Print

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

[varrin]

Robert,

I like those ideas a lot.  One of the things I have observed as an LP activist is that the LP people don't always cooperate real well.  There's a few of us who like to work together and the majority who love liberty but can't seem to agree on much else.  So the idea of facilitating a cooperative way to pursue this plan would be a step in the right direction as far as herding cats (errr porcupines) goes.

I, too, am impressed with the 'sudden' spirit of cooperation here.  Along those lines, one of the elements of libertarianism is friendly competition.  This option most definately would foster that spirit rather than the 'you're on your own' outcast mentality.  

As pointed out elsewhere, our ultimate goal is to bring liberty back to the U.S. by creating more of it in a single state (or maybe two now).  Ultimately, the FSP would need to facilitate the adoption of other states.  I don't see why two states within the population cap should be so objectionable.  

exitus:  would you pack up and go to DE or VT right off the bat (v.s. the wait for WY)?  That factor could be important for all of us.

And finally, I'm not sure if this has been mentioned on another thread or not, but I was thinking about success from an urban v.s. rural standpoint.  Being a bit more 'anonymous' in urban areas could actually be an advantage from an acceptance standpoint.  If people aren't asking you how long you've been there, they might follow your leadership easier than in rural areas where they're going to want to find out all about you before saying "yer not from 'round these parts, are ya?"  Just a thought ;-)

V-

[Newt]

A two-state approach would actually make this seem more like a cynical "invasion"... As if we don't really like the state we've chosen, but are trying to grab all we can by invading 2 states at once.  It comes off as a power play.  I think it would be seriously detrimental to the public image of the FSP.

Acually Jason,  I am not as confident about the eastern states, but in the west, people from the east will be seen as an invasion, no matter how it is couched.  Movement from Western Sates(with the exception of Calif) to rural areas is seen as migration.  It may not seem like much, but Eastern accents and manerisms are viewed as alien and treated with suspicion in western rural states, and these differences last a lifetime - the accent allways identifies you as an outsider.

[TedApelt]

Why not facilitate the matter by adopting the approach that has been suggested by others here and adding dual state options to the ballot?  Joe's recommendations regarding WY/VT, WY/DE, and ND/VT, ND/DE, seem to have garnered some support.  The ballot could potentially read:

"If voting for one of the dual state choices, please indicate which of the two states you intend to move to..."  That would then give us the % split information that has been mentioned in previous posts.  If, say, only 10% of those who voted for the dual state option voted for WY, those people could then decide to throw their weight behind VT or DE, or go independent.  Of course, their % would also be combined with those who voted for WY itself apart from the dual state option.

I have another idea:

1.  Vote on whether or not to go with one state or two
2.  If we go with two, give people the choice of an eastern ballot or a western one.

Why should westerners be deciding on the eastern state, and why should easterners be deciding on the western state?

[TedApelt]

Acually Jason,  I am not as confident about the eastern states, but in the west, people from the east will be seen as an invasion, no matter how it is couched.  Movement from Western Sates(with the exception of Calif) to rural areas is seen as migration.  It may not seem like much, but Eastern accents and manerisms are viewed as alien and treated with suspicion in western rural states, and these differences last a lifetime - the accent allways identifies you as an outsider.

This might have happened to me when I lived in Billings.  All I can say is that it was nothing like what the westerners on the board keep describing.

I really hope that we go with a two state plan, because I am seriously thinking of opting out of all western states.  I do not feel welcome there.

[Zxcv]

First, I think we ought to limit the hyperstates to WY/VT, WY/DE and ND/VT. Any other combo is getting up there; you remember the (almost killing) arguments against ID, NH and ME in the first place are their populations. Let's keep things simple and reasonable.

Second, Ted you have a point on letting Easterners pick the Eastern state and Westerners pick the Western state. The difficulty is how to do this with one ballot, which again keeps things simple and less expensive.

This might work. Add these choices to the ballot: "WY (with DE or VT)", "ND (with VT)", "VT (with WY or ND)", and "DE (with WY)". Then if any of these wins, we have a 2-state FSP. If "WY with (DE or VT)" wins (for example), we still need to figure out if the second state is DE or VT. This can be done by seeing which is higher in the rankings, as either a combo state or a single state.

Probably to make things perfectly clear to voters, the single state choices should be "WY alone", etc.

On the thresholds, it's starting to look like what we really need is a variable threshold, depending on state population (I mean for all choices, single states included). That's not perfect, but it's probably better than a fixed one. However this adds more complexity and changes the agreement again, so it's a problem...

[TedApelt]

First, I think we ought to limit the hyperstates to WY/VT, WY/DE and ND/VT. Any other combo is getting up there; you remember the (almost killing) arguments against ID, NH and ME in the first place are their populations. Let's keep things simple and reasonable.

I am very unhappy with that, because if westerners want ND, then DE is knocked out.  Why should DE be knocked out because people are going to ND instead of WY???  Whether people are going to WY or ND has absolutely no effect on the number of people DE would get, and how well they would do when they got there.

Besides, people should be voting on a state only if they are actually going there.

The difficulty is how to do this with one ballot, which again keeps things simple and less expensive.

This might work. Add these choices to the ballot: "WY (with DE or VT)", "ND (with VT)", "VT (with WY or ND)", and "DE (with WY)". Then if any of these wins, we have a 2-state FSP. If "WY with (DE or VT)" wins (for example), we still need to figure out if the second state is DE or VT. This can be done by seeing which is higher in the rankings, as either a combo state or a single state.

That's simple???  My plan is much simpler, and has the advantage of a majority vote deciding things.  No need for Condorcet or anything else when you've only got two choices!

Probably to make things perfectly clear to voters, the single state choices should be "WY alone", etc.

On the thresholds, it's starting to look like what we really need is a variable threshold, depending on state population (I mean for all choices, single states included). That's not perfect, but it's probably better than a fixed one. However this adds more complexity and changes the agreement again, so it's a problem...

I think what would be best is that each state would rack up people committed to going to it seperately.  Once one of the states reached a certain number (maybe 15,000), then people would start moving to that state.  Once the other state reached that number, then people would start moving to THAT state.  Therefore, one of the states would go first, and hopefully the other one would be able to learn from its mistakes.

[wes237]

Joe, everybody knows that 57% of all Coloradans ARE Texans that couldn't hack it here!

[Zxcv]

Quote from: Zxcv on Today at  01:25:51pm    
First, I think we ought to limit the hyperstates to WY/VT, WY/DE and ND/VT. Any other combo is getting up there; you remember the (almost killing) arguments against ID, NH and ME in the first place are their populations. Let's keep things simple and reasonable.

 

I am very unhappy with that, because if westerners want ND, then DE is knocked out.  Why should DE be knocked out because people are going to ND instead of WY???  Whether people are going to WY or ND has absolutely no effect on the number of people DE would get, and how well they would do when they got there.

Well, Ted, population is our most important criterion, after all.  

Your argument would apply as well to DE and ID, yet I'll bet we won't allow that combination, either.

Remember, we were looking at Wyoming pretty hard all by itself, hoping to draw people not only from Idaho, but also from places like Pennsylvania. Now if Pennsylvanians are going to Delaware instead, we have fewer left for Wyoming. That's bad enough, without asking us to put that fewer number of people in a larger state like North Dakota.

This is all pretty academic anyway, as it is (I think) highly improbable ND is going to be our choice. If you like a 2-state FSP you'd better work on the notion of selling 2 states at all to the FSP members, because it's not at all clear people are going to buy the additional risk over just a nice, simple and doable Wyoming alone...

[TedApelt]

Your argument would apply as well to DE and ID, yet I'll bet we won't allow that combination, either.

No, it wouldn't, because ID would not work with ANY other state, any more than NH would.

It seems to me that the only way to do a two state project is choose one of the two lowest population western states (WY or ND) and one of the two lowest population eastern states (VT and DE).  Each one would need to get its own group of people, and each one would have a separate migration.  For each state, this process would happen totally independently of whatever was happening in the other state.  People in the two states would compare notes (and exchange visitors to some extent), but that would be as far as it goes.  Neither state would be waiting on the other.

Remember, we were looking at Wyoming pretty hard all by itself, hoping to draw people not only from Idaho, but also from places like Pennsylvania. Now if Pennsylvanians are going to Delaware instead, we have fewer left for Wyoming. That's bad enough, without asking us to put that fewer number of people in a larger state like North Dakota.

Wyoming does not have enough jobs for more than a few thousand people, so that should not be a problem.

[freedomroad]

Your argument would apply as well to DE and ID, yet I'll bet we won't allow that combination, either.

No, it wouldn't, because ID would not work with ANY other state, any more than NH would.

It seems to me that the only way to do a two state project is choose one of the two lowest population western states (WY or ND) and one of the two lowest population eastern states (VT and DE).  Each one would need to get its own group of people, and each one would have a separate migration.  For each state, this process would happen totally independently of whatever was happening in the other state.  People in the two states would compare notes (and exchange visitors to some extent), but that would be as far as it goes.  Neither state would be waiting on the other.

Remember, we were looking at Wyoming pretty hard all by itself, hoping to draw people not only from Idaho, but also from places like Pennsylvania. Now if Pennsylvanians are going to Delaware instead, we have fewer left for Wyoming. That's bad enough, without asking us to put that fewer number of people in a larger state like North Dakota.

Wyoming does not have enough jobs for more than a few thousand people, so that should not be a problem.

I disagree.  WY, like any other state in the country, can support plenty of jobs.  However, since WY has very few people it is able to support less jobs than any other state in the country.  WY is still able to support much more than just a few 1000 new jobs.  As more people move to WY the more jobs it will be able to support.  This is true for all of the states.  WY would be able to support 20,000 jobs.  However, many people might not be satisfied with these jobs or with their pay.

[Robert H.]

One of the things I have observed as an LP activist is that the LP people don't always cooperate real well.  There's a few of us who like to work together and the majority who love liberty but can't seem to agree on much else.  So the idea of facilitating a cooperative way to pursue this plan would be a step in the right direction as far as herding cats (errr porcupines) goes.

I agree; it would take what is currently an inherent weakness and make a strength out of it.  Trying to do otherwise is rather like trying to put four different size wheels on your car - there's a reason that more similar things should go together, after all.    It might be accomplished, but how would it look?  And, more importantly, how smoothly would it function?

As pointed out elsewhere, our ultimate goal is to bring liberty back to the U.S. by creating more of it in a single state (or maybe two now).  Ultimately, the FSP would need to facilitate the adoption of other states.  I don't see why two states within the population cap should be so objectionable.  

Nor do I, especially since it would seem to have strong potential to bring us more in the way of membership, certainly more than just changing the voting method.  And it has tremendous logistical advantages as well, not the least of which is the fact that it would allow people to move early on with greater confidence.  Thus, as mentioned previously, they could help prepare the way for others to follow.  And I believe that it would be easier to keep up higher levels of interest and momentum in the FSP if there were a way for it to go into action sooner rather than later (as long as its goal is still viable, that is).

[Robert H.]

There was some potential support for North Dakota following Tim Condon's report (I even thought about it a good bit myself), but it doesn't seem to have near the support that Wyoming does among western advocates.  In the east, Delaware seems to have the lion's share of support although I've seen a good bit of support for Vermont as well, and Joe's recent legislature analysis may spur Vermont support a bit more.  New Hampshire seems to have fallen a bit by the wayside, which is good for the purposes of a two-state emphasis.

Therefore, for the moment:

WY/DE seems like the combination with the most support, and would probably yield the most additional members.
WY/VT should probably not be ruled out, at least until Joe's analysis of DE's legislature is discussed a bit.  Vermont seems a better choice for a few reasons, but it seems less acceptable to the needs and desires of easterners.

ND combinations should probably be ruled out.  The easterners certainly aren't going to care as they won't intend on moving there anyway, and I don't believe that westerners would greatly support it either for a variety of reasons.  This is not to say that ND's a bad idea; I'm just going on likely support levels here based on what I've seen thus far.

Personally, I would suggest that the ballot offer WY/VT and WY/DE as our "hyper state" options.  In fact, WY/DE would probably garner more votes than Alaska, Maine, Vermont, North Dakota, or South Dakota would separately.

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.

The catch here is the large number of members we have who do not frequent this forum or the Yahoo list.  For that reason, they're not going to be privy to these discussions and we'd have to write this idea up in the letters that the leadership is planning to send out to all members just prior to the vote.  East and west can then concentrate on consolidating support for their respective choices (so as to lock them in the top two), and planning how they intend to coordinate migration in each.

This would effectively halt our endless bickering with one another over which state to choose by handing us two perfectly viable states for our two factions, thus allowing us to spend more time recruiting, strategizing, and generally preparing for political activism and migration.

Otherwise, it seems like we'll stay at loggerheads with one another over this issue until the state vote and then probably split our efforts anyway in contention (which we must avoid at any cost for PR reasons alone).  The idea of a compromise state has just virtually imploded as far as I can tell.  And staying under the banner of the FSP will facilitate our recruitment efforts, exchange of ideas, and probably our respect for one another as well.

So let's turn this weakness into a strength and coordinate our divided approaches to the issue.

[Zxcv]

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.

This would effectively halt our endless bickering with one another over which state to choose by handing us two perfectly viable states for our two factions

Looks like the DE and VT boys are already starting to bicker...  

As to which states to include in the 2-state combo, Ted, I'd like to remind you the notion of 2-state viability depended on a total population smaller than some of our candidate states. That is not true of ND/DE; it is 100k+ over our largest single state. The 2-state idea also depends on the notion of being able to compensate for a larger overall population by being able to draw a higher total number of FSPers. It's a hard argument to make with a state like ND in the mix! For those two reasons, we ought to keep it to the three combo choices with populations under that of Idaho.

I'd like to remind everyone of something else. It is nice that this idea reduces our bickering, but that is not exactly relevant. We can make a plausible argument that these 2-state combos are superior to the largest 3 1-state choices. That's not to say we can make that argument for all the 1-state choices! If you want a 2-state choice to fly in the vote, you'd better be selling that to the rest of the folks...

[TedApelt]

As to which states to include in the 2-state combo, Ted, I'd like to remind you the notion of 2-state viability depended on a total population smaller than some of our candidate states.

No, if we went with two states we would be doing so with more people, maybe 15,000 for each one, which would be a total of 30,000.

If we had 18,000 going into one state and 2,000 going into the other state, that's 20,000 -  but still not much good for the state with 2,000.  That state would need to get more people, regardless of how many are going to the other state.

IOW, the number of people needed for each state must be counted seperately.

Of course, since one stae would reach its required number of people before the other one, the project might wind up starting sooner than it would otherwise.

[JasonPSorens]

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.