If you aren't guilty, what are you afraid of?

[elSicomoro]

UT's chart appears to come from here, and shows the number of dues-paying members of the party.

You live in California according to your profile, Radar, so...

--14.6 million registered voters as of 1998
--87,183 registered Libertarians...I'm also assuming from 1998 (Source for this and the previous stat: State of California)
--89,125 registered Libertarians as of Sept. 2002 (Source: Libertarian Party of California)...a drop from a peak of almost 95,000 two years ago...and a drop from 92,000 in March, according to their recent counts.

That's a 6% drop since 2000...where's the increase?

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by Tobiasly
Tonight I'm gonna start the Aloysius Party. We currently have one member, me.

I'll join...why not? There...100% increase already.

[Tobiasly]

By the way Radar, you're kinda new here.. we're always hardest on people who actually make coherent, intelligent posts (that we happen to disagree with).

So don't think UT or anyone is really being a dick. This is obviously something you're rather passionate about. It's all good.

[Tobiasly]

Woohoo! Syc and I actually in the same party! Who'd'a thunkit?

[Radar]

I want my vote to count. I know the Libertarian couldn't win, so I won't vote for him. You may disagree with that logic, but that's the way most people who actually vote think.

If you vote for a Republican or democrat, your vote doesn't count. Either way you'll get the same thing. You'll get people who attack your civil rights, and make government larger, more expensive, and more intrusive. You'll never get anything different if you always vote for the same thing. And saying you won't vote for someone unless they can win is like saying, "I won't vote for that guy unless he doesn't need my vote". Politics isn't a horse race where you use your vote to bet on a winner.

That's a 6% drop since 2000...beyond a "standard" margin of error. Why the drop?

Assuming those numbers are correct it's easily explainable in the people's republic of california which is full of socialist idiots.

And if they're correct I stand corrected with regard to it being the most registered voters the party has had of all time. That would be back in 1999 and 2000 when Harry Browne was running for office. Either way the party is growing right now nationally even if not in the state of California.

I bet by tomorrow, I could have a 300% increase in membership. Then I'd be responsible for the fastest-growing party in America!

Let me know when your party has a presidential candidate on the ballot in all 50 states for 3 elections in a row, when you've got over 500 members in elected offices, etc.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by Tobiasly
Woohoo! Syc and I actually in the same party! Who'd'a thunkit?

Politically speaking at least.

Shit...what do we stand for?

[Tobiasly]

Originally posted by sycamore
Shit...what do we stand for?

Free the weed at SEMO!

[Undertoad]

The membership chart comes from Joe Dehn.

http://www.dehnbase.org/lpus/library/membership.html

Joe is known to the LP for having provided web and other services for the national party for ages and ages. Before the LP redesigned their site, Joe was their webmaster. The LP doesn't publish membership statistics - well, ever since "Archemedes", the much-vaulted Willis/Dasbach membership plan, failed so spectacularly. You won't find membership numbers on the web site.

But Joe has been maintaining the membership information for volunteer statistical purposes forever, and he's the guy who sends out the monthly state membership tables on the LPUS mailing list. Perhaps you've seen them? Well, the above is the graphical version. You have to know where to look for it.

Getting 45% to remove an entrenched state tax despite millions upon millions being spent to scare people into thinking the state would collapse without it and while having a meager budget is something to be very proud of.

It's the kind of result that the LP crows about to membership to sound impressive. It <i>sounds</i> great, doesn't it? Too bad the faithful spent all their money on a campaign that, in the end, meant no change whatsoever.

Kinda like those elected officials numbers. Hey, my wife is one of those numbers. She's an election official. She checks people in when they vote. She enjoys it. It's almost completely non-partisan and the effect of having an L there as opposed to a D is meaningless. After eight years of it, she's tired of it and probably won't do it again. Her and her numbers will start decreasing the PA "elected" count, but many years after the end of the LP's membership/money "bubble" (shown in Dehn's membership numbers above).

But back to those faithful who spent their money. If the campaign ads went to the Howell for Governor campaign, but were diverted and used for the ballot initiative, wouldn't that be <i>fraud</i>?

As for "Why no coattails?", you say

Because Taxachussets isn't a strong state for Republicans and since it was the first election after the highly questionable elections in 2000 voter turnout was extremely low and polarized on the two major parties.

Chief, she got 1%. She got the kool-aid vote. The low turnout makes her 1% look worse, not better. If the turnout would have been higher, she would have gotten 0.7%. Wow, the LP's best and brightest!

Look at it another way. The NO vote on Question 1 was nearly 900,000 votes, right? How come Howell only got 20,000 of those votes? If the small government spirit so motivated those Q1 voters, why couldn't the small government candidate convert any more than 1 in 45 of them?

The LP: our candidates lose by a whole lot, but our BALLOT QUESTIONS only lose by a LITTLE!

[Tobiasly]

Originally posted by Radar
And saying you won't vote for someone unless they can win is like saying, "I won't vote for that guy unless he doesn't need my vote".

No, read my second point. Voting for my second-favorite candidate, who has a decent chance of winning, is better than voting for my favorite candidate, who has no chance of winning, thereby increasing my <I>least</I> favorite candidate's chances of winning.

I completely agree that under a different system, it might make sense to fight for whomever I'm most ideologically aligned with. But our system is here to stay. It will never change. So we may as well work it as best we can.

What is your goal in getting people to vote for Browne? Do you ever think he'll actually hold office -- or even have a chance of coming within 20 points of the next loser? Or do you just want to make your issues known? Or perhaps force the other candidates to lean more libertarian?

Let me know when your party has a presidential candidate on the ballot in all 50 states for 3 elections in a row, when you've got over 500 members in elected offices, etc.

Oh, so now we're putting stipulations on it!

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by Tobiasly
Free the weed at SEMO!

Sorry...these two emoticons rock.

[Radar]

Too bad the faithful spent all their money on a campaign that, in the end, meant no change whatsoever.

It made a huge change. It made voters realize that they could get rid of the state tax and it will come up again. It also ensured that there will be no tax increases for the newly elected people. They wouldn't dare raise taxes as they had planned to do after this.

But back to those faithful who spent their money. If the campaign ads went to the Howell for Governor campaign, but were diverted and used for the ballot initiative, wouldn't that be fraud?

Who said anything about money being diverted. More money was collected for the Question 1 campaign than for the Carla Howell campaign. And she focused her efforts on passing that initiative. And as far as people not riding the coat-tail from question 1 to vote for her as a governor, it's much easier to sell getting rid of taxes to a bunch of overtaxed republicans and democrats than it is to sell a Libertarian governor. This year people wouldn't vote for Libertarians because of the election in 2000. It's that simple.

I'm sorry you're a bitter little man who is discouraged about the party because you haven't seen enough results, but I say you could have done more to get those results. Page 3 of the current issue of the LP News has an article showing why most of the people who leave the party do so. I'm sure you fit into the "lack of effectiveness" catagory if you've left. Either way your whining and badmouthing of the party don't help anyone.

No, read my second point. Voting for my second-favorite candidate, who has a decent chance of winning, is better than voting for my favorite candidate, who has no chance of winning, thereby increasing my least favorite candidate's chances of winning.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. And voting for a republican or democrat is voting for evil. You will get the same thing regardless of which one you vote for. And it's completely stupid to vote on someone based on how well you think their chances are of winning.

But our system is here to stay. It will never change. So we may as well work it as best we can.

The Republicans were a third party a 100 years or so ago. So yes it does change. And claiming "It will never change" is a defeatist attitude and weak logic.

What is your goal in getting people to vote for Browne? Do you ever think he'll actually hold office -- or even have a chance of coming within 20 points of the next loser? Or do you just want to make your issues known? Or perhaps force the other candidates to lean more libertarian?

My goal is getting enough votes and press for the Libertarian candidate (not necessarily Harry Browne) to make people take notice and for other elected officials to change their policies to a more libertarian way of thinking. America was built by Libertarian thinkers. I want to force the two major parties to include Libertarians or anyone else who has a candidate on the ballot in all 50 states to be included in the debates. My goal is to stay with the only party that makes sense politically. I will never rest until there's a Libertarian in the oval office, the drug war is completely over, and the federal government sticks strictly to the constitution. I've sworn to Peter McWilliam's mother that I will keep up the fight with my dying breath.

[Tobiasly]

Originally posted by Radar
Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.

Gee, I wish it were that cut-and-dried. Evil, evil, good huh?

If the choices are good, not quite as good, and bad, and voting for good means bad has a better chance, voting for not-quite-as-good is a no-brainer.

And voting for a libertarian or democrat is voting for evil.

Finally, something we agree on. Either way, we're more likely to have a Democrat in office. Libertarians suck more votes from R's than they do from D's. You may see D's and R's as the same, but most libertarian-leaning people I know are much more aligned with the Republican party.

Now you're probably gonna say you made a typo or something.

[Tobiasly]

Originally posted by Radar
The Republicans were a third party a 100 years or so ago.

Politics is much different today than it was 100 years ago.

[Radar]

If the choices are good, not quite as good, and bad, and voting for good means bad has a better chance, voting for not-quite-as-good is a no-brainer.

But that's not your choice. You've got evil #1 (Republicans) and evil #2 (Democrats) which are both equally evil and result in the exact same thing happening. They aren't different in any way. And you've got the only good (Libertarians) in American politics who make sense, stick to their promises, and respect the constitution.

Finally, something we agree on. Either way, we're more likely to have a Democrat in office

That was a typo and was fixed. It's supposed to read

And voting for a republican or democrat is voting for evil

And if there is a lesser of two evils between the democrats and republicans it's the democrats only because they do what they say. The promise to raise taxes and spend more and they do it while republicans lie and claim to want smaller government and constantly take steps to increase the size of government. So not only are they corrupt socialist scumbags but they lie about it.

Libertarians suck more votes from R's than they do from D's. You may see D's and R's as the same, but most libertarian-leaning people I know are much more aligned with the Republican party.

Most Libertarians think of them as identical and we get more former republicans because the want smaller government and believed the republican lies.

Now you're probably gonna say you made a typo or something.

You knew damn well I made a typo and don't act like you didn't know it or that it wasn't a typo.

Politics is much different today than it was 100 years ago.

100 years ago the government mostly stuck to the limits placed on them by the constitution. Other than that it's exactly the same. The same tricks. The same idiots claiming our civil rights need to be put on hold in the name of "security", the same everything.


There is no lesser of two evils. There is no "not quite so good" and "bad". There is good and everything else. Republicans spend more money than democrats, attack our civil rights as much or more than democrats, violate the constitution as much or more than democrats, and constantly take steps to increase their power, and make government larger, more intrusive, and more expensive. The only difference between them is the democrats tax and spend and the republicans borrow, tax, and spend and which parts of the constitution they will violate first.

Here's a few quick facts about the Republican party and George W. Bush.

• Republicans created income tax in the first place. Abraham Lincoln created them on August 5, 1861. And that was only one of his violations of the constitution.
  
• When Reagan took office in 1981 the federal budget was $600 billion
  
• Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress from 1995 through 2001 during which time the federal budget grew from $1.4 trillion to $2.1 trillion (about $100 billion annually).
  
• Since Republicans took control of the House in 1995, federal discretionary spending has grown by a rate of about 7% annually. The number of earmarks lawmakers have put in the spending bills to steer federal funds to their districts has also grown. By one estimate, between fiscal years 2001 and 2002, they increased from about 6,300 to 8,300, or 32%
  
• The last Republican president to preside over a decrease in federal spending was Warren G. Harding who served from 1921 until his death in 1923. During that time federal spending decreased 38% from $5 billion to $3.1 billion.
  
• Social welfare programs under George W. Bush have grown by $96 billion in just two years, versus $51 billion under six years of Clinton

[Griff]

Originally posted by Tobiasly

Free the weed at SEMO!

He he. Looks like we have a movement.