I was of the opinion that it would have been better for all the state-level propositions to have passed than for all of them to have failed. After reading Richard Rider's analysis, I'm no longer convinced of that, but I am not entirely convinced that the way it went was better than the reverse would have been, either. Of course I personally voted no on 78, 79, and 80 -- that was a no-brainer.
>>At the state level, the success rate was a bit worse. As in San Francisco, I suspect most of us would have gladly seen the entire results reversed. But the LPC's recommendations matched the results on only three measures (78, 79 and 80), while failing to match the results on four (74, 75, 76, and 77).
You can't possibly think that reversing the results on 78, 79, and/or 80 would be better (can you?)! While I would have liked to see the Gov's reform measures pass, I am much happier that the economic regulations in 79 & 80 (especially) didn't.
BTW, the LPC's positions on 78, 79, and 80 (LPC being opposed to all) were passed by 15-0-0 votes.
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 2:59 AM
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: A very dark day in SF history (but not cause to abandon all hope)
I'm not happy with the results either -- but I'm not going to single out San Franciscans for blame, because the results were even worse at the state level than at the local level in my opinion.
LOCAL MEASURES LPSF POSITION RESULTS
---------------------------- ---------------------- --------------
A No Yes - 64.16% supporting (only needed 55% not 2/3 due to Prop. 39)
B No No - 57.15% supporting (needed 2/3)
C No No - 40.97% supporting
D No Position No - 35.67% supporting
E Yes Yes - 69.72% supporting
F No Yes - 57.63% supporting
G No Position Yes - 67.72% supporting
H No Yes - 57.92% supporting
I Yes Yes - 59.67% supporting
So in sum, our recommendations matched the results for four of the measures voted on (B, C, E, and I), and did not match the results in three cases (A, F and H). While I suspect almost all of us would rather the results mirrored our recommendations on A, F, and H than on B, C, E, and I, the fact that we did prevail more often than not indicates that it wasn't a total rout for liberty.
STATE MEASURES LPC POSITION RESULTS
--------------------------- --------------------- --------------
73 No Position No - 47.4 supporting
74 Yes No - 44.9 supporting
75 Yes No - 46.5 supporting
76 Yes No - 37.9 supporting
77 Yes No - 40.5 supporting
78 No No - 41.5 supporting
79 No No - 38.9 supporting
80 No No - 34.3 supporting
At the state level, the success rate was a bit worse. As in San Francisco, I suspect most of us would have gladly seen the entire results reversed. But the LPC's recommendations matched the results on only three measures (78, 79 and 80), while failing to match the results on four (74, 75, 76, and 77). However, on the positive side, the opposition was mostly on the defensive where the state ballot measures were concerned, and since nothing passed, at least public policy didn't actually get any worse.
Where San Francisco comes out looking bad isn't really in the vote results, but in the bad selection of measures that got on the ballot to begin with. Obviously the pro-freedom side was mostly playing defensive at the local level in this election. However, we shouldn't despair! I can see a not unrealistic scenario where next year we have five *good* measures on the SF ballot to match the next five bad ones that come along:
-A measure from the Taxpayers Union reducing or limiting taxes
-A medical marijuana measure from Americans for Safe Access
-A pro-sex workers measure from Sex Workers Outreach Project
-A gun rights measure from the Coalition Against Prohibition (e.g. give the sheriff the ability to grant gun licenses to people without violent criminal records at his/her discretion)
-An LPSF-led measure (a resolution opposing the "PATRIOT" Act? That should be relatively uncomplicated and easy to get signatures for, as well as a likely ballot victory)
I think each of the above-mentioned groups could be interested in getting behind an initiative. [Even us. 8) ] In each case except guns there has been some talk of a ballot measure already that I know of, and in that case I think the community is upset enough to rally behind something. I believe each issue is at least somewhat likely to see an initiative even if we do nothing at all -- what if we were to get out in front on the process and actively encourage them?
We're talking about giving money to the Taxpayers Union anyway; what if we provided a kick-start to get each of the other groups working on an initiative, by offering each of them a $1000 donation on the condition that the money be used on getting an initiative on the ballot for a particular election (say next November)? I am confident that each group would come up with something in its issue area that we could support -- but getting $1000 from us should make that even more likely. If one or more of the groups decided not to pursue a measure even with the financial incentive, our offer would still bring us to their attention as an ally willing to lend significant support to their cause without actually costing us anything.
And if some of the groups *did* take us up on the offer, we could arguably take credit for getting the resulting initiatives on the ballot. This would be a potent argument to show potential members and donors for future projects that we are getting results, especially if any of the measures passed.
So, how far are we from being able to afford to give away $4000 and spend at least that much on our own initiative? Is this a crazy idea, or do people think it might have some merit? If we take this up as a plan, it's the kind of thing that I could feel very happy calling LPSF members and asking them to donate money to support. We could even let them pick the issue/group they wanted to donate to, which would give us useful information about the preferences of our donors.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
We need you here to help us change things around! However, I can see
how frustrated you (all of us!) are.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Morey Straus <morey.straus@g...>
> 98% of the votes are in, and the results are almost exactly opposite
> of our recommendations. This truly is a town full of morons. I'm
> to start job hunting in NH now.
> got liberty?
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
+ Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.