Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 54 55 56 [57] 58 59   Go Down

Author Topic: NH vs WY  (Read 190744 times)

jgmaynard

  • FSP Shadow Advertising
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2288
    • The Light of Alexandria
Re:NH vs WY
« Reply #840 on: September 23, 2003, 09:28:23 pm »

When we were on our tour of the NH state house on the way to meet governor Benson, we were told that not only do the NH reps not have a staff or offices,  they only have lockers, like a high school. And the freshman reps don't even get that. You get neat license plates, but you even have to pay $6 more for those. :D

JM
« Last Edit: September 23, 2003, 09:29:25 pm by jgmaynard »
Logged
The Light of Alexandria By James Maynard

A history of the first 1,000 years of science, and how it changed the ancient world, and our world today.



http://www.lightofalexandria.com

Radar

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 192
  • Constitutional Scholar
Re:NH vs WY
« Reply #841 on: September 24, 2003, 09:16:56 am »

Quote
It is a helluva lot harder to repeal a law than to pass it in the first place.

That's for sure.

Quote
So do a lot of other people. Most of them call for favors and pork for themselves, their interest group, and their locality or state. Full-time politicians hand out the goodies and use this power to build their careers and line their own pockets.

I call on them to make them answer for thier actions, and to warn them of the consequences if they cater to those special interests.  And the fact that some people will beg for pork doesn't mean they shouldn't have access to thier elected reps.

Quote
After the FSP eliminates many of the goodies, taxes and laws, privatizes the roads, etc., what will be left for them to do that they need to be in the state house on a daily basis?

The key word in that sentence is "after".  Trust me when I say even in the state with the least oppressive laws, repealing those laws will be a full-time job until they're all gone.  And the money people save will more than make up for 10,000 times the salary of each person repealing those laws.  And those people will be finally doing what they were elected to do and finally accurately representing the will of the people.

Quote
You sure make politicians sound good, Radar. You're the first libertarian I've come across who used the words "effort, hard work, and dedication" in relation to politicians.  The main job of the libertarian-oriented FSP state reps will be to make their jobs as unnecessary as possible.

My statements were mainly directed at Libertarian politicians, but regardless, being an elected official isn't a cake walk or a party.  It takes a lot of hard work, organization, and unrelenting tenacity to get past all the bull crap (assuming you're not one of those shoveling it).

Quote
Given the choice between a part time legislature whose representatives don't even have staffs and a full time legislature with staffs,

Who said anything about a staff?  

Quote
Do you think it should be higher, lower or just about the same as the mean salary for the state?

I think it should be about the same as a job in the private sector pays for a job of equal responsibility, which I would assume is slightly higher than the mean.  How about the average salary of those with a college degree (in an applied science) in a particular state?

Quote
If you have a legislature that's for all intents and purposes working for gas money, they have no incentive to take longer than they need too

Correct.  They won't take any time to actually read up on the laws, they'll just quickly pass them all and get out as fast as they can leaving the people of the state with far more statist laws.

Quote
Radars aruments have been so bizarre and anti-libertarian, and presented in such an uncivil manner generally, that I'm beginning to wonder if he might be a NH supporter in WY clothing.

Wrong again.  My arguments are very libertarian.  I live in reality, not a fantasy world where people happily starve because they're making $100 per year and they do legislative work on their lunch break from their regular job and everything turns out great.  I have worked to repeal laws and it's far harder than passing them.  It's a lot of work and takes a lot of convincing, and research.   Perhaps one day in the not too distant future we won't need full-time politicians, but I think fighting statism is a full-time job.  

Also I haven't been uncivil.  I've been as nice as I can be with a group of people who are constantly attacking me.  Consider yourself lucky that you haven't seen me actually be uncivil.

Quote
Let's see, lengthen the NH state house session and raise the salaries of the state reps from $100 to a liveable wage, say $30 - $40,000/year. That's more money, which of course means more tax revenues needed to pay the salaries and operating expenses. ...  Wow! Radar is proposing paying MORE taxes in NH. It's going to be pretty funny with 99.9% of the Porcs working to reduce government and lower taxes on one hand, and on the other, Radar and his friends stubbornly working in the opposite direction!

You need new glasses if you see it that way.

But sure, let's lengthen the NH state house session and raise the salaries of the state reps to $50k/year.  Now let's drop the number of people in the legislature from 400 to 80.  That is more money but since these people will be working to REPEAL laws rather than create them, and since there will be few of them so they will actually hold enough power to make changes, many laws will be repealed unlike what happens with 400 people in office.  This means taxes for all people will be lowered, unjust laws will disappear, pork projects will be eliminated, many services will be privatized, etc.   While you're at it, let's eliminate fusion, multi-seat districts, etc.

Yes it will cost more in salaries for those elected.  But what do you get for your money?

1)  More of your own money
2)  Elected officials who actually hold enough power to make change and actively do so.
3)  Smaller, less expensive, and more efficient government.
4)  Less corruption, bribery, and "old money" politics.
5)  Elected officials that actually do their job of representing the will of their constituents.  
6)  Success for the FSP.

But until those changes are made to the NH legislature, they will never be a viable choice for the FSP.

In the end if the changes I suggested were made, the NH state budget would be less than half of what it is now, and the salaries of those elected wouldn't even be noticed.  

Quote
My apologies.  In the context in which I was addressing Radar I was responding to his claim that we need full time highly paid legislators with big staffs so they can do the research necessary to craft involved, complex, useless laws.

False.  I never said they should be "highly paid" or that they should have "big staffs" or that they should "craft involved, complex, useless laws".  Quite the opposite is true.  

They should be paid a fair salary for someone in a position of equal responsibility, and handle their own research, and repeal involved, complex, useless laws.  
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

Dalamar49

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 509
  • I smoked out the sheriff and his deputy! : )
Re:NH vs WY
« Reply #842 on: September 24, 2003, 10:01:53 am »

I actually agree with Radar. Working in politics is tough and it sucks, hardcore. I only hold a crappy committee position, yet it sucks too.

Although I definetely would fight a 50,000 salary a year for state legislators I wouldn't mind it if we increased their pay a tad. Its dumb to punish citizens who are interested in serving in office by only paying them a 100 dollars a year.

Yes, I agree that our legislators should only work part-time, but they should at least get paid minimum wage. As long as political offices don't pay enough for my gas, and groceries then I'll (and many others) will never be able to afford to serve in office.

Joe can speak from personnal experience that politics sucks. Its not fun. Its not even rewarding its almost punishment for crimes of a past life and when you add in the fact that you're going to starve now because you're not getting paid, well.......it bloody sucks.

Now do I think this makes NH a bad choice? Of course not! NH is fantastic! I can't wait to join if it wins! Just don't expect me to run for an assembly seat.  :)
Logged
Get up, stand up, stand up for your right. Don't give up the fight.

Solitar

  • Guest
Re:NH vs WY
« Reply #843 on: September 24, 2003, 10:49:47 am »

With the exception of Alaska,
click on this link for more info
most other states' legislators have no office or staff and are also part-time citizen legislatures.
Quote
II. ABOUT THE WYOMING LEGISLATURE.

A Citizen Legislature. Wyoming remains one of the few states having a true part-time citizen legislature. While this may keep Wyoming legislators in closer touch with their constituents, it also means that they do not enjoy the same accommodations provided to full-time legislators in larger states. For example, legislators in Wyoming do not have individual staff. As noted below, staff services for Wyoming legislators are provided by a small permanent central staff agency (the LSO) and by temporary session staff. Office accommodations are similarly austere. Except for a few officers of the House and Senate, members of the legislature are not provided offices in the Capitol nor do they maintain full-time offices in their districts. While in session, the "office" of a typical Wyoming legislator consists of the legislator's desk on the floor of the House or Senate and one or two file cabinet drawers in a committee meeting room. Except for the relatively short periods of time they meet each year in Cheyenne for the annual legislative session, Wyoming legislators can be contacted at home or at their places of business.
http://legisweb.state.wy.us/leginfo/guide98.htm

For hopefully a state-neutral discussion on this issue see:
Given the costs, who would want an elected office?
where I've copied some of the above quotes.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2003, 11:42:03 am by Joe, aka, Solitar »
Logged

JonM

  • First 1000
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1971
Re:NH vs WY
« Reply #844 on: September 24, 2003, 04:46:12 pm »

Quote
Given the choice between a part time legislature whose representatives don't even have staffs and a full time legislature with staffs,

Who said anything about a staff?  

I haven't seen any full time legislators without some sort of staff, but if you think it's doable, I won't argue with that.

Quote

Quote
Do you think it should be higher, lower or just about the same as the mean salary for the state?

I think it should be about the same as a job in the private sector pays for a job of equal responsibility, which I would assume is slightly higher than the mean.  How about the average salary of those with a college degree (in an applied science) in a particular state?

The President of the United States makes $400k a year.  A U.S. Senator or Congressman makes $154,700 a year.  The president of the NY Stock exchange made $140 million a year until someone noticed that.  A director on a major public company could be pulling down hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, and have less responsibility than the power of a legislature.

Now in the private sector, collective bargaining agreements aside, pay tends to be commensurate with skill and experience.  How do you balance that against a job one is elected to, regardless of experience or skill?  In Massachusetts we have state senators and reps I wouldn't trust to make me a cheeseburger at a fast food restaurant.  Despite the fact that they are a "full time" legislature, in 2002 they didn't meet much in formal session than NH's part-time legislature.  13 8-hour days for the senate, and a couple of dozen days for the house.

Can you honestly say that you think Massachusetts has a better legislature than New Hampshire?  They're certainly well compensated, $53,381 to start, and the leadership bonuses which give the house speaker and senate president complete control of the agenda can boost pay $15,000 a year, not to mention travel per diem and "office expenses".

Quote

Quote
If you have a legislature that's for all intents and purposes working for gas money, they have no incentive to take longer than they need too

Correct.  They won't take any time to actually read up on the laws, they'll just quickly pass them all and get out as fast as they can leaving the people of the state with far more statist laws.
The ones who don't take any time to read the laws won't take the time if they're full time, either that's not a factor.  Each law in NH requires at least 1 public hearing.  Even if they don't read the laws the public on each side will give them an opinion on it.  It's why Right to Work failed last time, the testimony at the public hearing was 10-1 against it.  The committee cited that as a primary reason they recommended against passing it.  If more people went to the hearing and spoke up in favor of it, it might have actually had a chance.

Quote
Quote
Radars aruments have been so bizarre and anti-libertarian, and presented in such an uncivil manner generally, that I'm beginning to wonder if he might be a NH supporter in WY clothing.

Wrong again.  My arguments are very libertarian.  I live in reality, not a fantasy world where people happily starve because they're making $100 per year and they do legislative work on their lunch break from their regular job and everything turns out great.  I have worked to repeal laws and it's far harder than passing them.  It's a lot of work and takes a lot of convincing, and research.   Perhaps one day in the not too distant future we won't need full-time politicians, but I think fighting statism is a full-time job.  

Also I haven't been uncivil.  I've been as nice as I can be with a group of people who are constantly attacking me.  Consider yourself lucky that you haven't seen me actually be uncivil.

You've called me a liar by proxy on multiple occasions without substantiation, despite my repeated requests for you to provide such evidence.  I consider that less than civil.

Quote
Quote
Let's see, lengthen the NH state house session and raise the salaries of the state reps from $100 to a liveable wage, say $30 - $40,000/year. That's more money, which of course means more tax revenues needed to pay the salaries and operating expenses. ...  Wow! Radar is proposing paying MORE taxes in NH. It's going to be pretty funny with 99.9% of the Porcs working to reduce government and lower taxes on one hand, and on the other, Radar and his friends stubbornly working in the opposite direction!

You need new glasses if you see it that way.

But sure, let's lengthen the NH state house session and raise the salaries of the state reps to $50k/year.  Now let's drop the number of people in the legislature from 400 to 80.  That is more money but since these people will be working to REPEAL laws rather than create them, and since there will be few of them so they will actually hold enough power to make changes, many laws will be repealed unlike what happens with 400 people in office.  This means taxes for all people will be lowered, unjust laws will disappear, pork projects will be eliminated, many services will be privatized, etc.   While you're at it, let's eliminate fusion, multi-seat districts, etc.

You'd have to change the state consitution in multiple places to do that.  You're on the Democrat's side with fusion, the Republican's side with multi-seat.  If you want to get rid of straight ticket voting you're back with the Democrats.

And you don't think you wouldn't see fierce competition for those 80 house seats at $50,000+ a year?  You'd be ushering in the era of the professional politician, who can't hold a REAL job.  The MA legislature is full of them.  For the most part, they do what the speaker tells them to do, because their 'leadership' pay is dependent on him.  

Quote
Yes it will cost more in salaries for those elected.  But what do you get for your money?

1)  More of your own money
2)  Elected officials who actually hold enough power to make change and actively do so.
3)  Smaller, less expensive, and more efficient government.
4)  Less corruption, bribery, and "old money" politics.
5)  Elected officials that actually do their job of representing the will of their constituents.  
6)  Success for the FSP.

But until those changes are made to the NH legislature, they will never be a viable choice for the FSP.

1) Maybe
2) Their power level won't change, the amount of people needed to make change will be fewer, but as a collective everything else is equal.
3) It's a hopeful conclusion, but not guaranteed.
4) I seriously doubt that.  Congressmen make a fair chunk of change, but they've still had the occasional bribery and corruption charge.  And the more money position pays, the more people who want it, the more money is spent to win the seat, and the more special interests you're beholden to after you win.
5) How does that translate?
6) One can hope.

Quote
In the end if the changes I suggested were made, the NH state budget would be less than half of what it is now, and the salaries of those elected wouldn't even be noticed.  

Quote
My apologies.  In the context in which I was addressing Radar I was responding to his claim that we need full time highly paid legislators with big staffs so they can do the research necessary to craft involved, complex, useless laws.

False.  I never said they should be "highly paid" or that they should have "big staffs" or that they should "craft involved, complex, useless laws".  Quite the opposite is true.  

They should be paid a fair salary for someone in a position of equal responsibility, and handle their own research, and repeal involved, complex, useless laws.  

It's just impossible to compensate people "fairly" for public service without encouraging the leeches of society to run for those positions.  I said somewhere else, even if they had indexed the pay to inflation back when it was set at $100 a year in 1889, it would still be just under $2000 a year today.  Clearly they did not believe back then it should pay a "living wage"

The ideal legislature does not need much in the way of pay, because the ideal legislature is not doing much at all.  Now granted most of the 'bad' laws is going to take a lot of hard work, but most of the hard work is not going to be on the part of legislators, it's going to be on the part of activists.  You can't cut funding for public schools unless an alternative is already in place.  Since the alternative is not going to be funded by the public, it's not going to be up to the legislature to get it going.  The same will apply to many other things.  Once a situation has been created in which the laws that the porcupines don't want can be considered redundant, then they will be easier to repeal.  If nobody is sending their kids to public schools because so many private schools are better and easily available to them, then there is no need for public schools, and there will be far less resistance to eliminating them (of course, I can still see the crowd of people crying to leave empty schools open, paying the teachers and administrators in the hopes that one day the children will return.  I get the feeling that won't get much traction in NH).
Logged

Radar

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 192
  • Constitutional Scholar
Re:NH vs WY
« Reply #845 on: September 24, 2003, 06:30:58 pm »

Quote
You'd have to change the state consitution in multiple places to do that.  You're on the Democrat's side with fusion, the Republican's side with multi-seat.  If you want to get rid of straight ticket voting you're back with the Democrats.

I'm N-E-V-E-R with the Democrats or the Republicans.  Sometimes they might agree with me, but I'm never with them.

Quote
Can you honestly say that you think Massachusetts has a better legislature than New Hampshire?

I can honestly say Nevada, Wyoming, and most other states have a better legislature than New Hampshire.  

Quote
And you don't think you wouldn't see fierce competition for those 80 house seats at $50,000+ a year?

No more fierce than the competition already is.  People don't get into politics for the money.  It costs too much to get elected and even if the salary were $100k/year, money wouldn't be the lure.  Why do you think billionaires try to get a $400k/yr (formerly $200k/yr) job?  For nearly all of them it's the power they desire.  Why do you think the Republicans & Democrats (statists) spend so much money to get these jobs, some that only pay $100/year?  The money doesn't matter to those who are corrupt and aren't interested in helping people, but it might be important to someone who can't run because they can't afford to miss the time from work to devote enough time to the position to do it well.  

Quote
1) Maybe
2) Their power level won't change, the amount of people needed to make change will be fewer, but as a collective everything else is equal.
3) It's a hopeful conclusion, but not guaranteed.
4) I seriously doubt that.  Congressmen make a fair chunk of change, but they've still had the occasional bribery and corruption charge.  And the more money position pays, the more people who want it, the more money is spent to win the seat, and the more special interests you're beholden to after you win.
5) How does that translate?
6) One can hope.

1)  There's no maybe about it.  If Libertarians are elected it's a given.

2)  There is only a certain amount of power the states have (although like the fed they usurp more and more from the people constantly) and that power is divided among the members of the legislature.  When you divide the power pie by 400 people each of those people gets less than when you divide it by 80 people.  This means it takes a lot more elected people to get the same thing done.  It means that the few people you do manage to get elected in a 400 person legislature won't have enough power to make changes on their own.  

3) See number 1.

4)  See above.  People don't want elected positions because of the money the position pays.  Most presidents have given their entire salary to charity.  The statists want it to gain power to control people.  Freedom lovers want the power to eliminate government control over the people.  But not paying people a genuinely liveable wage ensures many true freedom lovers won't get elected but the corrupt people with their hands in the pockets of special interests will be elected.  This means we will have no real choice at the polls.  We'll be like a convict who is given the choice between lethal injection or the gas chamber.  Either way we're going to die.  

5)  It translates into the most valuable part of all.  The founders created this country to have accurate representation of the people by government.  Following my plan would give us more of this than we've ever had before.

6)  I agree.
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: 1971
Re:NH vs WY
« Reply #846 on: September 24, 2003, 08:50:37 pm »

Quote
You'd have to change the state consitution in multiple places to do that.  You're on the Democrat's side with fusion, the Republican's side with multi-seat.  If you want to get rid of straight ticket voting you're back with the Democrats.

I'm N-E-V-E-R with the Democrats or the Republicans.  Sometimes they might agree with me, but I'm never with them.

If they've held the position first, I'm sorry to say you'd be with them if you came in and agreed.

Quote
Quote
Can you honestly say that you think Massachusetts has a better legislature than New Hampshire?

I can honestly say Nevada, Wyoming, and most other states have a better legislature than New Hampshire.  

Quote
And you don't think you wouldn't see fierce competition for those 80 house seats at $50,000+ a year?

No more fierce than the competition already is.  People don't get into politics for the money.  It costs too much to get elected and even if the salary were $100k/year, money wouldn't be the lure.  Why do you think billionaires try to get a $400k/yr (formerly $200k/yr) job?  For nearly all of them it's the power they desire.  Why do you think the Republicans & Democrats (statists) spend so much money to get these jobs, some that only pay $100/year?  The money doesn't matter to those who are corrupt and aren't interested in helping people, but it might be important to someone who can't run because they can't afford to miss the time from work to devote enough time to the position to do it well.  

NH requires candidates who expend more than $500 trying to win a seat to file reports.  I looked and looked and looked but didn't find anyone filing reports for NH house races.  I found plenty for senate races and statewide races, but generally people going for house seats aren't spending money to do it.  Now perhaps PACs and other organizations are spending money on their behalf, but I doubt it.  As many as 25% of the seats are uncontested.  People who no opponent generally do not spend thousands of dollars to win that seat.  It is simply not true to say that people are spending any serious amount of money to win NH house seats.  The state senate is another matter, people are spending thousands of dollars to win one of those 24 seats, because they do have more power.  More pay is only going to increase the number of people going for them.

You can't equate a national office, or even a statewide office with a state house seat.  In Massachusetts I can tell you that they do run for the money.  Many of these people are the type where work is a four letter word, if you know what I mean.  They get their nice house seat and they're set for life.  Incumbents usually get re-elected, they get tax writeoffs, "fact finding trips," and lots of cushy state jobs for their relatives and close friends.  If they're a good little soldier for the party leaders they can become a judge when they're through with being an elected official.  If you think the pay and perks will mean they're not easily corrupted take the case of Kevin "Money" Fitzgerald, who somehow "inherited" $250,000 from a homeless woman in his district.  He was later forced to pay it back, yet managed to continue to be re-elected.  He's now the sergeant-at-arms of the Massachusetts House.  Heck, a former house speaker had to plead guilty to income tax evasion.  Another one, can't recall if she was a rep or state senator, didn't file federal income taxes for years.  Went down on obstruction of justice if I recall, STILL HAS HER SEAT years later.  Cream of the crop, that's for sure.

Quote
Quote
1) Maybe
2) Their power level won't change, the amount of people needed to make change will be fewer, but as a collective everything else is equal.
3) It's a hopeful conclusion, but not guaranteed.
4) I seriously doubt that.  Congressmen make a fair chunk of change, but they've still had the occasional bribery and corruption charge.  And the more money position pays, the more people who want it, the more money is spent to win the seat, and the more special interests you're beholden to after you win.
5) How does that translate?
6) One can hope.

1)  There's no maybe about it.  If Libertarians are elected it's a given.

2)  There is only a certain amount of power the states have (although like the fed they usurp more and more from the people constantly) and that power is divided among the members of the legislature.  When you divide the power pie by 400 people each of those people gets less than when you divide it by 80 people.  This means it takes a lot more elected people to get the same thing done.  It means that the few people you do manage to get elected in a 400 person legislature won't have enough power to make changes on their own.  

3) See number 1.

4)  See above.  People don't want elected positions because of the money the position pays.  Most presidents have given their entire salary to charity.  The statists want it to gain power to control people.  Freedom lovers want the power to eliminate government control over the people.  But not paying people a genuinely liveable wage ensures many true freedom lovers won't get elected but the corrupt people with their hands in the pockets of special interests will be elected.  This means we will have no real choice at the polls.  We'll be like a convict who is given the choice between lethal injection or the gas chamber.  Either way we're going to die.  

5)  It translates into the most valuable part of all.  The founders created this country to have accurate representation of the people by government.  Following my plan would give us more of this than we've ever had before.

6)  I agree.

If you got your wish, and there were only 80 house reps in NH, paid over $50,000 a year, only single seat districts, and no fusion, it would be very very very difficult to elect Libertarians.  To get 41?  I won't be putting money on it.  Even in Wyoming I wouldn't put money on electing a significant number of Libertarians anytime soon.  Many members say they'd most likely run as Republicans, who you would of course vote against, in order to stand a chance at election.  To win a 3 way race in a single seat district isn't easy.  And 20,000 porcupines won't represent enough votes in Wyoming to get more than a few seats if they all concentrate in low population areas.

Libertarians can be elected in NH by default.  That may not last long, as many of the reforms you desire will be pushed for in order to prevent Libertarians from winning house seats.

On point 5, how exactly do FEWER representatives equal a greater representation?  Small towns will have no representation if there are only 80 reps.  Your rep might live 4 or 5 towns over, and have no interest in your town because he or she knows there aren't enough votes there to matter.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2003, 08:51:47 pm by JonM »
Logged

Dalamar49

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 509
  • I smoked out the sheriff and his deputy! : )
Re:NH vs WY
« Reply #847 on: September 24, 2003, 09:08:28 pm »


I can honestly say Nevada, Wyoming, and most other states have a better legislature than New Hampshire.  

Remeber Radar, Nevadan legislators don't make 50,000 a year. We pay our assemblymen 9000 for a two term and we pay our state senators less. Even with the pay we've given our legislators it definetely hasn't earned Nevada any honesty. This year the Nevadan legislature passed the biggest tax increase ever to hit Nevada.

When it comes to politics you don't always get what you've paid for.
Logged
Get up, stand up, stand up for your right. Don't give up the fight.

Radar

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 192
  • Constitutional Scholar
Re:NH vs WY
« Reply #848 on: September 25, 2003, 09:37:30 am »

Quote
If they've held the position first, I'm sorry to say you'd be with them if you came in and agreed.

Libertarians have ALWAYS held these beliefs since long before there was a Libertarian party or a Republican one for that matter.

Quote
If you got your wish, and there were only 80 house reps in NH, paid over $50,000 a year, only single seat districts, and no fusion, it would be very very very difficult to elect Libertarians.  To get 41?  I won't be putting money on it.

You might be right in a state with a population the size of that in New Hampshire.  But in Wyoming 20,000 people represents a significantly large enough amount of people to get Libertarians elected right away at the state level before we even start our outreach and activism.  And let's not forget every 1 person elected in Wyoming represents 5 elected in New Hampshire.  

Quote
Libertarians can be elected in NH by default.  That may not last long, as many of the reforms you desire will be pushed for in order to prevent Libertarians from winning house seats.

Libertarians can't be elected in NH "by default" anymore than they can in Wyoming.  And the reforms I suggest will help to bring about change and won't harm the chances of Libertarians being elected.  

And you are correct, I will vote against anyone who is not running under the Libertarian party for the rest of my entire life even if they are in the FSP.  I will encourage all of the people I know to do the same rather than waste their vote by voting for a Republican or Democrat.

Quote
On point 5, how exactly do FEWER representatives equal a greater representation?  Small towns will have no representation if there are only 80 reps.  Your rep might live 4 or 5 towns over, and have no interest in your town because he or she knows there aren't enough votes there to matter.

You point to a fallacy in your own argument.  You think more reps = better representation when this isn't the case.  More reps = more people trying to control your life.  80 reps is enough to accurately represent the will of the people.  What would you prefer?  To have a rep for every square mile?  To have government so jammed up with people that nothing ever gets done including the good things like removing legislation that harms people and diminishes freedom.  80 Libertarians would more accurately and better represent the will of the people than 400 or even 4,000 Democrats and Republicans.  

The goal of the FSP is to obtain liberty during our own lifetimes and that means having the power to make change.

And stop mentioning the government of taxachussets which has absolutely no bearing what-so-ever on our discussion.  
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

jgmaynard

  • FSP Shadow Advertising
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2288
    • The Light of Alexandria
Re:NH vs WY
« Reply #849 on: September 25, 2003, 11:28:07 am »

So Radar....

You won't ever work with D's or R's, but you also say that you will always work against me, and I'm part of the LPNH.
So are you starting your own one-man party? ;)

JM
Logged
The Light of Alexandria By James Maynard

A history of the first 1,000 years of science, and how it changed the ancient world, and our world today.



http://www.lightofalexandria.com

JonM

  • First 1000
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1971
Re:NH vs WY
« Reply #850 on: September 25, 2003, 11:42:22 am »

Quote
Libertarians can be elected in NH by default.  That may not last long, as many of the reforms you desire will be pushed for in order to prevent Libertarians from winning house seats.

Libertarians can't be elected in NH "by default" anymore than they can in Wyoming.  And the reforms I suggest will help to bring about change and won't harm the chances of Libertarians being elected.  

I disagree.  The facts are evident, with fusion, large multi-seat districts and straight ticket voting, Libertarians can be elected without the voters even meaning to (hence, by default).

District A has 10 seats, the Democrats find 6 people to run (they've had issues finding candidates in the past), and the Republicans find 8 people to run.  A few porcupines file as Libertarians, and ask the porcupines in that district who are voting in the Democrat primary to write them in.  They do the same with people voting in the Republican primary.

After the primary is over, if 4 Porcupines running as Libertarians each get 10 write in votes on the Democrat primary, they will appear on the ballot as L+D.  The two who got the most write in votes on the Republican side are L+R+D or L+D+R (may go by votes for order, not sure, but I see reps listed as both D+R and R+D in committee lists).  If by some strange twist of fate one of the Libertarians got more write in votes than one of the Republicans, he or she would appear on the ballot as L+R+D and the Republican would be out in the cold.

Now come the general election, and this is the feature that exploits this, Joe 'Doesn't pay any damn attention to politics' Six-Pack goes into the voting booth.  There are a LOT of names there, you've got 18+ people vying for 10 seats.  Now, Libertarians running with fusion under NH rules will appear before Libertarians running just as Libertarians.

So Joe doesn't want to bother checking off 10 names, so on the left side he just checks off the box that says "Vote for all Republicans" and is done.  A sample of a NH ballot to see the straight ticket vote boxes can be found here.

So without even really meaning to, Joe has voted for the 2 or possibly more Libertarians running with fusion under the Republican ticket.

Jane 'My husband is an unfeeling bastard' Six-Pack wants to cancel out her husband's vote.  She looks at the array of names, and just says "bah" as well, and checks the Democrat straight ticket vote check box.  So again, without possibly even meaning to, she has voted for all 4 Libertarians running with fusion under the Democrat ticket.  At least two of those Libertarians got her husband's vote as well.

And of course, the Porcupines will be voting for them as well.  Oh, you won't vote for a D or an R, but will you vote for a L+R+D?

Anyway, at the end of the day the Libertarians running as L+R+D are likely to be among the top vote getters in the election, and easily win seats.  With the help of Porcupines and other people who don't mind voting Libertarian, the L+D's will also likely win seats.

How long that will work is anyone's guess.  The Democrats and Republican parties will try like hell to fill their slates with as many candidates as there are seats, but with the job only paying $100 a year, that's much easier said than done.  If a Libertarian is willing to take the job and work it entails for a lousy $100 a year and gas money, because he or she believes in the goals of the FSP enough to live with that, then it is very possible to win seats.

Quote
And you are correct, I will vote against anyone who is not running under the Libertarian party for the rest of my entire life even if they are in the FSP.  I will encourage all of the people I know to do the same rather than waste their vote by voting for a Republican or Democrat.

Quote
On point 5, how exactly do FEWER representatives equal a greater representation?  Small towns will have no representation if there are only 80 reps.  Your rep might live 4 or 5 towns over, and have no interest in your town because he or she knows there aren't enough votes there to matter.

You point to a fallacy in your own argument.  You think more reps = better representation when this isn't the case.  More reps = more people trying to control your life.  80 reps is enough to accurately represent the will of the people.  What would you prefer?  To have a rep for every square mile?  To have government so jammed up with people that nothing ever gets done including the good things like removing legislation that harms people and diminishes freedom.  80 Libertarians would more accurately and better represent the will of the people than 400 or even 4,000 Democrats and Republicans.  

Mmmm....4,000 virtually powerless reps.  Now ask yourself, if you could live under a government that was too fractionalized to pass anything but clearly neccesary laws, wouldn't you prefer it?  I'll take a legislature that can't pass anything easily before one that's ruthlessly efficient in moving legislation through.  Most laws usually don't come down on the side I'd like.  

Quote
The goal of the FSP is to obtain liberty during our own lifetimes and that means having the power to make change.

And stop mentioning the government of taxachussets which has absolutely no bearing what-so-ever on our discussion.  

It has plenty of bearing, the system you're proposing is virtually identical to the system I live under here, and I would like to illustrate the problems that will accompany it.
Logged

Tony Stelik

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 326
  • I'm a rabid individualist
Re:NH vs WY
« Reply #851 on: September 25, 2003, 11:43:21 am »

The best thing which happened to NH is RADAR. His genius caused more votes for this state than all efforts of NH contingent combined. If NH wins I will owe keg of microbrew to the person who planted RADAR. :D
« Last Edit: September 25, 2003, 11:46:03 am by Tony Stelik »
Logged
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forgive you

JonM

  • First 1000
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1971
Re:NH vs WY
« Reply #852 on: September 25, 2003, 11:59:33 am »

The best thing which happened to NH is RADAR. His genius caused more votes for this state than all efforts of NH contingent combined. If NH wins I will owe keg of microbrew to the person who planted RADAR. :D
Nah, I think EMOR/ZionCurtain should hold that title.

While I think Radar's "the FSP will never work in NH" stuff is very overblown and blatently incorrect, and his rhetoric has been a bit caustic at times, I can at least sort of see where he's coming from.  I can also see where he wants to go, and as someone living somewhere very much like it, I can say it ain't a nice place.  If the world didn't have so many jerks in it, a legislature like he suggests would be a great thing.  The problem is, the world is full of jerks, and the ones who don't become con artists and shady used car salesmen become politicians in states that actually pay politicians a good wage.
Logged

Rearden

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 748
  • We're supposed to be activists, remember?
    • Free State Project
Re:NH vs WY
« Reply #853 on: September 25, 2003, 12:00:07 pm »

I agree, Tony.  Radar, when you get to NH we'll all chip in to buy you more beers than you can handle.

 :-* :-* :-* :-*


NH LOVES YOU RADAR!!!!!
Logged
Government can do only one thing: It can break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say, "See?  If not for the government you couldn't walk."

Dalamar49

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 509
  • I smoked out the sheriff and his deputy! : )
Re:NH vs WY
« Reply #854 on: September 25, 2003, 12:30:03 pm »

The best thing which happened to NH is RADAR. His genius caused more votes for this state than all efforts of NH contingent combined. If NH wins I will owe keg of microbrew to the person who planted RADAR. :D

Uh...yeah it was me. *Dalamar49 shifts his eyes side to side*
Well, I guess you better send that keg to me. Uuuuuuuuu, microbrews.
Logged
Get up, stand up, stand up for your right. Don't give up the fight.
Pages: 1 ... 54 55 56 [57] 58 59   Go Up