Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

The cost of making the move

Expand Messages
  • Kevin
    Good Morning everyone, I ve been reading the recent posts on how to reduce the potential for voter fraud in the selection process, and yet at the same time,
    Message 1 of 28 , Dec 3, 2002
      Good Morning everyone,

      I've been reading the recent posts on how to reduce the potential for
      voter fraud in the selection process, and yet at the same time, make
      the cost of the selection process as low as possible by utilizing
      technology. I may be in the minority here, but it would seem to me
      that in the overall scheme of things, the "cost" of sending in your
      vote should be the least of the concerns.

      Lets assume for a minute that everyone that has signed up is truly
      sincere about relocating to the chosen state. If that is the case,
      then the "cost" of selecting that state is minimal, when compared to
      the cost of selling your home, relocating, finding a job (or starting
      a new business), buying or building a new home, and then investing
      the time, money, and energy necessary to build the kind of political,
      economic, and social environment that we all desire to achieve.

      My personal feeling is that the best way to reduce voter fraud is to
      make it just a little painful. Make certain that those who are
      voting are truly taking the time, and making the effort, to make an
      informed and thoughtful decision. To that end, the "cost" of the
      voting process should be borne by those that are involved with the
      process itself. It is also my feeling that nothing replaces
      the "personal" investment of signing your ballot with your legal
      name. Therefore, I propose the following.

      1. Paper ballots. No electronic media, no faxes.
      2. In order to offset the cost of preparing the ballots and postage
      associated with it. Those who have already registered with the Free
      State Project will be required to send in a fee, say $2 or $3. Upon
      receipt of your "intent to vote" fee, you will be sent out a ballot,
      and an official envelope to return your vote.
      3. Once the ballot is received, you will make your vote, then sign
      it, and have it notarized. The cost for a notary, even in the
      People's Republic of California, is no more than $10.00. Place
      postage on the envelope (if you wish to have a signed reciept, then
      pay the appropriate fee to the Post Office), and place it back in the
      mail.
      4. The Ballot counting committee will open, count, and certify the
      voting, as well as make available the results of the voting.
      5. Since only one ballot, and one envelope, will be sent out to each
      registered member of the project, it can be easily verified the one
      vote per member is recieved and logged.
      6. After the initial round of voting, the top three states should be
      placed on a second (and final) ballot, and the process should be
      repeated so that anyone who opts out of the final states will not
      be "burdened" with making the choice of a state that does not reflect
      their preferences.

      The total "cost" of this process should be no more than $25 or $30
      for both rounds of voting. Certainly anyone that is truly willing
      to "make the move" will be willing to spend that amount to make
      certain that their voice is heard in the balloting process.

      As far as eliminating the potential for voter fraud? Nothing will do
      more to reduce the potential for fraud than to make it costly to
      participate in the fraud. If someone wants to create 4 or 5 illegal
      personalities, and pay the fees for those personalities to vote, then
      make it expensive for him/her to do so. For those few that live
      their lives "anonymously"? I have no sympathy for then since they
      are no help to the project anyway, and should be excluded. The
      project MUST have people that are willing to operate WITHIN the laws
      of this Country to affect permanent change. To encourage the
      activities of fringe organizations and individuals within this group
      jeaopardizes the project as a whole.

      My faith in the project and the people behind the project is based
      upon the verifiable hard work that has been performed to date. I am
      going to make a move within the next 12 - 24 months whether this
      project moves forward or not. For myself, my family, and my future,
      I have already decided that I must leave California for the wide open
      spaces of Wyoming, Montana, or the Dakotas, and my choice has been
      made based upon a significant amount of information that was gathered
      on the main website, as well as my own research.

      Ante up people, and quit trying to nickle and dime this project.
      Freedom, both personal and political, is worth the cost, and the
      effort involved.

      Kevin L. Maevers
    • Jason P Sorens
      The only problem I see with making voting intentionally costly is that there isn t much reason to vote in the first place, so adding costs might discourage
      Message 2 of 28 , Dec 3, 2002
        The only problem I see with making voting intentionally costly is that
        there isn't much reason to vote in the first place, so adding costs might
        discourage people from voting even if they plan to participate and become
        activists. I can imagine a few hundred people (out of 5000) thinking
        along the following lines: "Out of 5000 voters, my vote is not going to
        make a difference anyway. And they want me to go down to the bank and
        get this notarized and then mail it? Harumph! It's not worth my time!"
        It's not that these people aren't dedicated activists; they just don't see
        this as worthwhile if their costly participation isn't going to affect
        anything. Sure, we could lay a guilt trip on them: "you're not a real
        activist unless you vote!" But that approach might just backfire & come
        off as too controlling.

        Note also that we can't require a fee paid to the FSP for voters. That
        would be a required contribution for membership in contravention of the
        Participation Guidelines.

        Remember again that vote fraud is a very limited problem and is easy for
        us to combat. If 3 or more signers have the same address and all cast
        ballots, we can examine the signatures and then call them to verify their
        identity. At most this will be a few dozen people.

        ___________________________________________________________________________

        Jason P Sorens - jason.sorensATyale.edu - <http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35>

        <http://www.freestateproject.org> - Do you want liberty in your lifetime?
      • No Free Lunch
        ... Just curious - to what organizations and or individuals are you referring? Charles
        Message 3 of 28 , Dec 3, 2002
          Kevin wrote:

          > For those few that live their lives "anonymously"? I have no
          > sympathy for then since they are no help to the project
          > anyway, and should be excluded. The project MUST have people
          > that are willing to operate WITHIN the laws of this Country to
          > affect permanent change. To encourage the activities of
          > fringe organizations and individuals within this group
          > jeaopardizes the project as a whole.

          Just curious - to what organizations and or individuals are you
          referring?

          Charles
        • Gold Standard Press
          that s $150,000 that could be spent on marketing.... c. ... From: Kevin To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 2:30 PM Subject:
          Message 4 of 28 , Dec 3, 2002
            that's $150,000 that could be spent on marketing....

            c.


            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Kevin
            To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 2:30 PM
            Subject: [FSP] The cost of making the move


            Good Morning everyone,

            I've been reading the recent posts on how to reduce the potential for
            voter fraud in the selection process, and yet at the same time, make
            the cost of the selection process as low as possible by utilizing
            technology. I may be in the minority here, but it would seem to me
            that in the overall scheme of things, the "cost" of sending in your
            vote should be the least of the concerns.

            Lets assume for a minute that everyone that has signed up is truly
            sincere about relocating to the chosen state. If that is the case,
            then the "cost" of selecting that state is minimal, when compared to
            the cost of selling your home, relocating, finding a job (or starting
            a new business), buying or building a new home, and then investing
            the time, money, and energy necessary to build the kind of political,
            economic, and social environment that we all desire to achieve.

            My personal feeling is that the best way to reduce voter fraud is to
            make it just a little painful. Make certain that those who are
            voting are truly taking the time, and making the effort, to make an
            informed and thoughtful decision. To that end, the "cost" of the
            voting process should be borne by those that are involved with the
            process itself. It is also my feeling that nothing replaces
            the "personal" investment of signing your ballot with your legal
            name. Therefore, I propose the following.

            1. Paper ballots. No electronic media, no faxes.
            2. In order to offset the cost of preparing the ballots and postage
            associated with it. Those who have already registered with the Free
            State Project will be required to send in a fee, say $2 or $3. Upon
            receipt of your "intent to vote" fee, you will be sent out a ballot,
            and an official envelope to return your vote.
            3. Once the ballot is received, you will make your vote, then sign
            it, and have it notarized. The cost for a notary, even in the
            People's Republic of California, is no more than $10.00. Place
            postage on the envelope (if you wish to have a signed reciept, then
            pay the appropriate fee to the Post Office), and place it back in the
            mail.
            4. The Ballot counting committee will open, count, and certify the
            voting, as well as make available the results of the voting.
            5. Since only one ballot, and one envelope, will be sent out to each
            registered member of the project, it can be easily verified the one
            vote per member is recieved and logged.
            6. After the initial round of voting, the top three states should be
            placed on a second (and final) ballot, and the process should be
            repeated so that anyone who opts out of the final states will not
            be "burdened" with making the choice of a state that does not reflect
            their preferences.

            The total "cost" of this process should be no more than $25 or $30
            for both rounds of voting. Certainly anyone that is truly willing
            to "make the move" will be willing to spend that amount to make
            certain that their voice is heard in the balloting process.

            As far as eliminating the potential for voter fraud? Nothing will do
            more to reduce the potential for fraud than to make it costly to
            participate in the fraud. If someone wants to create 4 or 5 illegal
            personalities, and pay the fees for those personalities to vote, then
            make it expensive for him/her to do so. For those few that live
            their lives "anonymously"? I have no sympathy for then since they
            are no help to the project anyway, and should be excluded. The
            project MUST have people that are willing to operate WITHIN the laws
            of this Country to affect permanent change. To encourage the
            activities of fringe organizations and individuals within this group
            jeaopardizes the project as a whole.

            My faith in the project and the people behind the project is based
            upon the verifiable hard work that has been performed to date. I am
            going to make a move within the next 12 - 24 months whether this
            project moves forward or not. For myself, my family, and my future,
            I have already decided that I must leave California for the wide open
            spaces of Wyoming, Montana, or the Dakotas, and my choice has been
            made based upon a significant amount of information that was gathered
            on the main website, as well as my own research.

            Ante up people, and quit trying to nickle and dime this project.
            Freedom, both personal and political, is worth the cost, and the
            effort involved.

            Kevin L. Maevers



            Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
            ADVERTISEMENT




            To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            freestateproject-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Nixi Chesnavich
            2. In order to offset the cost of preparing the ballots and postage associated with it. Those who have already registered with the Free State Project will be
            Message 5 of 28 , Dec 3, 2002
              2. In order to offset the cost of preparing the ballots and postage
              associated with it. Those who have already registered with the Free
              State Project will be required to send in a fee, say $2 or $3. Upon
              receipt of your "intent to vote" fee, you will be sent out a ballot,
              and an official envelope to return your vote.

              My understanding is that the Free State Project cannot assess
              any fees, even a $2 -$3 fee, since from the beginning the Project
              has asserted that it will not require any moneys from its membership.

              Everything must be voluntarily given. That said, I think a request
              for a $5 or more voluntary donation included along with the ballot
              would not be out of line. The donation could be used primarily
              for funding the voting process, with any remaining funds used for
              other administrative costs of the Project.
            • Bob Compton
              ... ... I CHOOSE to live my life anonymously by both strong religious and political convictions. I do not want your sympathy and it is pure
              Message 6 of 28 , Dec 3, 2002
                Good points. I agree with all but one:

                > Good Morning everyone,
                >
                > I've been reading the recent posts on how to reduce the potential for
                <SNIP>
                > As far as eliminating the potential for voter fraud? Nothing will do
                > more to reduce the potential for fraud than to make it costly to
                > participate in the fraud. If someone wants to create 4 or 5 illegal
                > personalities, and pay the fees for those personalities to vote, then
                > make it expensive for him/her to do so. For those few that live
                > their lives "anonymously"? I have no sympathy for then since they are
                > no help to the project anyway, and should be excluded. The
                > project MUST have people that are willing to operate WITHIN the laws
                > of this Country to affect permanent change. To encourage the
                > activities of fringe organizations and individuals within this group
                > jeaopardizes the project as a whole.
                <SNIP>

                I CHOOSE to live my life "anonymously" by both strong religious and
                political convictions. I do not want your "sympathy" and it is pure BS that
                I can be of "no help to the project". I do not mind being excluded from the
                vote of where to move since I've already made up my mind to move to Nevada
                from California since it currently is the ONLY state that does not require a
                SSN to register to vote. Also, I resent the implication that I do not
                "operate WITHIN the laws of this Country". I abide by ALL laws and have
                NEVER been accused or convicted of a crime. I am committed to affecting
                "permanent change" in a peacefull manner until such time as that is no
                longer possible (not by my own decision). FSP does not in any way
                "encourage the activities" I persue and I am NOT a member of any "fringe
                organizations". My participation, by whatever means in no way "jeaopardizes
                (sp) the project as a whole".

                I do not believe it furthers the FSP's goals to shun ANYONE with honerable
                intentions and pure motives. There are WAY more of us without SSNs than you
                can likely imagine. I personally know (not just know of, but KNOW) more
                than 200! Most of whom, once you got to know them, you'd likely be proud to
                call "friend". I know OF at least 8,000 and even government stats indicate
                the number nears 20,000,000. EVERY ONE OF US that has taken the effort to
                live sans Socialist Slavery Number has more initiative and abilities than
                the average "citizen". Embracing us to create a "numberless" society of
                personal responsibility free of governmental nanny-isms could greatly assist
                and accellerate the project.

                Just my $0.02...
              • voodootyke
                Ante up people, and quit trying to nickle and dime this project. Freedom, both personal and political, is worth the cost, and the effort involved. Well said.
                Message 7 of 28 , Dec 3, 2002
                  "Ante up people, and quit trying to nickle and dime this project.
                  Freedom, both personal and political, is worth the cost, and the
                  effort involved."

                  Well said.
                • Logic
                  ... From: Kevin To: Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 2:30 PM Subject: [FSP] The cost of making
                  Message 8 of 28 , Dec 3, 2002
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: "Kevin" <kevin@...>
                    To: <freestateproject@yahoogroups.com>
                    Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 2:30 PM
                    Subject: [FSP] The cost of making the move


                    > Good Morning everyone,
                    >
                    > I've been reading the recent posts on how to reduce the potential for
                    > voter fraud in the selection process, and yet at the same time, make
                    > the cost of the selection process as low as possible by utilizing
                    > technology. I may be in the minority here, but it would seem to me
                    > that in the overall scheme of things, the "cost" of sending in your
                    > vote should be the least of the concerns.

                    I agree on this point. Introducing arbitrary barriers to participation, such
                    as cost and effort, will weed out those who are not serious about
                    relocating. This is a fine way to screen slackers from the processes of the
                    FSP.

                    The proposal to leverage technology was really just a suggestion to address
                    potential fraud, and to make it easier for people to participate in the
                    process. Clearly making participation easier presents its own problems, such
                    as allowing half-hearted, self-proclaimed porcupines to influence the
                    outcome on the vote for which state to move to.

                    I wonder, though, how effective this barrier to participation will be as
                    more and more official FSP issues present themselves. Will these issues
                    never see an opportunity for a vote by participating members, simply because
                    the process is to costly and cumbersome?

                    > For those few that live
                    > their lives "anonymously"? I have no sympathy for then since they
                    > are no help to the project anyway, and should be excluded. The
                    > project MUST have people that are willing to operate WITHIN the laws
                    > of this Country to affect permanent change. To encourage the
                    > activities of fringe organizations and individuals within this group
                    > jeaopardizes the project as a whole.

                    Whether there is no sympathy for those few that live their lives anonymously
                    or not has no bearing on an anonymous vote. I believe that an anonymous vote
                    is the vanguard of any democratic process.

                    *Who* votes is not important. Their *past* is not important. What's
                    important is that a group of living, thinking human beings have agreed to
                    acheive political ends through a peaceful, democratic process.

                    Any process that divulges how a particular individual votes (esp. in the
                    context of a government inspecting the vote) may pollute the process. The
                    FSP is the very last place I would expect oppressive policies from the
                    leadership. Just because we trust the leadership does not mean they should
                    be burdened (empowered) with the ability to inspect how members voted on a
                    particular issue --much less exposing an individual's voting decisions to
                    ALL COMERS. Good people should be protected from bad people through
                    anonymity.

                    If, thirty years from now, things don't turn out the way we want, who will
                    have access to our individual voting records? How might those decisions be
                    held against us?

                    We MUST have anonymity in the process!
                  • Brian Murray
                    On Tuesday 03 December 2002 12:30 pm, Kevin wrote: ... It can be made painful and cheap. ... ... ... ... ...
                    Message 9 of 28 , Dec 3, 2002
                      On Tuesday 03 December 2002 12:30 pm, Kevin wrote:
                      <snip>
                      >
                      > My personal feeling is that the best way to reduce voter fraud is to
                      > make it just a little painful. Make certain that those who are
                      <snip>

                      It can be made 'painful' and cheap.

                      > 1. Paper ballots. No electronic media, no faxes.
                      > 2. In order to offset the cost of preparing the ballots and postage
                      <snip>
                      > 3. Once the ballot is received, you will make your vote, then sign
                      <snip>
                      > 4. The Ballot counting committee will open, count, and certify the
                      <snip>
                      > 5. Since only one ballot, and one envelope, will be sent out to each
                      <snip>
                      > 6. After the initial round of voting, the top three states should be
                      <snip>
                      > The total "cost" of this process should be no more than $25 or $30
                      <snip>
                      > more to reduce the potential for fraud than to make it costly to
                      <snip>
                      > make it expensive for him/her to do so. For those few that live
                      > their lives "anonymously"? I have no sympathy for then since they
                      > are no help to the project anyway, and should be excluded. The
                      <snip>
                      > activities of fringe organizations and individuals within this group
                      > jeaopardizes the project as a whole.

                      Are you serious are are you trolling? Make it lengthy, expensive, complex,
                      layered with paperwork and with no allowances for anyone not keen on
                      submitting three forms of identification and a blood sample? Fringe
                      organizations? Individuals? Evils, those, eh? Better to stick with the
                      mainstream and the status quo? Make it all better by doing it all the same?
                      We wouldn't want to get radical or revolutionary, right? Play it safe?
                      Middle of the road?

                      The FSP is of interest to me because I want to live someplace where
                      government isn't intrusive, invasive or obstructive and life, liberty and the
                      pursuit of happiness do not require wading through red tape or bearing its
                      cost. If what the FSP does it does no better than the government where I
                      already live, what reason is there to believe that it's anything more than a
                      waste of time and money? And even in just stating its goals it's already a
                      'fringe organization' very much about 'individuals.'

                      <snip>
                      >
                      > Ante up people, and quit trying to nickle and dime this project.
                      > Freedom, both personal and political, is worth the cost, and the
                      > effort involved.

                      When the cost is freedom, the effort is irrelevant. Increasing cost,
                      complexity and invasiveness in the pursuit of freedom is akin to increasing
                      caloric intake in the pursuit of weight loss.

                      --
                      The law will never make men free; it is men who have got to make the law free.
                      -- Henry David Thoreau
                    • voodootyke
                      ... that ... costs might ... become ... There isn t much reason to vote in the first place? Jason please explain how you come up with that. While I respect
                      Message 10 of 28 , Dec 3, 2002
                        --- In freestateproject@y..., Jason P Sorens <jason.sorens@y...>
                        wrote:
                        >
                        > The only problem I see with making voting intentionally costly is
                        that
                        > there isn't much reason to vote in the first place, so adding
                        costs might
                        > discourage people from voting even if they plan to participate and
                        become
                        > activists.


                        There isn't much reason to vote in the first place? Jason please
                        explain how you come up with that.

                        While I respect your opinion, it seems to me that anybody worth the
                        ink they took up on the FSP membership list would feel the exact
                        opposite. That their vote for the free state is very important and
                        necessary.


                        I can imagine a few hundred people (out of 5000) thinking
                        > along the following lines: "Out of 5000 voters, my vote is not
                        going to
                        > make a difference anyway. And they want me to go down to the bank
                        and
                        > get this notarized and then mail it? Harumph! It's not worth my
                        time!"


                        So what? Let's say there are a few people who think that way. Do you
                        honestly expect a person who thinks that way to pack up there life,
                        their children, change jobs, pay the cost of moving, and move to
                        another state and become an activist? Without voting?

                        It seems to me that sacrificing the integrity of our collective vote
                        for an unknown few people who don't believe voting is important
                        anyway, is anathema to me.


                        > It's not that these people aren't dedicated activists; they just
                        don't see
                        > this as worthwhile if their costly participation isn't going to
                        affect
                        > anything.

                        I think of what the FSP is attempting to do and wonder what somebody
                        who wouldn't take the time to vote for a free state would take the
                        time to do for the FSP cause. I'm drawing a blank.

                        Then I think about all the dedicated activist that I have met or
                        heard aout and I can't recall one who considered voting for their
                        cause as not worth their effort.


                        Sure, we could lay a guilt trip on them: "you're not a real
                        > activist unless you vote!" But that approach might just backfire
                        & come
                        > off as too controlling.
                        >


                        Why would you put it that way in the first place? Why even talk in
                        terms of guilt trips? Or take any accusatory approaches?

                        We would be asking each other to put in a little effort to ensure
                        the integrity of the most important vote of our lives. Period.

                        No guilt trips. No accusations. No insinuations.



                        > Note also that we can't require a fee paid to the FSP for voters.
                        That
                        > would be a required contribution for membership in contravention
                        of the
                        > Participation Guidelines.
                        >


                        Personally I would not ask for a fee. it's unnecessary and gets into
                        questions about fleecing when the real issue is vote integrity.



                        > Remember again that vote fraud is a very limited problem and is
                        easy for
                        > us to combat.


                        Do you have statistics on totally open internet voting to back that
                        up or is it your impression that it is a limited problem?



                        If 3 or more signers have the same address and all cast
                        > ballots, we can examine the signatures and then call them to
                        verify their
                        > identity. At most this will be a few dozen people.


                        Not only is that totally contravene-able but it is based on a high
                        amount of subjectivity and invades privacy. The approach that a few
                        like Mr./Miss. Logic outlined is far more secure, far less
                        subjectively based and far less invasive.
                      • RavenBlack
                        ... Though this method holds only if all blank ballot sheets are mailed - no collecting your ballot sheet by internet, as that would remove what security
                        Message 11 of 28 , Dec 3, 2002
                          >Remember again that vote fraud is a very limited problem and is easy for
                          >us to combat. If 3 or more signers have the same address and all cast
                          >ballots, we can examine the signatures and then call them to verify their
                          >identity. At most this will be a few dozen people.

                          Though this method holds only if all blank ballot sheets are mailed -
                          no collecting your ballot sheet by internet, as that would remove what
                          security unique addresses provides. You could still accept the incoming
                          votes by fax/scanned email, but the voters' addresses would only be known
                          valid if the ballots were sent - with some sort of unique confirmation
                          code upon the ballot - to each address. (Unique confirmation codes
                          could be easily generated as a hash of the address, or just assign
                          a code to each signed-up participant in your database before you
                          send out the ballots.)

                          --RavenBlack
                        • Eric C Williams
                          ... Insanity . . . Continuing to do the same things and expecting different results. --Albert Einstein ... This exactly what interests me as well. I don t
                          Message 12 of 28 , Dec 3, 2002
                            Brian Murray wrote:

                            >On Tuesday 03 December 2002 12:30 pm, Kevin wrote:
                            ><snip>
                            >
                            >
                            >>My personal feeling is that the best way to reduce voter fraud is to
                            >>make it just a little painful. Make certain that those who are
                            >>
                            >>
                            ><snip>
                            >
                            >It can be made 'painful' and cheap.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >>1. Paper ballots. No electronic media, no faxes.
                            >>2. In order to offset the cost of preparing the ballots and postage
                            >>
                            >>
                            ><snip>
                            >
                            >
                            >>3. Once the ballot is received, you will make your vote, then sign
                            >>
                            >>
                            ><snip>
                            >
                            >
                            >>4. The Ballot counting committee will open, count, and certify the
                            >>
                            >>
                            ><snip>
                            >
                            >
                            >>5. Since only one ballot, and one envelope, will be sent out to each
                            >>
                            >>
                            ><snip>
                            >
                            >
                            >>6. After the initial round of voting, the top three states should be
                            >>
                            >>
                            ><snip>
                            >
                            >
                            >>The total "cost" of this process should be no more than $25 or $30
                            >>
                            >>
                            ><snip>
                            >
                            >
                            >>more to reduce the potential for fraud than to make it costly to
                            >>
                            >>
                            ><snip>
                            >
                            >
                            >>make it expensive for him/her to do so. For those few that live
                            >>their lives "anonymously"? I have no sympathy for then since they
                            >>are no help to the project anyway, and should be excluded. The
                            >>
                            >>
                            ><snip>
                            >
                            >
                            >>activities of fringe organizations and individuals within this group
                            >>jeaopardizes the project as a whole.
                            >>
                            >>
                            >
                            >Are you serious are are you trolling? Make it lengthy, expensive, complex,
                            >layered with paperwork and with no allowances for anyone not keen on
                            >submitting three forms of identification and a blood sample? Fringe
                            >organizations? Individuals? Evils, those, eh? Better to stick with the
                            >mainstream and the status quo? Make it all better by doing it all the same?
                            >We wouldn't want to get radical or revolutionary, right? Play it safe?
                            >Middle of the road?
                            >
                            >

                            "Insanity . . . Continuing to do the same things and expecting different
                            results."

                            --Albert Einstein



                            >The FSP is of interest to me because I want to live someplace where
                            >government isn't intrusive, invasive or obstructive and life, liberty and the
                            >pursuit of happiness do not require wading through red tape or bearing its
                            >cost. If what the FSP does it does no better than the government where I
                            >already live, what reason is there to believe that it's anything more than a
                            >waste of time and money? And even in just stating its goals it's already a
                            >'fringe organization' very much about 'individuals.'
                            >
                            This exactly what interests me as well. I don't care to be a member of
                            a club, or build a new
                            political party. I want to live somewhere free and I want my vote to
                            effect real change.
                            The bill of rights and the spirit of our constitution is near perfect.
                            Let's strip away the garbage
                            that has been cast upon it over the years by bureaucrats and live free
                            again. You don't do that by
                            creating your own personal layers of red tape.

                            >
                            ><snip>
                            >
                            >
                            >>Ante up people, and quit trying to nickle and dime this project.
                            >>Freedom, both personal and political, is worth the cost, and the
                            >>effort involved.
                            >>
                            >>
                            >
                            >When the cost is freedom, the effort is irrelevant. Increasing cost,
                            >complexity and invasiveness in the pursuit of freedom is akin to increasing
                            >caloric intake in the pursuit of weight loss.
                            >
                            Agreed! So the first thing to do when in search for liberty is impose
                            regulations ? ;-)
                            Bureaucracy is what I am trying to leave behind.

                            Jason also makes a good point, in that an election that is not anonymous
                            and frankly rather small, will be be fairly easy to validate.

                            Freedom for all (that can pay the $25 fee) . Sure freedom is valuable, but
                            let's not leave bureaucracy only to create our own brand and charge for it.

                            >
                            >
                            >
                          • motie_d
                            ... Can I make a guess? He means non-Democrats, I think. LOL No one who can t prove that they are politically correct need apply? Gosh, you just crack me up.
                            Message 13 of 28 , Dec 4, 2002
                              --- In freestateproject@y..., No Free Lunch <tanstaafl_bh@n...> wrote:
                              > Kevin wrote:
                              >
                              > > For those few that live their lives "anonymously"? I have no
                              > > sympathy for then since they are no help to the project
                              > > anyway, and should be excluded. The project MUST have people
                              > > that are willing to operate WITHIN the laws of this Country to
                              > > affect permanent change. To encourage the activities of
                              > > fringe organizations and individuals within this group
                              > > jeaopardizes the project as a whole.
                              >
                              > Just curious - to what organizations and or individuals are you
                              > referring?
                              >
                              > Charles

                              Can I make a guess? He means non-Democrats, I think. LOL No one who
                              can't prove that they are politically correct need apply?

                              Gosh, you just crack me up. What a sense of humor!
                              Motie
                            • RavenBlack
                              ... I would second Jason s suggestion there. It s the usual democracy thing - with 5000 people voting, one vote for Alaska isn t going to make a jot of
                              Message 14 of 28 , Dec 4, 2002
                                >There isn't much reason to vote in the first place? Jason please
                                >explain how you come up with that.

                                I would second Jason's suggestion there. It's the usual democracy
                                thing - with 5000 people voting, one vote for Alaska isn't going
                                to make a jot of difference - I quite believe that a majority of
                                the voters will have Alaska as their least favourite. Thus it
                                wouldn't be worth making an effort to vote for it. Aside from
                                which, I'm not really that bothered which state I'm moving to,
                                so again, hardly seems worth voting.

                                >While I respect your opinion, it seems to me that anybody worth the
                                >ink they took up on the FSP membership list would feel the exact
                                >opposite. That their vote for the free state is very important and
                                >necessary.

                                I hope your opinion there is changed by the two examples I embody
                                - not really minding which state wins, and slightly favouring one
                                that has no chance of winning. There's not even the "making a
                                statement" point to voting that the Libertarian party generally
                                relies upon.

                                >So what? Let's say there are a few people who think that way. Do you
                                >honestly expect a person who thinks that way to pack up there life,
                                >their children, change jobs, pay the cost of moving, and move to
                                >another state and become an activist? Without voting?

                                Given that I've just stated my lackadaisical attitude towards the
                                vote, are you suggesting that I wouldn't pack up and move? I've
                                done it for love, I've done it for a job, but I wouldn't do it to
                                escape the growing governmental oppression? Gee, thanks.

                                >It seems to me that sacrificing the integrity of our collective
                                >vote for an unknown few people who don't believe voting is
                                >important anyway, is anathema to me.

                                I don't think anyone has suggested sacrificing the vote's integrity.
                                The suggestions are generally more along the lines of "let's not go
                                completely overboard with requiring insane technology". It's been
                                suggested that I was pushing technology for its own sake, earlier;
                                these recent suggestions are far more crazily technophilic than I
                                ever was.

                                >I think of what the FSP is attempting to do and wonder what somebody
                                >who wouldn't take the time to vote for a free state would take the
                                >time to do for the FSP cause. I'm drawing a blank.

                                It's not about voting for a free state, though, is it? It's about
                                voting for *which* free state. There'll be one, all going well,
                                whether the vote is cast or not.

                                To answer your hypothetical question, a couple of hours trawling
                                for information (for the fsp-publicity group), some advertising,
                                and changing abode are amongst the things that somebody who wouldn't
                                take the time to vote would take the time to do.

                                >Then I think about all the dedicated activist that I have met or
                                >heard aout and I can't recall one who considered voting for their
                                >cause as not worth their effort.

                                Again, it's not "voting for the cause", it's "voting for a minor
                                directional choice within the cause". A rather different beast.

                                >>If 3 or more signers have the same address and all cast
                                >> ballots, we can examine the signatures and then call them to
                                >>verify their identity. At most this will be a few dozen people.
                                >
                                >Not only is that totally contravene-able

                                Contravene-able by registering a whole bunch of PO-Boxes, perhaps,
                                but that would be fairly obvious. Using friends' addresses, maybe,
                                but getting a whole bunch of key-floppies from a distribution point
                                would be just as easy, and more difficult to detect.

                                I think validation by phone for those with phones and by mail for
                                those without would provide adequate security. Much as I would
                                like to see a technology-based solution, I'm pretty sure that's
                                not going to happen, and for quite sound reasons.

                                >but it is based on a high
                                >amount of subjectivity and invades privacy. The approach that a few
                                >like Mr./Miss. Logic outlined is far more secure, far less
                                >subjectively based and far less invasive.

                                In my position, it would be easier to work around the key-floppies
                                than the address/phone verification. "Less subjectively based"
                                isn't necessarily a good thing - a little subjectivity allows for
                                finding fraud where it's not entirely obvious. And less invasive?
                                The FSP already knows my address, and signatures are required all
                                over the place. Making me leave my home to go to an arbitrary
                                location that I'm not familiar with to pick something up from
                                someone I don't know, using public transport since I don't drive
                                - now *that* is invasive.

                                --RavenBlack
                              • motie_d
                                ... any fringe ... way jeaopardizes ... LOL again. Some people may think that this Project is a Fringe organization . It certainly isn t up to Mainstream
                                Message 15 of 28 , Dec 4, 2002
                                  --- In freestateproject@y..., "Bob Compton" <bobc@v...> wrote:

                                  <<<<<<BIG SNIP>>>>>>

                                  > FSP does not in any way
                                  > "encourage the activities" I persue and I am NOT a member of
                                  any "fringe
                                  > organizations". My participation, by whatever means in no
                                  way "jeaopardizes
                                  > (sp) the project as a whole".
                                  >

                                  LOL again. Some people may think that this Project is a 'Fringe
                                  organization'. It certainly isn't up to 'Mainstream' is it?
                                  Does this mean that anyone who has signed up is going to be
                                  discouraged from participation by our Democratic friend?

                                  Sometimes that subtle humor can be tricky to catch! I bet some people
                                  even thought he was serious.

                                  Motie
                                • voodootyke
                                  ... You re not bothered to which state you re moving to? There s no difference between the states? Am I to understand that because you deduced by some unseen
                                  Message 16 of 28 , Dec 4, 2002
                                    --- In freestateproject@y..., RavenBlack <raven@r...> wrote:
                                    > >There isn't much reason to vote in the first place? Jason please
                                    > >explain how you come up with that.
                                    >
                                    > I would second Jason's suggestion there. It's the usual democracy
                                    > thing - with 5000 people voting, one vote for Alaska isn't going
                                    > to make a jot of difference - I quite believe that a majority of
                                    > the voters will have Alaska as their least favourite. Thus it
                                    > wouldn't be worth making an effort to vote for it. Aside from
                                    > which, I'm not really that bothered which state I'm moving to,
                                    > so again, hardly seems worth voting.



                                    You're not bothered to which state you're moving to? There's no
                                    difference between the states? Am I to understand that because you
                                    deduced by some unseen means that your state (AK?) is not going to
                                    win, you won't bother voting altogether? No second choice raven?
                                    Let me ask you, do you think there is any validity or worth in the
                                    raging debates about the differences between the state and how each
                                    one can affect the Free state project overall and our lives
                                    specifically? Do you think it's all much ado about nothing?

                                    I can't disagree more. The state debate is the most crucial issue
                                    facing us all today. The state decision will make the difference
                                    between success for the FSP in 5 years, success in 20 years or
                                    complete and utter failure. I commend you on your ability to not
                                    care about which state is chosen but I, my wife, and my kids do
                                    care. We care immensely. And I suspect I'm not the only one here who
                                    feels this way.


                                    >
                                    > >While I respect your opinion, it seems to me that anybody worth
                                    the
                                    > >ink they took up on the FSP membership list would feel the exact
                                    > >opposite. That their vote for the free state is very important
                                    and
                                    > >necessary.
                                    >
                                    > I hope your opinion there is changed by the two examples I embody
                                    > - not really minding which state wins, and slightly favouring one
                                    > that has no chance of winning. There's not even the "making a
                                    > statement" point to voting that the Libertarian party generally
                                    > relies upon.
                                    >


                                    No your example has done nothing of the sort. If anything, it
                                    reminds me how cavalierly some people are inclined to take things
                                    and this endeavor is no different it seems. It makes me wonder what
                                    the rammifications of that are. I don't have an answer but it is a
                                    disturbing.



                                    > >So what? Let's say there are a few people who think that way. Do
                                    you
                                    > >honestly expect a person who thinks that way to pack up there
                                    life,
                                    > >their children, change jobs, pay the cost of moving, and move to
                                    > >another state and become an activist? Without voting?
                                    >
                                    > Given that I've just stated my lackadaisical attitude towards the
                                    > vote, are you suggesting that I wouldn't pack up and move? I've
                                    > done it for love, I've done it for a job, but I wouldn't do it to
                                    > escape the growing governmental oppression? Gee, thanks.
                                    >
                                    >


                                    No, I'm suggesting that lackadaisical attitudes comes with real
                                    dangers when it comes to building a new life for oneself and his or
                                    her families. I'm saying that this effort demands careful thought
                                    and hard decisions and that no great effort that I can recall was
                                    ever executed with lackadaisical attitudes.



                                    >It seems to me that sacrificing the integrity of our collective
                                    > >vote for an unknown few people who don't believe voting is
                                    > >important anyway, is anathema to me.
                                    >
                                    > I don't think anyone has suggested sacrificing the vote's
                                    integrity.
                                    > The suggestions are generally more along the lines of "let's not go
                                    > completely overboard with requiring insane technology".


                                    Just putting this into perspective here, going overboard for you
                                    seems to be bothering to vote if you suspect your state won't win. I
                                    repeat, this is about ensuring a modicum vote integrity. We don't
                                    need insane technology and we don't need to invade privacy. What we
                                    do need though is a little willingness to take an extra step or two
                                    in order to get that. Assuming of course, that you believe that your
                                    vote is worth casting in the first place.



                                    It's been
                                    > suggested that I was pushing technology for its own sake, earlier;
                                    > these recent suggestions are far more crazily technophilic than I
                                    > ever was.
                                    >

                                    I missed what you were pushing and you never did say if you were
                                    pushing it for technology's sake. So no comment.



                                    > >I think of what the FSP is attempting to do and wonder what
                                    somebody
                                    > >who wouldn't take the time to vote for a free state would take
                                    the
                                    > >time to do for the FSP cause. I'm drawing a blank.
                                    >
                                    > It's not about voting for a free state, though, is it? It's about
                                    > voting for *which* free state. There'll be one, all going well,
                                    > whether the vote is cast or not.


                                    You make it sound like it's simply a choice of apples in a fruit
                                    stand. If only that were true, we wouldn't need the FSP to begin
                                    with.

                                    Do you think there is no difference between universities and the
                                    education they offer?
                                    Do you think there is no difference between hospitals and the health
                                    care they offer?
                                    Do you think there is no difference between retirement homes and the
                                    caring they offer to your parents?
                                    Do you think there is no difference between financial institutions
                                    and the investing services they offer?
                                    Do you think there is no difference between law firms and the
                                    services they offer?

                                    Fathom states and governments and al they comprise. Lets' just say
                                    we see things different.



                                    >
                                    > To answer your hypothetical question, a couple of hours trawling
                                    > for information (for the fsp-publicity group), some advertising,
                                    > and changing abode are amongst the things that somebody who
                                    wouldn't
                                    > take the time to vote would take the time to do.
                                    >


                                    Anybody can trawl a couple of hours sure. It's not as if it's high
                                    demand low supply work. All of us can advertise in different ways,
                                    and in different capacities. You don't even have to be a member to
                                    do that for the FSP. All of us who are voting for a free state are
                                    at the very least, expected to change abodes at some point after the
                                    vote so nothing profound there either.
                                    The question you seem to be trying to answer is how many off those
                                    who don't think voting for a free state is important, or who would
                                    find voting for a free state to much of a hassle if it required a
                                    little extra step or two, would pack up and go to the chosen free
                                    state anyway. Beside trawling and doing some publicity, I'm not
                                    convinced from what you've offered as an argument, that there are
                                    many who would personally choose not to have any say in where they
                                    will be living in the future.



                                    > >Then I think about all the dedicated activist that I have met or
                                    > >heard aout and I can't recall one who considered voting for their
                                    > >cause as not worth their effort.
                                    >
                                    > Again, it's not "voting for the cause", it's "voting for a minor
                                    > directional choice within the cause". A rather different beast.
                                    >


                                    A minor choice - yup I got that. :)



                                    > >>If 3 or more signers have the same address and all cast
                                    > >> ballots, we can examine the signatures and then call them to
                                    > >>verify their identity. At most this will be a few dozen people.
                                    > >
                                    > >Not only is that totally contravene-able
                                    >
                                    > Contravene-able by registering a whole bunch of PO-Boxes, perhaps,
                                    > but that would be fairly obvious. Using friends' addresses, maybe,
                                    > but getting a whole bunch of key-floppies from a distribution
                                    point
                                    > would be just as easy, and more difficult to detect.
                                    >


                                    Don't follow. Please explain how.



                                    > I think validation by phone for those with phones and by mail for
                                    > those without would provide adequate security. Much as I would
                                    > like to see a technology-based solution, I'm pretty sure that's
                                    > not going to happen, and for quite sound reasons.
                                    >


                                    Oh I am almost certain it won't happen and for reasons that have
                                    nothing to do with validity.
                                  • motie_d
                                    ... and ... Likely the same way I did. I m sick of the bickering about HOW to vote. I ll tell you how I intend to vote, and leave it to you whether or not it s
                                    Message 17 of 28 , Dec 4, 2002
                                      --- In freestateproject@y..., voodootyke <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                                      > --- In freestateproject@y..., Jason P Sorens <jason.sorens@y...>
                                      > wrote:
                                      > >
                                      > > The only problem I see with making voting intentionally costly is
                                      > that
                                      > > there isn't much reason to vote in the first place, so adding
                                      > costs might
                                      > > discourage people from voting even if they plan to participate
                                      and
                                      > become
                                      > > activists.
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > There isn't much reason to vote in the first place? Jason please
                                      > explain how you come up with that.

                                      Likely the same way I did. I'm sick of the bickering about HOW to
                                      vote. I'll tell you how I intend to vote, and leave it to you whether
                                      or not it's acceptable. Are you ready for it? Do you want it
                                      anonymous for safety? Then scoll down and delete my name before
                                      reading any further. I intend to move to whichever of the western
                                      States is chosen. If an eastern State is chosen, I will likely move
                                      to either Montana or So Dak.
                                      There you have my vote. Do with it what you will. It is the only vote
                                      I intend to submit. Don't bother to call my house to confirm it. If
                                      you want a paper ballot, print it out.
                                      >
                                      > While I respect your opinion, it seems to me that anybody worth the
                                      > ink they took up on the FSP membership list would feel the exact
                                      > opposite. That their vote for the free state is very important and
                                      > necessary.

                                      The vote isn't about whether or not we support Freedom. It is simply
                                      to decide in which State the first effort will be made. That decision
                                      is irrelevant to me.
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > I can imagine a few hundred people (out of 5000) thinking
                                      > > along the following lines: "Out of 5000 voters, my vote is not
                                      > going to
                                      > > make a difference anyway. And they want me to go down to the
                                      bank
                                      > and
                                      > > get this notarized and then mail it? Harumph! It's not worth my
                                      > time!"
                                      >
                                      Exactly my point. I won't participate in a vote on what color you
                                      should paint your house when you get there either. It doesn't amtter
                                      to me, and I won't spend any time or effort complying with any voting
                                      scheme you come up with, or worrying about whether the voting was
                                      rigged.
                                      >
                                      > So what? Let's say there are a few people who think that way. Do
                                      you
                                      > honestly expect a person who thinks that way to pack up there life,
                                      > their children, change jobs, pay the cost of moving, and move to
                                      > another state and become an activist? Without voting?

                                      I'm not waiting to become an activist. Are you? I intend to move to
                                      another State where my efforts have a better chance of success. If
                                      the members here choose a State that is acceptale to me, that's even
                                      better and I'll use that info to affect my personal choice.
                                      >
                                      > It seems to me that sacrificing the integrity of our collective
                                      vote
                                      > for an unknown few people who don't believe voting is important
                                      > anyway, is anathema to me.

                                      Your worrying about the integrity of the vote is a bogus argument.
                                      Look over the info provided, and make some personal decisions on how
                                      you personally rank the States. Opt out of any you don't like. Then
                                      either vote or don't. Once the State is chosen, either move to it or
                                      don't. If someone were to waste a bunch of their time to 'rig' the
                                      vote, does it really matter? If you only have one favorite State, opt
                                      out of all the rest of them and quit whining. No one is going to
                                      force you to move to someplace you don't want to go. If we have to
                                      kidnap people against their Will, I predict the Group will fail.
                                      Voluntary participants are what we need, not a bunch of crybabies who
                                      think they may be forced into something against their Will because of
                                      a 'rigged' vote.
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > > It's not that these people aren't dedicated activists; they just
                                      > don't see
                                      > > this as worthwhile if their costly participation isn't going to
                                      > affect
                                      > > anything.
                                      >
                                      > I think of what the FSP is attempting to do and wonder what
                                      somebody
                                      > who wouldn't take the time to vote for a free state would take the
                                      > time to do for the FSP cause. I'm drawing a blank.

                                      I think I explained myself above. If it needs repeating, scroll up!
                                      >
                                      > Then I think about all the dedicated activist that I have met or
                                      > heard aout and I can't recall one who considered voting for their
                                      > cause as not worth their effort.

                                      We aren't voting for our cause, or against it. We are simply trying
                                      to determine where people's preferences are.
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Sure, we could lay a guilt trip on them: "you're not a real
                                      > > activist unless you vote!" But that approach might just backfire
                                      > & come
                                      > > off as too controlling.

                                      Or as a totally irrelevant point, and a distraction from our goal.
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Why would you put it that way in the first place? Why even talk in
                                      > terms of guilt trips? Or take any accusatory approaches?
                                      >
                                      > We would be asking each other to put in a little effort to ensure
                                      > the integrity of the most important vote of our lives. Period.
                                      >
                                      > No guilt trips. No accusations. No insinuations.

                                      Thank God for that last part. I was beginning to think you were
                                      insinuating that 'the vote' was the most important part of your life.
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > If 3 or more signers have the same address and all cast
                                      > > ballots, we can examine the signatures and then call them to
                                      > verify their
                                      > > identity. At most this will be a few dozen people.
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Not only is that totally contravene-able but it is based on a high
                                      > amount of subjectivity and invades privacy. The approach that a few
                                      > like Mr./Miss. Logic outlined is far more secure, far less
                                      > subjectively based and far less invasive.

                                      I still think you're chasing a Strawman. Those too timid to trust the
                                      voting procedures are likely to be too timid to move without a
                                      government Permit anyway.
                                      "Oh my Gosh! What if the government finds out I moved out of State?"

                                      Motie
                                    • No Free Lunch
                                      ... And I believe just the opposite. Please spare me the arguments, as I have heard them all before. Anyone who is afraid for everyone else to know where
                                      Message 18 of 28 , Dec 4, 2002
                                        Logic wrote:

                                        > Whether there is no sympathy for those few that live their lives anonymously
                                        > or not has no bearing on an anonymous vote. I believe that an anonymous vote
                                        > is the vanguard of any democratic process.

                                        And I believe just the opposite.

                                        Please spare me the arguments, as I have heard them all before.

                                        Anyone who is 'afraid' for everyone else to know where they stand
                                        is a coward, imnsho.

                                        > *Who* votes is not important. Their *past* is not important. What's
                                        > important is that a group of living, thinking human beings have agreed to
                                        > acheive political ends through a peaceful, democratic process.

                                        Dumbocracy is the very worst form of government there is,
                                        although I agree that *some* democratic *principles* (using votes
                                        to determine certain issues) is the only viable method available
                                        to us - as long as everyone knows and agrees with the principle
                                        that my Rights are not subject to the fickle whim of 'the majority'.

                                        > Any process that divulges how a particular individual votes (esp. in the
                                        > context of a government inspecting the vote) may pollute the process. The
                                        > FSP is the very last place I would expect oppressive policies from the
                                        > leadership. Just because we trust the leadership does not mean they should
                                        > be burdened (empowered) with the ability to inspect how members voted on a
                                        > particular issue --much less exposing an individual's voting decisions to
                                        > ALL COMERS. Good people should be protected from bad people through
                                        > anonymity.

                                        Lol! good people should be proteced from bad people by Smith &
                                        Wesson, or Glock, Inc, or H&K, or some other protective agency,
                                        and as a last resort, by their local Sherrif and/or court system.

                                        > If, thirty years from now, things don't turn out the way we want, who will
                                        > have access to our individual voting records? How might those decisions be
                                        > held against us?
                                        >
                                        > We MUST have anonymity in the process!

                                        What we must *not* do is succomb to fear-mongering and wimpy
                                        attitudes.

                                        Charles
                                      • Jason P Sorens
                                        ... No, it s not going to be anonymous - the Guidelines require that all ballots be made public, to counter any accusations of vote-fixing. After a reasonable
                                        Message 19 of 28 , Dec 4, 2002
                                          On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Logic wrote:

                                          > If, thirty years from now, things don't turn out the way we want, who will
                                          > have access to our individual voting records? How might those decisions be
                                          > held against us?
                                          >
                                          > We MUST have anonymity in the process!

                                          No, it's not going to be anonymous - the Guidelines require that all
                                          ballots be made public, to counter any accusations of vote-fixing. After
                                          a reasonable period of time, the list of votes cast will be deleted.

                                          ___________________________________________________________________________

                                          Jason P Sorens - jason.sorensATyale.edu - <http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35>

                                          <http://www.freestateproject.org> - Do you want liberty in your lifetime?
                                        • Jason P Sorens
                                          ... Yes - I think there will be people out there who think the same way as Brian. If we make the process intentionally cumbersome, they re not going to vote,
                                          Message 20 of 28 , Dec 4, 2002
                                            On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, voodootyke wrote:

                                            > I can imagine a few hundred people (out of 5000) thinking
                                            > > along the following lines: "Out of 5000 voters, my vote is not
                                            > going to
                                            > > make a difference anyway. And they want me to go down to the bank
                                            > and
                                            > > get this notarized and then mail it? Harumph! It's not worth my
                                            > time!"
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > So what? Let's say there are a few people who think that way. Do you
                                            > honestly expect a person who thinks that way to pack up there life,
                                            > their children, change jobs, pay the cost of moving, and move to
                                            > another state and become an activist? Without voting?

                                            Yes - I think there will be people out there who think the same way as
                                            Brian. If we make the process intentionally cumbersome, they're not going to vote, not because they're lazy or noncommittal, but because they're offended by the red tape and don't think they should have to do it.

                                            > > Remember again that vote fraud is a very limited problem and is
                                            > easy for
                                            > > us to combat.
                                            >
                                            > Do you have statistics on totally open internet voting to back that
                                            > up or is it your impression that it is a limited problem?

                                            It's simple logic: to engage in vote fraud you'll need to get multiple
                                            ballots mailed to the same address (snail or e-mail - actually, you could
                                            get multiple e-mail accounts set up, but then you'd have to make up
                                            different snailmail addresses, and we'll be checking all of them for
                                            authenticity - this may be a reason for going back to snailmailing out all
                                            the ballots though...). We can check that.

                                            > If 3 or more signers have the same address and all cast
                                            > > ballots, we can examine the signatures and then call them to
                                            > verify their
                                            > > identity. At most this will be a few dozen people.
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > Not only is that totally contravene-able but it is based on a high
                                            > amount of subjectivity and invades privacy. The approach that a few
                                            > like Mr./Miss. Logic outlined is far more secure, far less
                                            > subjectively based and far less invasive.

                                            No, it's just not possible. Renting out convention rooms, setting up
                                            computers, distributing keys? The whole thing costs thousands of dollars
                                            and requires people to drive long distances. All because we're worried
                                            about a few potential fraudsters whom it is easy to root out. It's an
                                            ingenious proposal, but it doesn't make sense.

                                            ___________________________________________________________________________

                                            Jason P Sorens - jason.sorensATyale.edu - <http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35>

                                            <http://www.freestateproject.org> - Do you want liberty in your lifetime?
                                          • Jason P Sorens
                                            ... Yes, that s a good point; maybe we should go back to snail-mailing all ballots. If we were to e-mail some ballots, we d have to check the authenticity of
                                            Message 21 of 28 , Dec 4, 2002
                                              On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, RavenBlack wrote:

                                              > >Remember again that vote fraud is a very limited problem and is easy for
                                              > >us to combat. If 3 or more signers have the same address and all cast
                                              > >ballots, we can examine the signatures and then call them to verify their
                                              > >identity. At most this will be a few dozen people.
                                              >
                                              > Though this method holds only if all blank ballot sheets are mailed -
                                              > no collecting your ballot sheet by internet, as that would remove what
                                              > security unique addresses provides. You could still accept the incoming
                                              > votes by fax/scanned email, but the voters' addresses would only be known
                                              > valid if the ballots were sent - with some sort of unique confirmation
                                              > code upon the ballot - to each address. (Unique confirmation codes
                                              > could be easily generated as a hash of the address, or just assign
                                              > a code to each signed-up participant in your database before you
                                              > send out the ballots.)

                                              Yes, that's a good point; maybe we should go back to snail-mailing all
                                              ballots. If we were to e-mail some ballots, we'd have to check the
                                              authenticity of the snail-mail addresses for all those who requested an
                                              e-mail ballot.

                                              ___________________________________________________________________________

                                              Jason P Sorens - jason.sorensATyale.edu - <http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35>

                                              <http://www.freestateproject.org> - Do you want liberty in your lifetime?
                                            • Kelly Setzer
                                              ... At some point, the voting process will need some detailed documentation that includes the following information. Since the vote is projected to occur next
                                              Message 22 of 28 , Dec 4, 2002
                                                On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 09:59:08AM -0500, Jason P Sorens wrote:
                                                > On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Logic wrote:
                                                >
                                                > > If, thirty years from now, things don't turn out the way we want, who will
                                                > > have access to our individual voting records? How might those decisions be
                                                > > held against us?
                                                > >
                                                > > We MUST have anonymity in the process!
                                                >
                                                > No, it's not going to be anonymous - the Guidelines require that all
                                                > ballots be made public, to counter any accusations of vote-fixing. After
                                                > a reasonable period of time, the list of votes cast will be deleted.

                                                At some point, the voting process will need some detailed
                                                documentation that includes the following information. Since the vote
                                                is projected to occur next summer, it might be a good idea to start.

                                                1) Handling of questionable ballots: phone calls?
                                                2) Ballot retention period/Ballot destruction: shred at 2 years?
                                                3) Contact person/process for voter help
                                                4) Contact person/process for voting irregularities

                                                etcetera

                                                What can I do to help? I can write; I could draft a voting procedures
                                                document.

                                                Kelly
                                              • Gold Standard Press
                                                why does picking a state require any sort of anonymity? The danger one might perceive comes from joining the project in the first place. You have already
                                                Message 23 of 28 , Dec 4, 2002
                                                  why does picking a state require any sort of anonymity? The "danger" one might perceive comes from joining the project in the first place. You have already consigned to making your name public, plus move to a "target" (some paranoid folks would claim it will be). What is left to hide? Your choice of state is harmless and virtually meaningless, contextually, and in relative terms.

                                                  Folks, this is such a moot point (especially since the bylaws have been etched). Can we get back to marketing so we might actually reach that 5,000 plateau, and VOTE IN OUR LIFETIME!!!


                                                  c.

                                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                                  From: Jason P Sorens
                                                  To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
                                                  Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 8:59 AM
                                                  Subject: Re: [FSP] The cost of making the move


                                                  On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Logic wrote:

                                                  > If, thirty years from now, things don't turn out the way we want, who will
                                                  > have access to our individual voting records? How might those decisions be
                                                  > held against us?
                                                  >
                                                  > We MUST have anonymity in the process!

                                                  No, it's not going to be anonymous - the Guidelines require that all
                                                  ballots be made public, to counter any accusations of vote-fixing. After
                                                  a reasonable period of time, the list of votes cast will be deleted.

                                                  ___________________________________________________________________________

                                                  Jason P Sorens - jason.sorensATyale.edu - <http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35>

                                                  <http://www.freestateproject.org> - Do you want liberty in your lifetime?



                                                  Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                                  ADVERTISEMENT




                                                  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                                  freestateproject-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                                                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                • voodootyke
                                                  ... simply ... decision ... Yeah right, it s irrelevant but you won t move to any place except th two states you mentioned. LOL ... to ... even ... Well I
                                                  Message 24 of 28 , Dec 4, 2002
                                                    > The vote isn't about whether or not we support Freedom. It is
                                                    simply
                                                    > to decide in which State the first effort will be made. That
                                                    decision
                                                    > is irrelevant to me.
                                                    > >


                                                    Yeah right, it's irrelevant but you won't move to any place except
                                                    th two states you mentioned. LOL



                                                    > I'm not waiting to become an activist. Are you? I intend to move
                                                    to
                                                    > another State where my efforts have a better chance of success. If
                                                    > the members here choose a State that is acceptale to me, that's
                                                    even
                                                    > better and I'll use that info to affect my personal choice.
                                                    > >


                                                    Well I intended to do a little work for the FSP once in the free
                                                    state. You know, like voting if I can.



                                                    > Your worrying about the integrity of the vote is a bogus argument.
                                                    > Look over the info provided, and make some personal decisions on
                                                    how
                                                    > you personally rank the States. Opt out of any you don't like.


                                                    So because I have free will and I can opt out of certain states that
                                                    I don't like, I shouldn't be concerned about vote integrity. OK.


                                                    If someone were to waste a bunch of their time to 'rig' the
                                                    > vote, does it really matter?


                                                    Errr. YEAH IT DOES!


                                                    If you only have one favorite State, opt
                                                    > out of all the rest of them and quit whining.



                                                    Check this guy out. Hey sport, some people may have 1 acceptable
                                                    state, some 2, some 6 and some all 10. What's that got to do with
                                                    anything. It's rhetorical, don't bother answering.


                                                    No one is going to
                                                    > force you to move to someplace you don't want to go. If we have to
                                                    > kidnap people against their Will, I predict the Group will fail.


                                                    ?????


                                                    > Voluntary participants are what we need, not a bunch of crybabies
                                                    who
                                                    > think they may be forced into something against their Will because
                                                    of
                                                    > a 'rigged' vote.



                                                    ?????


                                                    I'm done reading this.
                                                  • Oliver Dyer
                                                    [moderator s note: the non-anonymity issue is settled by the bylaws - however, other topics relating to the mechanics of the state vote remain fair game] I m
                                                    Message 25 of 28 , Dec 4, 2002
                                                      [moderator's note: the non-anonymity issue is settled by the bylaws - however, other topics relating to the mechanics of the state vote remain fair game]

                                                      I'm with Chuck on this one. If any man or woman won't stand up and be
                                                      counted in on a simple matter such as this, where will they be when it's
                                                      time to stand by our sides when we need them. If everyone takes this
                                                      attitude, nothing will ever get done and we deserve exactly what we get.
                                                      Everyone should check the home page at texasrepublic.org for the quote
                                                      from Sam Adams about this matter. Oliver

                                                      On 4 Dec 02, at 9:55, Gold Standard Press wrote:

                                                      > why does picking a state require any sort of anonymity? The "danger"
                                                      > one might perceive comes from joining the project in the first place.
                                                      > You have already consigned to making your name public, plus move to a
                                                      > "target" (some paranoid folks would claim it will be). What is left
                                                      > to hide? Your choice of state is harmless and virtually meaningless,
                                                      > contextually, and in relative terms.
                                                      >
                                                      > Folks, this is such a moot point (especially since the bylaws have
                                                      > been etched). Can we get back to marketing so we might actually reach
                                                      > that 5,000 plateau, and VOTE IN OUR LIFETIME!!!
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > c.
                                                      >
                                                    • archy
                                                      ... easy for ... Just so. But the appearance of any vote fraud would certainly discourage further participation from the 15,000 others who are depending on the
                                                      Message 26 of 28 , Dec 4, 2002
                                                        --- In freestateproject@y..., Jason P Sorens <jason.sorens@y...>
                                                        wrote:

                                                        > Remember again that vote fraud is a very limited problem and is
                                                        easy for
                                                        > us to combat.

                                                        Just so. But the appearance of any vote fraud would certainly
                                                        discourage further participation from the 15,000 others who are
                                                        depending on the decision of the first 5000 to pick the very best
                                                        location where our ideas have a chance of success, or at least
                                                        survival. It's the modern reflection of the old adage that *Ceaser's
                                                        wife must be above reproach*.

                                                        Neither is a *fee* of five or twenty-five bucks much of a
                                                        discouragement to those who could hope to wrongfully influence such a
                                                        decision with funds that don't come from their own pocket in any
                                                        event. That's not our answer either.<p>

                                                        And I'm not yet rock-solid certain as to which state is indeed our
                                                        best bet, though I have a couple of personal preferences, and a
                                                        serious belief that in a couple of the states mentioned, we'd be
                                                        doomed to failure in any event. So if the voting between two or three
                                                        of the possibilities I see as more likely was a little skewed, that
                                                        wouldn't bother me nearly as much as the idea that the whole
                                                        organization remained vulnerable to further tampering.

                                                        The good news: we're about halfway to the point at which that
                                                        election has to be held, so something equitable and reasonable can
                                                        certainly be arranged in that time. But the way in which the problem
                                                        is resolved is going to be a precedent and example of how later
                                                        choices or directions might be chosen, so it had better be a good one.

                                                        -archy-/-
                                                      • chez@midhae.pair.com
                                                        ... I don t want to add more confusion to this debate, but there is one idea that I d like to throw out here. Between now and the time of the vote there are
                                                        Message 27 of 28 , Dec 4, 2002
                                                          > > Though this method holds only if all blank ballot sheets are mailed -
                                                          > > no collecting your ballot sheet by internet, as that would remove what
                                                          > > security unique addresses provides. You could still accept the incoming
                                                          > > votes by fax/scanned email, but the voters' addresses would only be known
                                                          > > valid if the ballots were sent - with some sort of unique confirmation
                                                          > > code upon the ballot - to each address. (Unique confirmation codes
                                                          > > could be easily generated as a hash of the address, or just assign
                                                          > > a code to each signed-up participant in your database before you
                                                          > > send out the ballots.)
                                                          >
                                                          > Yes, that's a good point; maybe we should go back to snail-mailing all
                                                          > ballots. If we were to e-mail some ballots, we'd have to check the
                                                          > authenticity of the snail-mail addresses for all those who requested an
                                                          > e-mail ballot.

                                                          I don't want to add more confusion to this debate, but there is one idea
                                                          that I'd like to throw out here.

                                                          Between now and the time of the vote there are going to be numerous local
                                                          FSP meetings, many of them with Jason or one of the FSP board members
                                                          present.

                                                          Well, is there any reason that those who have already pledged cannot vote
                                                          as soon as the election method is determined? It would seem that filling
                                                          out a ballot in person, in the witness of one of the FSP's board members to
                                                          certify it, would be the most secure method possible.

                                                          There are a few drawbacks: this couldn't be the only method, just one,
                                                          since not everyone will be able to make it to these. We'd also have to come
                                                          up with the ballots soon, which means determining the voting method soon.
                                                          And it would probably have to be ruled that once you submitted a ballot you
                                                          couldn't change it, so you better be sure about it; else the poor vote
                                                          counters will get flooded with "Switch North Dakota with Idaho on my ballot
                                                          please!" messages every time someone forwards out a news item.

                                                          Oh, and needless to say, the votes themselves shouldn't actually be
                                                          tabulated until everyone has voted. But their existence can be catalouged,
                                                          which could help spread ther work out for the ballot receivers.

                                                          All of those problems notwithstanding, I like the idea of doing this in
                                                          person if possible. It's the most secure method, doesn't add unnecessary
                                                          postal costs (I like the idea of giving the Postal Service as little money
                                                          as possible for this :-) ), and perhaps encourages people to go to these
                                                          meetings.

                                                          -Robert Chesnavich
                                                          robert@...
                                                        • motie_d
                                                          ... Pretty much. The choice has already been made between leaving the beer in the sun, or putting it in the refrigerator. The choice now is which shelf in the
                                                          Message 28 of 28 , Dec 4, 2002
                                                            --- In freestateproject@y..., voodootyke <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                                                            > >

                                                            > Do you think it's all much ado about nothing?

                                                            Pretty much. The choice has already been made between leaving the
                                                            beer in the sun, or putting it in the refrigerator. The choice now is
                                                            which shelf in the refriferator to put it. Some people really and
                                                            honestly don't care.
                                                            While you are going through this personally stressful process of
                                                            deciding, the beer is sitting in the sun. Hopefully you can decide on
                                                            a valid method to use to vote, so you can then try to decide which
                                                            shelf the beer should go on. Also hopefully, you will decide on how
                                                            the decision should be made before the beer explodes. I hope you
                                                            don't mind if I just put my beer in my own cooler, and move on
                                                            without you?
                                                            >
                                                            >
                                                            > No your example has done nothing of the sort. If anything, it
                                                            > reminds me how cavalierly some people are inclined to take things
                                                            > and this endeavor is no different it seems. It makes me wonder what
                                                            > the rammifications of that are. I don't have an answer but it is a
                                                            > disturbing.

                                                            Do you have this much trouble choosing between 2 parking spaces? How
                                                            many times does the store close for the night while you are deciding
                                                            on a legitimate method to determine which space is better.
                                                            >
                                                            >
                                                            > No, I'm suggesting that lackadaisical attitudes comes with real
                                                            > dangers when it comes to building a new life for oneself and his or
                                                            > her families. I'm saying that this effort demands careful thought
                                                            > and hard decisions and that no great effort that I can recall was
                                                            > ever executed with lackadaisical attitudes.

                                                            You may be better off just staying where you are, and letting Uncle
                                                            Sugar make your choices for you. This seems to be a very traumatic
                                                            experience for you.
                                                            >
                                                            >
                                                            > You make it sound like it's simply a choice of apples in a fruit
                                                            > stand. If only that were true, we wouldn't need the FSP to begin
                                                            > with.

                                                            It's no more difficult than that. The choice has been made between
                                                            apples and oranges. Apples were chosen. There are 10 apples. The
                                                            choice now is which of the 10 apples to choose. Some people don't
                                                            care which apple. Some do. You are holding up the choice of apples by
                                                            backstepping to determine how the choice should be made.
                                                            >
                                                            > Do you think there is no difference between universities and the
                                                            > education they offer?

                                                            There may be right now. There won't be when we replace every member
                                                            of the staff.

                                                            > Do you think there is no difference between hospitals and the
                                                            health
                                                            > care they offer?

                                                            Same as above.

                                                            > Do you think there is no difference between retirement homes and
                                                            the
                                                            > caring they offer to your parents?

                                                            Same as above.

                                                            > Do you think there is no difference between financial institutions
                                                            > and the investing services they offer?

                                                            Same as above.

                                                            > Do you think there is no difference between law firms and the
                                                            > services they offer?

                                                            Same as above.
                                                            >
                                                            >
                                                            >
                                                            > I'm not
                                                            > convinced from what you've offered as an argument, that there are
                                                            > many who would personally choose not to have any say in where they
                                                            > will be living in the future.
                                                            >
                                                            They have already made their choice, which you seem unwilling to
                                                            accept. They have chosen to move to whichever State those who have a
                                                            preference decide on.

                                                            Motie
                                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.