Re: perfect summation. Re: [LD_USA] coinage.
- It is so easier to get Libertarians to move than NAPsters, because only a small percentage of either is ready and willing to move. If 0.0001% of either is ready, able and willing to politically relocate, then 300,000 NAPsters is not enough, but 4 million Libertarians is. Also, neither Napsters nor Libertarians have much incentive to move until AFTER a district's current policies are significantly more libertarian than anywhere else, which probably means AFTER a Libertarian victory. Otherwise it's like the lottery, the chances of winning are not worth the investment of moving, or not perceived to be worth the invesment by more than about 10 people on the face of the earth.Actually, I think Butler's idea of moving charasmatic, or qualified, candidates may be the first step in such a process.It's a circularly causal feedback loop. Libertarian voters make libertarian policies and libertarian policies attract Libertarian (and NAP) voters. But what You and Zach are ignoring is that you need relatively libertarian policies FIRST, BEFORE it becomes possible to attract a NAP majority. You only have half the feedback loop and you probably can't attract enough NAPsters with just a promise and a plan. At least you haven't yet and don't seem to be progressing.The need for relatively libertarian policies FIRST is why Alpine CA and Cuttyhunk MA can't and almost certainly won't attract enough libertarians. Grafton NH is on its way, more by reputation than policy, but it is too big to get there within the decade. Ellsburg NH and Phillpsburg MT are really the best bets but are too cold for me personally. That really leaves NV, west TX and whichever town with a Libertarian councillor has the best combination of small size and relatively libertarian policies.My biggest problem is that I cannot easily compare the relative libertarianism of the policies of small towns by internet on any sort of rational net basis.-Al--------------------------------------------------------------
No, I meant all forms of libertarian candidates.
Ron Paul has shown that my assertion is not necessarily true. Since the C4L is growing, he may be able to produce some clones. And I hope he does. But we cannot just stand here and hope for a miracle.
From all the results we have seen so far, getting people to score well on "The World's Smallest Political Quiz" has not translated to libertarian votes. Even though the sheeple may score well on the Quiz, they will only vote about 3% for our candidates. And that includes libertarians, Libertarians, NAPs and ZAPs.
Certainly, there have been libertarians elected, but we have not figured out how to generalize that success. Amazing enough, each of the victories - there are hundreds - has been separate. For instance, there are several Libertarian city councilmen in Texas - but they are hundreds of miles apart. I think it is a matter of personal charisma or other accidents. But, whatever it is, libertarians being elected has not lead to other local victories.
Some people have theorized that it would be easier to elect Lib lite councils in a group and then convert the one in the center into NAP (oer ZAP). That is not necessarily so. To elect a libertarian city council, it will be necessary to import enough voters to win. If we are importing voters, we can import NAP as easily as we can import Lib lite.
You keep making the "politics as usual" mistake of thinking that we are going to get the sheeple to vote libertarian. No one has figured out how to do that. The only way libertarians can win more than one race here and one there, is to import enough voters to win.
Since you keep making the mistake of thinking that we can get the sheeple to vote libertarian, you assume it would be easier to get them to vote Lib lite rather than NAP. That is probably true to an extent. But you would not be able to convert enough sheeple to either to win several elections in the same town. The only way for libertarians to win more than one race is to import libertarian voters. We can import NAP as easily we can import Lib lite. (Sorry to repeat, but I keep thinking that if I expalin it better, you will be able to see it.)
I understand that you are trying to design a system that any group can use. But please quit trying to mislead libertarians into thinking they can achieve success with the system you are designing for Greens and such. We have been doing this for years and have learned the hard way that we cannot win with "politics as usual".
Your last paragraph should be: Since libertarians cannot, at this time, import enough voters to win a whole state, libertarians are forced into starting at the county level.
BobbyOn Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 1:22 PM, <aditmore@...> wrote:No, in that context I think he means ZAP candidate, and they are right, which makes a ZAP district essentially impossibe until AFTER several Libertarian districts have been established. And since a ZAP district must wait on a Libertarian district, the goal must currently be a Libertarian district. The same is true of a state or nation, which should go in Bobby's explanation. Since you cannot possibly win a Libertaian state or nation until AFTER you have won a Libertaian town, the current goal must be a Libertarian town.-AlPS Loving County, on the NM border not far from El Paso, is BOTH the smallest AND has the higherst percentage of Libertarian votes. That should certainly be a very high priority for LP-TX.-Al------------------------------------
My point was that even though many
people score highly on the "World's Smallest Political Quiz", they
will never vote for a libertarian candidate.
Do you mean Libertarian Party candidate?
If so, can't the LP-backed victories by the city council candidates in Texas who won in non-partisan races prove that wrong? I think all you have to do is figure out how many migrants you will need once a city or county is selected....
Purify your water with professional water treatment. Click now!