Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Down

Author Topic: Instead of ranking states, let's rank variables!  (Read 18247 times)

DadELK68

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 233
Re:Instead of ranking states, let's rank variables!
« Reply #45 on: February 05, 2003, 11:28:54 am »


The official annual salary of NH state legislators is still, last I heard, roughly $100. I was just speaking with our state Assistant Majority Leader yesterday, in his television repair shop... I suspect we have relatively low numbers of attorneys as well, considering that none of the state legislators I've met personally to date are attorneys.

This is an analysis I would like to see (don't have time to do it myself), and suspect NH would do quite well. Having such a large state legislative body has been mentioned many times as potentially beneficial (easier to get elected, more reflective of the population).

That is usually true.  However, that is not true with NH.  This has been pointed out several times.

I'm not sure to which part you are referring, and so can't tell to what I'm responding.

I hadn't realized that there was a 100% pay hike to a whopping $200, but suspect that's still either the lowest in the country or pretty close to it.

My experience with the 'at-large' voting is that most people don't know most, if any, of the local reps. Many active voters may know one or two for whom they will vote, but if they have to vote for, say, six (and the top 'x' vote-getters from any party win), then the people (generally in the major parties) whose names come earlier in the alphabet have the advantage because people just vote for others of their preferred party.

Thus in any given district if the two parties don't have full slates of candidates, third-party candidates reap the benefit. For example, if you get six votes and the top six vote-getters win, and on the ballot there are only 4-5 Republicans and 4-5 Democrats with 1-2 Libertarians, many people from both parties (particularly the Republicans) will vote for the Libertarians if only to try to prevent the other major party from winning seats.

If a 'small-L' libertarian gets on the slate with (most likely) the Republican party in a district which votes consistently Republican, they will be elected. It helps to meet a lot of people and get them motivated to turn out and vote for you, but the at-large districting actually makes straight-ticket votes more likely - so that entire districts tend to be represented by one party or the other, with a significant protest/sympathic vote for the Libertarians.

An example of this in the last election cycle is the college-aged son of someone in my office - he started out working on a campaign for the governor's race (Benson, who did win), and when he learned that the court-ordered redistricting opened a new seat in his hometown he filed, ran, and won. He's going to college at UNH part-time and serving in the legislature, planning to not run next time around because he'll be leaving the state for graduate school.

This system could favor FSP participants being elected, in many situations.
Logged

Zxcv

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229
Re:Instead of ranking states, let's rank variables!
« Reply #46 on: February 06, 2003, 08:58:38 pm »

Quote
I would propose that the overall level of freedom found in a state's system of laws is representative of the mind and heart of a plurality of voters and taxpayers in that state, and not just that  of the powerful "sausage makers" up in the capitol rotunda building (except WY whose state building looks like the shape of the state).

Why?
Over the long- run, people tend to get what they deserve.

And why do they deserve it? Why, because that's what they get!  ;)

I have to take issue with your statement, exitus. The reason we have so many laws and regulations is not because the people desire them (beyond a few simple items that are a tiny percentage of what they actually end up getting), but because of a couple of reasons:

1) People want to run their own lives, not spend untold hours chasing legislation and begging politicians to not pass laws.

2) Structural reasons: legislators always hear proponents of more government in testimony - I heard a number a while back, by Cato I think, that the proponents of more government in testimony were something like 98% or 99%.

3) Limited choices in representatives - those designated as "electable" by statist media are all statists.

And lots of other reasons.

Quote
How good of a measure?
A few laws are not enough.  I think that we need at least 5 times more laws and regulations to consider, the 300 different laws that affect an individual on any given day would be ideal.  California beats several of our states on some of the measures of freedom in the laws, and nobody thinks California is very free, so we need more and also need to have a good sense of what is important.

I'd be happy to add some items to the big spreadsheet, just need the info. I agree if we had a lot of them, each law individually wouldn't mean much but the totality would be saying something. Just feed them to me and I'll put them in, or give suggestions of what sorts of laws to look for and I'll help looking.
Logged

Kelton

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 604
  • el resplandor de las llamas de la libertad
Re:Instead of ranking states, let's rank variables!
« Reply #47 on: February 13, 2003, 12:03:08 am »

Quote
I have to take issue with your statement, exitus. The reason we have so many laws and regulations is not because the people desire them (beyond a few simple items that are a tiny percentage of what they actually end up getting), but because of a couple of reasons:

1) People want to run their own lives, not spend untold hours chasing legislation and begging politicians to not pass laws.

2) Structural reasons: legislators always hear proponents of more government in testimony - I heard a number a while back, by Cato I think, that the proponents of more government in testimony were something like 98% or 99%.

3) Limited choices in representatives - those designated as "electable" by statist media are all statists.
OK, Zxcv, you are right, I should not be so determinate in my thinking, it is not like each state is a pure democracy with every adult having their hand in every vote.  But I do maintain, that in the long run, people get what they deserve, speaking collectively of a whole population, because things don't just happen overnight and too many people who are opposed to bad law do nothing. [a great economist once said, "in the long run, we're all dead" :P ]

Quote
I'd be happy to add some items to the big spreadsheet . . .
I'm still slowly working away at my 'motherhood in the states' analysis.  I am being slowed not only by allowing myself to become distracted, but by the fact that there are so many factors to double-check between each state; I would ask for help, but it would take more work to explain right now than to just keep plugging along.

__________________________________________________
I almost forgot about this thread with all the new ones vying for attention each day! I think we ought to discuss the population issue in general, outside of each state. I don't quite know how to proceed in the abstract on this subject, I started to create my own thread, but I pulled it.  Instead of ranking the states, let's rank the population variable!  Joe, as well as several others, has brought up so many fine points on various threads concerning this issue, it would be great to focus some of that discussion on just one thread. . . OK, I just talked myself into it, I will start a new thread on the population variable . . .  
Logged
. . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue --The U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Instead of ranking states, let's rank variables!
« Reply #48 on: February 13, 2003, 04:04:24 am »

Instead of ranking the states, let's rank the population variable!  Joe, as well as several others, has brought up so many fine points on various threads concerning this issue, it would be great to focus some of that discussion on just one thread. . . OK, I just talked myself into it, I will start a new thread on the population variable . . .  

I was dismayed to see that you pulled that thread, so I'm glad to see it's going back up.  This is an issue that really does deserve a new, in-depth analysis.

One question for discussion would be:  "Do those states now in excess of one millions inhabitants (or voting-age inhabitants) demonstrate sufficient underlying strength or advantages to warrant consideration above smaller population states that might provide more of an initial advantage?"

Fourth of July could come early this year.   ;D

Ron

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8
Re:Instead of ranking states, let's rank variables!
« Reply #49 on: February 14, 2003, 07:37:24 pm »

Nader got 12,292 Votes or 2.5% in Idaho. SOS Elections Web Site, 2000 Election



Have to be careful about interpreting the Nader vote.  In AK, Nader got 10%, compared to Browne's 1% (over 20,000 more votes).  This doesn't mean AK voters are raving envirofascists, however.  It means a small minority of AK voters are raving envirofascists, while the majority take a relatively conservative position.  (All of Alaska's federal reps are hated by establishment environmentalist groups.)  In MT, as well, Nader got 6%, compared to 1% for Browne (over 22,000 more votes).  In ND Nader beat Browne 3-0%.  We can't compare figures for SD, ID, and WY, b/c Nader wasn't on the ballot there, but I suspect Nader would have beaten Browne handily there too: he simply had more name recognition.  Browne did not beat Nader in any state in which both were on the ballot.
Logged

Kelton Baker

  • Former FSP President
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 757
  • Freedom is Free, it's tyranny that costs us dearly
    • Kelton Baker
Re:Instead of ranking states, let's rank variables!
« Reply #50 on: July 04, 2003, 11:17:47 pm »

So, I would be very grateful if a few posters could take a short break from debating over which state should be the Free State, and start debating a little bit as to which of these variables are of the most importance.

This looks like what you're wanting. ;)

Bump!
548
Logged
Give me some men who are stout-hearted men Who will fight for the right they adore. Start me with ten, who are stout-hearted men And I'll soon give you ten thousand more...--O. Hammerstein
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Up