  The I&R process, on the other hand, *could* be an issue in DE.  We have ballot measures here in California.  In practice, however, the people voting for them vote much like the representatives would: lousy.  They vote for nearly every bond measure they see, and so on.  Again, the solution is a population who votes for measures that increase liberty.

3:  Regarding state combos, I think it would be best to consider a system that doesn't impose systematic advantages in the east or the west.  What I mean by that is this: if the choices are WY/VT or WY/DE then the east is at a systematic disadvantage because there will be conflic between DE and VT (as we have seen here).  Because of that, we should either do 2 western / 2 eastern or 1 western / 1 eastern.  I would propose 2 of each: WY/DE, WY/VT, ND/DE, ND/VT.   However ...

4:  If the population issue really does prevent ND/DE (which some people think it should), then I would argue for WY/DE as the single choice over WY/VT.  It's true that one is in the east and one is in the west.  However, their differences aren't nearly as siginificant after that.  One of the major points of having two states is to provide variety to satisfy the differing desires of more people than a single state could do.  The WY/VT combo doesn't really do that.  They're both cold, they're both more rural, they're both farther away from major job markets, VT doesn't have a big city, etc. etc.  In other words, VT is much more like WY than DE is.  DE is warmer, has a big city (Wilmington MSA), is closer to major northeast job markets (Philly, and Baltimore/DC), and as a result would appeal to very different people than VT and, hence, WY.  Since the idea here is to expand the appeal, the WY/DE choice makes way more sense than the WY/VT choice.

Okay, so point 4 wasn't that quick... ;-)

V-  (live from Korea - I haven't been shot at *yet* ;-)

[Newt]

What was the basis for the court decision?  If you happen to have a link to the news story, I'd be interested in that as well.  I'm curious as to what a court could do to stifle referenda.

I believe the Oregon Supreme Court declared that the initiative addressed more than one issue and they have "interpreted" the state constitution to prohibit addressing more than one issue at a time in a ballot measure.  Of course it's almost impossible to write a ballot measure that only addresses one issue.

Measure 7 was passed some years ago, broadly limiting government 'takings' (eminent domain) and they are still sitting on it with no decision, I'm not sure under what pretext they will throw it out, but throw it out they will.

The government has found a new way to derail ballot initives at this point, they just claim the signatures do no match the signature on the voter rolls, that way the county clerks can filter out all those troublesome measures seeking to limit government power.  A local tax activist potested in court this year regarding one initiative for which he turned in signature more than 20% above the necessary amount and they threw out enough signatures to make the initiative miss the ballot by a few.  He  brought statements from enough citizens whose signatures were not approved to qualify the measure, but the court would not overturn.  

Go figure....

[Robert H.]

Varrin has some good points here...

3:  Regarding state combos, I think it would be best to consider a system that doesn't impose systematic advantages in the east or the west.  What I mean by that is this: if the choices are WY/VT or WY/DE then the east is at a systematic disadvantage because there will be conflic between DE and VT (as we have seen here).  Because of that, we should either do 2 western / 2 eastern or 1 western / 1 eastern.  I would propose 2 of each: WY/DE, WY/VT, ND/DE, ND/VT.   However ...

I didn't even really think of it in those terms before because, I suppose, Wyoming seems to be favored over North Dakota and South Dakota, and Idaho and Montana would be excluded due to their higher populations.  With Alaska sort of off on its own as the highest opt-out state, that realistically leaves only Wyoming in the west.  Varrin is right that WY/VT and WY/DE would then present easterners with something of a problem.  Based on what I've seen here, I agree that WY/DE would probably stand the better chance, and would probably even receive more votes than Vermont by itself.

4:  One of the major points of having two states is to provide variety to satisfy the differing desires of more people than a single state could do.  The WY/VT combo doesn't really do that.  They're both cold, they're both more rural, they're both farther away from major job markets, VT doesn't have a big city, etc. etc.  In other words, VT is much more like WY than DE is.  

This is the major reason for WY/DE over WY/VT: other than having smaller populations than most other states, they're polar opposites, and as such this combination stands the greatest chance of attracting a broader range of members who would be willing to commit (possibly even more than would commit to a single state).

The question then is:  Is Delaware a tougher nut to crack than Vermont, and are its various urban and climatory amenities worth the additional effort to most easterners?  From what I've seen, it would seem that the answer is 'yes,' but can you rally the Vermont contingent?

Actually, that should be easy...threaten them with going to Wyoming.  

[Robert H.]

Windcatcher, who works in Delaware and lives in Pennsylvania, just posted an analysis of the political climate in the northern Delaware/Wilmington&suburbs area that, when added to my analysis of the Delaware legislature posted in thread below, makes it obvious that liberty and a Free State has no viable chance in Delaware unless the FSP could move a few hundred thousand "voting Friends" into that state and literally outnumber the communitarian sheep and their authoritarian statist machine.

Just took a look at that, and it seems downright damning as far as DE is concerned.  Ted, or another Delaware advocate might have some answers though. Still, with the term limits issue, I&R, and the experiences related by Windcatcher, DE's prospects don't look very good for the two-state idea.  In fact, it upsets the whole applecart due to the fact that so many easterners find Vermont too close to what they don't like about the western states.

Then again, as I mentioned previously, maybe the easterners would find the risks worth it.

Thoughts?

[Zxcv]

Term limits exist in California for the state legislature.  It's still a disaster.

Term limits are not sufficient to bring freedom, but they are arguably a necessary condition for it.

Regarding state combos, I think it would be best to consider a system that doesn't impose systematic advantages in the east or the west.

Don't see how having more choices for the eastern side gives the west an advantage. If FSPers want a combo, they will have it (assuming it gets places on the ballot - imformally otherwise). If easterners want the eastern part to be DE or VT, they will have that. Where is there any east-west disadvantage? Similarly, there is no point in eliminating VT from the combo consideration; on the most important criterion, size, it wins. The most important thing is that there is be east-west combo choice. Just because VT is "cold" like WY, is not a reason to eliminate it.

Measure 7 was passed some years ago, broadly limiting government 'takings' (eminent domain) and they are still sitting on it with no decision

Measure 7 has been overturned - multiple subjects.

Joe, I don't see how NH can be part of a combo, the population is just too high, especially when the FSP population will have to be shared with Wyoming. There's no way. We will just have to let easterners choose their poison, DE or VT!  

[TedApelt]

Windcatcher, who works in Delaware and lives in Pennsylvania, just posted an analysis of the political climate in the northern Delaware/Wilmington&suburbs area that, when added to my analysis of the Delaware legislature posted in thread below, makes it obvious that liberty and a Free State has no viable chance in Delaware unless the FSP could move a few hundred thousand "voting Friends" into that state and literally outnumber the communitarian sheep and their authoritarian statist machine.

Just took a look at that, and it seems downright damning as far as DE is concerned.  Ted, or another Delaware advocate might have some answers though. Still, with the term limits issue, I&R, and the experiences related by Windcatcher, DE's prospects don't look very good for the two-state idea.  In fact, it upsets the whole applecart due to the fact that so many easterners find Vermont too close to what they don't like about the western states.

Then again, as I mentioned previously, maybe the easterners would find the risks worth it.

Thoughts?

The only thing I can say at this time is the best thing to do is pick issues that resonate well with the local population.  Don't hit them with the whole libertarian agenda at once.

DE is good in some areas like homeschooling, in fact Marshall Fritz of the Alliance for the Separation of School and State thinks that DE is the best state for the FSP.  We might start with expanding that.

I would not write off DE simply because it has an urbanized area.  Urban areas are quite doable, it's just that you must approach things differently that you would in rural areas.

All the more reason for a WY-DE combo.  People that do best in rural areas can go to WY (or southern DE), people like me that like big cities can go to northern DE.  (I am not happy unless I am within at least an hour's drive of a city of a million or more.)  Everybody can work in the environment that suits him best.  We are individuals aren't we?  Isn't that what being a libertarian is all about?

The thing that scares me the most about this whole discussion is the subliminal idea that you must not be a true libertarian if you live in big cities.  I don't want people thinking that they are not welcome in our movement unless they are willing to move to a small town, preferably one that is as far away from big cities as possible.  This is not a good way to get more libertarians.

[varrin]

DE is good in some areas like homeschooling, in fact Marshall Fritz of the Alliance for the Separation of School and State thinks that DE is the best state for the FSP.  We might start with expanding that.

Heh.. I guess I'm embarrassed that I haven't talked to Marshall yet about the FSP, but then I've been a bit preoccupied.  If he says homeschooling is a plus there, that carries some weight with me.  We're going to homeschool our kids and I'd like to see separation of school and state happen sooner rather than later in the candidate state.

I don't think this can be emphasized enough: Separating school and state is *the* most important thing we can do to lay the foundation for long term liberty.  So, despite DE's minuses in some areas, this sounds like a good and important plus.

V-

[Robert H.]

The only thing I can say at this time is the best thing to do is pick issues that resonate well with the local population.  Don't hit them with the whole libertarian agenda at once.

Essential advice no matter where we go.  And making in-roads in areas that are currently either popular or at least somewhat acceptable, like your homeschooling example, would be the best places to start.

All the more reason for a WY-DE combo.  People that do best in rural areas can go to WY (or southern DE), people like me that like big cities can go to northern DE.  (I am not happy unless I am within at least an hour's drive of a city of a million or more.)  Everybody can work in the environment that suits him best.  We are individuals aren't we?  Isn't that what being a libertarian is all about?

That's the idea as far as I'm concerned: allowing people to locate themselves as they best see fit and where they can best succeed (and I feel that those two things are greatly intertwined).  Even if the FSP chose Delaware along the current single state line, we'd have a harder time there because those who favor the more suburban or rural environments would not be willing to live and work where it was necessary for most of us to live and work in order to best effect change in that particular state.

The thing that scares me the most about this whole discussion is the subliminal idea that you must not be a true libertarian if you live in big cities.  I don't want people thinking that they are not welcome in our movement unless they are willing to move to a small town, preferably one that is as far away from big cities as possible.  This is not a good way to get more libertarians.

Well, I think the feeling here is that, given some of the issues that seem to weigh heavily on Delaware, there are those who wonder if it is worth the effort.  Then again, those of us making such comments do so because we think of things in different terms than the more eastern-oriented posters do.  That's the whole purpose of the discussion: splitting the effort along the lines of these fundamental differences.

If easterners feel that Delaware is best for their numbers, then I would back WY/DE in spite of my personal reservations about DE's chances because to do otherwise would thwart the entire effort.  It also opens up the way for easterners to criticize the combination because of what they personally think about WY.  We'd be at an impasse again when the purpose of this discussion is to break that impasse.

The question is whether the FSP will allow the dual state choice on the ballot.  If there is to be such a choice, I would say go ahead and make it WY/DE, as that combination seems to garner the most favor.  Something that is more questionable, although worth some thought, is whether including WY/DE on the ballot should eliminate WY and DE as separate candidate states.  I say this because the two states are such polar opposites that choosing either by itself stands a greater chance of alienating members from the other persuasion, and would also effectively narrow our audience for future recruitment.  Offering both appeals to the broadest spectrum and allows voters to opt for one without danger of the other.

This may be especially important with regard to those not privy to these debates, as long as the strategy is explained in the pre-voting hand-outs.  I have a feeling that justifying a split along these lines would make sense to a good many people who might otherwise be hung up or prejudiced about individual states.  They'd know that there was a combination that they could vote for that would get them closer to what they wanted while allowing others to do the same.