Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: 2002 Election Results  (Read 11779 times)

Tyler

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20
  • Making soap!
Re:2002 Election Results
« Reply #15 on: November 07, 2002, 08:02:21 pm »

If we look at Wyoming you'll see that the votes between the Democrat and the Republican candidates for governor were pretty evenly split, with 92,657 going to Mr Freudenthal and 88,887 going to Bebout. Throw in the vote for the Libertarian, Mr Dawson at 3,912, and you'll see an environment very favourable to the FSP, in my opinion. With 20,000 more supporters of liberty in the state Mr Bebout, assuming he cares about our rights, would have cruised to victory (I assume Mr Bebout was at least more liberty minded than his open, who was called the "Progressive governor Wyoming needs" and other such things by "The Wyoming Tribune Eagle").

I personally think, and as I am not a member of the FSP, nor do I plan on becoming one in the near future (my situation forbids me from committing to something of this magnitude) my opinion should certainly be counted less, that Wyoming offers you folks the best chance of success. However, that's another topic.
Logged
The world is not thy friend, nor the world's law.

Shakespeare Romeo and Juliet V.i

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:2002 Election Results
« Reply #16 on: November 08, 2002, 04:52:39 am »

With 20,000 more supporters of liberty in the state Mr Bebout, assuming he cares about our rights, would have cruised to victory (I assume Mr Bebout was at least more liberty minded than his open, who was called the "Progressive governor Wyoming needs" and other such things by "The Wyoming Tribune Eagle").

Very true.  I'll probably take some heat for saying this, but unfortunately, the libertarians did themselves no service in Wyoming.  Had they cast their votes for Bebout, a less statist party would still control their governor's mansion.  Not an ideal situation of course, but better than was otherwise realistically available at the time.  Had they done so, Bebout would have won by 142 votes.  Now, having won office in a traditionally Republican state, the new governor will be that much more eager to try and implement a Democrat agenda, which neither the Republicans nor the Libertarians will appreciate.

Quote
I personally think, and as I am not a member of the FSP, nor do I plan on becoming one in the near future (my situation forbids me from committing to something of this magnitude) my opinion should certainly be counted less, that Wyoming offers you folks the best chance of success. However, that's another topic.

I'm still weighing the states, but everything I've seen thus far seems to support your statement.  Wyoming may have elected a Democrat, but we see clear evidence that the lesser to non-statist vote still outweighed the statist vote.  

Also, political campaigns are fickle things, often based on personality more than ideals, and people will sometimes vote for change just for change's sake.  I'd look at a state's historical track record more seriously than a recent, mid-term election.  The election of Republicans in places like Maryland and Hawaii probably will not stand come the next election as those places are historically statist.  

A president's popularity can also do quite well for his party, as evidence suggests that Republicans picked up votes or boosts in the polls wherever Bush went to campaign.  And we should also keep in mind that a rogue governor (one whose party does not hold a legislative majority) can be marginalized in their effectiveness to implment an agenda.  Again, much of a governor's effectiveness can be based on personality as opposed to ideals, so you never know.  A governor can also stonewall legislation unless the legislature has the votes to overturn his or her veto.  I don't know if Republicans in Wyoming's legislature have that sort of majority.

But they easily could if we were there.   ;D

Penfist

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 814
  • Work together to build something that lasts.
    • Penfist
Re:2002 Election Results
« Reply #17 on: November 08, 2002, 09:38:14 am »

[/quote]

Very true.  I'll probably take some heat for saying this, but unfortunately, the libertarians did themselves no service in Wyoming.  Had they cast their votes for Bebout, a less statist party would still control their governor's mansion.  Not an ideal situation of course, but better than was otherwise realistically available at the time.  Had they done so, Bebout would have won by 142 votes.  Now, having won office in a traditionally Republican state, the new governor will be that much more eager to try and implement a Democrat agenda, which neither the Republicans nor the Libertarians will appreciate.

Quote

There are two ways of looking at this. Sometimes things need to get worse before they get better. Under Democratic rule, things will likely get worse faster. Hopefully, that will precipitate the sort of drastic reduction in government that is really needed.
Logged
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.
--Thomas Jefferson

ChrisforLiberty

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 45
    • Volunteer Silver Exchange
Re:2002 Election Results
« Reply #18 on: November 08, 2002, 12:20:51 pm »

To get election results in Tennessee, you can go to http://www.lpknox.org
Logged
The elitists fear an ever growing political advocacy that is present in the common man and woman. It offends their sense of the class structure and their own morally corrupt world view. What better way to maintain this elitist structure than to indoctrinate a child at a very early age?

ChrisforLiberty

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 45
    • Volunteer Silver Exchange
Re:2002 Election Results
« Reply #19 on: November 08, 2002, 03:04:23 pm »

Actually, Question 2, but barely. I enjoy it in Knoxville, but I do think within a matter of years, I will be living in another state.
Logged
The elitists fear an ever growing political advocacy that is present in the common man and woman. It offends their sense of the class structure and their own morally corrupt world view. What better way to maintain this elitist structure than to indoctrinate a child at a very early age?

Hank

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 334
  • "The Men That Don't Fit In"
Re:2002 Election Results
« Reply #20 on: August 30, 2003, 11:02:49 am »

We're on a football field.
There are 20 of us and 182 of them.
oops
their friends just showed up
now there are 20 of us and 480 of them.
Even if 40 of them leave
we're still so outnumbered that we'll get stomped. :-\

How many of them can we get to defect to our side?
100?  Good enough in the first case.
200?  Not quite good enough in the second case.

So how's the 2003 elections shaping up?

After 2004 all the governors may have changed.
Logged
There's A race of men that don't fit in,
A race that can't stay still;
So they break the hearts of kith and kin,
And they roam the world at will.
http://www.internal.org/view_poem.phtml?poemID=295

Karl

  • Guest
Re:2002 Election Results
« Reply #21 on: August 30, 2003, 11:32:40 am »

We're on a football field.
There are 20 of us and 182 of them.
oops
their friends just showed up
now there are 20 of us and 480 of them.
Even if 40 of them leave
we're still so outnumbered that we'll get stomped. :-\

How many of them can we get to defect to our side?
100?  Good enough in the first case.
200?  Not quite good enough in the second case.

Your analogy is based on two false assumptions:

1.  Everyone on the "other team" is our enemy.
2.  We have 100 friends.

A strategy based on these assumptions is doomed.  If we start the game playing 20 vs. 182, we lose.  There will be no reinforcements.
Logged

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re:2002 Election Results
« Reply #22 on: August 30, 2003, 11:42:07 am »

I forgot about this thread.  As long as it is around and is about the 2002 election, I'll poast the results of the 2002 election.


Average vote for LP candidates in 2002 for major offices
Includes US Senate, US House, and Governor races
Ranking:

1. Montana 3.0%
2. Wyoming 2.5%
2. New Hampshire 2.5%
4. Idaho 2.25%
5. Alaska 1.5%
6. Vermont 1.0%
6. South Dakota 1.0%
8. Delaware 0.5%
9. Maine No LP Candidates
10. North Dakota No LP Candidates
Source http://www.zayda.net/pipermail/wyolp/2002-November/000340.html

 

Percentage of total vote in 2002 according to the Libertarian Party website: All elections averaged
1. Maine 8.47%
2. Wyoming 7.62
3. Idaho 5.64%
4. Montana 3.28%
5. New Hampshire 2.68%
6. South Dakota 1.77%
7. Alaska 1.31%
8. Vermont 1.27%
9. Delaware 0.91%
The website does not have the results for North Dakota
Source http://www.lp.org/campaigns/results/highlights.php?type=percentbystate


November 2002 Election Results: Total Libertarian Votes by State
1. Idaho 197,900
2. Wyoming 43,944
3. South Dakota 41,314
4. New Hampshire 39,762
5. Vermont 29,927
6. Montana 22,560
7. Alaska 11,356
8. Delaware 4,642
9. Maine 1,440
ND N/A
Source http://www.lp.org/campaigns/results/highlights.php?type=votesbystate

Logged

Hank

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 334
  • "The Men That Don't Fit In"
Re:2002 Election Results
« Reply #23 on: August 30, 2003, 11:08:23 pm »

Karl,
I thought you'd see what I was getting at.
Okay.
I'll make it simpler.

We're on a football field.
We have a choice of two opponents.

  • There are 20 of us and 182 of them (Wyoming's team)

or
  • There are 20 of us and 480 of them (Maine's team)


Either way we're still so outnumbered that we'll get stomped if we don't lure some defectors to our side or at least get them to sit out the game.

How many of them can we get to defect to our side?
100?  Good enough against Wyoming's state champions.
200?  Not quite good enough against Maine's state champions.

How many of them can we get to sit on the sidelines?
165?  It's good enough against Wyoming's state champions.
400?  Not good enough against Maine's state champions.

What if we get some of the opposition to defect to our side
and some to sit on the sidelines?
How many of each?
55 defectors plus 55 sitters to win against Wyoming's state champions.
155 defectors plus 155 sitters to win against Maine's state champions.

If
  • There are 20 of us and 441 of them (New Hampshire's state champions)

We would need a tad more than (441-20)/3 of each.
141 defectors (leaving 300)
plus 141 sitters (leaving 159 opponents)
for our 20+141 to win against New Hampshire's state champions.

Me?
 I'd rather take on the smallest team and hope for lots of defectors and sitters.
Even Vermont's state champions wouldn't be too bad.

  • There are 20 of us and 223 of them (Vermont's state champions)

We would need a tad more than (223-20)/3 of each.
68 defectors (leaving 155)
plus 68 sitters (leaving 87 opponents)
for our 20+68 to win against Vermont's state champions.

Throw all these calculations out if our guys are big and brutesome and the other team is a bunch of third string underweights.

But what if their guys are big and brutesome professionals
(ringers like in the M*A*S*H movie)
and our team is a bunch of amateur electron pushers? ???

Whose side are you betting on?
Will you bet your farm?
« Last Edit: August 30, 2003, 11:31:40 pm by Hank »
Logged
There's A race of men that don't fit in,
A race that can't stay still;
So they break the hearts of kith and kin,
And they roam the world at will.
http://www.internal.org/view_poem.phtml?poemID=295
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up