Ballot Initiatives

I feel like our group is small and honorable enough that we could
trust people to fulfill pledges, but if someone wants to come up with
some kind of enforcement mechanism rather than relying on the honor
system, that's OK by me.

  If it seems like there is adequate interest in gathering signatures or
contributing money without any extra incentives, that's even better. I
have mixed feelings myself about introducing any kind of weighted
voting system for making decisions -- I'm just concerned that we set
goals for ourselves such that we will gather the signatures necessary
to succeed.

  Some ballpark figures: We have perhaps about 20 core activists. If
each of us commit to getting 500 valid signatures (say 750 raw
signatures, assuming a 66% validity rate, which seems reasonable)
between now and July 11, that would put us in the ballpark of the
10,486 valid signatures we'll need. In other words, about 125
signatures per person per month for six months. Going rate for a
signature is, I'm guessing, around $3 counting overhead. So I'd suggest
using that as the contribution equivalent, i.e. the equivalent of 500
valid signatures would be $1500 for those who would rather contribute
cash. Any combination of signatures and cash would be fine too.

  This may sound intimidating, and it probably should. But each of us
should also be out there trying to network and find other people to
circulate petitions for us or donate money to the effort, which we
could use toward our individual goals of 500 valid signatures or the
cash equivalent each. If you are saying to yourself, "I'm not going to
pledge $1500 or the equivalent in work-hours to the LPSF this year!"
that's OK -- as long as you don't have much company! If too many of us
are saying that to ourselves, then the effort is in jeopardy unless we
figure out better incentives. Weighted voting was simply one idea I had
for an incentive.

  Now if we pick an issue like marijuana which already has a strong
constituency, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that
non-Libertarians will gather a substantial percentage of the signatures
we need -- maybe more than half. But we shouldn't sit back and count on
that. As the leading organization promoting this measure, we'll need to
promote it, and coordinate efforts by non-Libertarian signature
gatherers as well as our own efforts, in order to make sure that we're
progressing at an adequate rate toward the signature total we'll have
to turn in on or before July 11.

Yours in liberty,
        <<< Starchild >>>

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Take a look at donorschoose.org, an excellent charitable web site for
anyone who cares about public education!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/_OLuKD/8WnJAA/cUmLAA/69cplB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-activists/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

regarding the anti Muni arguement
,Muni already is cutting bback, if Muni makes service cuts in areas
where the;y are not competitive, they can use the money to beef up
competitveness elseehere. Why should the poor and disabled suffer
inferior transportation so Muni drivers can make way above average
wages. And why should the poor be anable to afford more direct dervice
just because the taxi Medalion holders makes thousands every month for
doing nothing. And why should we burn up lots of oil an empty busses
when smaller vehicles can give flexability with renewable or efficient
power. If we can really get the mainstream environmentalists onboard,
maybe we can raise some real money to fight these guys.Nothing is more
wasteful of energy than the present cab system.

HOWEVER!!!I am open to the Marijuana initiative. The problem is, has
it woked in Oakland, or do the feds atill keep a lid on it. Are people
discouraged about this issue cux the fascist drug warriors still win.

>> Starchild wrote:
>>> This is a big project. If we don't adopt some kind of voting method
>>> weighted by contributions, are people going to do the work?
>
> And if we do, are people going to do the work or just say they will to
> get their way?
>
> -- Steve

  I feel like our group is small and honorable enough that we could
trust people to fulfill pledges, but if someone wants to come up with
some kind of enforcement mechanism rather than relying on the honor
system, that's OK by me.

  If it seems like there is adequate interest in gathering signatures or
contributing money without any extra incentives, that's even better. I
have mixed feelings myself about introducing any kind of weighted
voting system for making decisions -- I'm just concerned that we set
goals for ourselves such that we will gather the signatures necessary
to succeed.

  Some ballpark figures: We have perhaps about 20 core activists. If
each of us commit to getting 500 valid signatures (say 750 raw
signatures, assuming a 66% validity rate, which seems reasonable)
between now and July 11, that would put us in the ballpark of the
10,486 valid signatures we'll need. In other words, about 125
signatures per person per month for six months. Going rate for a
signature is, I'm guessing, around $3 counting overhead. So I'd suggest
using that as the contribution equivalent, i.e. the equivalent of 500
valid signatures would be $1500 for those who would rather contribute
cash. Any combination of signatures and cash would be fine too.

  This may sound intimidating, and it probably should. But each of us
should also be out there trying to network and find other people to
circulate petitions for us or donate money to the effort, which we
could use toward our individual goals of 500 valid signatures or the
cash equivalent each. If you are saying to yourself, "I'm not going to
pledge $1500 or the equivalent in work-hours to the LPSF this year!"
that's OK -- as long as you don't have much company! If too many of us
are saying that to ourselves, then the effort is in jeopardy unless we
figure out better incentives. Weighted voting was simply one idea I had
for an incentive.

  Now if we pick an issue like marijuana which already has a strong
constituency, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that
non-Libertarians will gather a substantial percentage of the signatures
we need -- maybe more than half. But we shouldn't sit back and count on
that. As the leading organization promoting this measure, we'll need to
promote it, and coordinate efforts by non-Libertarian signature
gatherers as well as our own efforts, in order to make sure that we're
progressing at an adequate rate toward the signature total we'll have
to turn in on or before July 11.

Yours in liberty,
        <<< Starchild >>>

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Give underprivileged students the materials they need to learn.
Bring education to life by funding a specific classroom project.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/FHLuJD/_WnJAA/cUmLAA/69cplB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-activists/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

1. System may compliment Muni and Bart by feeding passengers to it in
new and innovative ways.

2. Muni may have funds freed up to concentrate where they have a
competitive advantage, such as on rail lines.

3. Perhaps if necessary the law could restrict the competion from
servig parallell to muni on certain routes.

4. Bus stops could be expanded or the city could sell rights at other
locations.

5. Phase in could be underserved taxi areas plus areas where muni has
cut service. Maybe this is the best way to do it to get our foot in
the door.

>> Starchild wrote:
>>> This is a big project. If we don't adopt some kind of voting method
>>> weighted by contributions, are people going to do the work?
>
> And if we do, are people going to do the work or just say they will to
> get their way?
>
> -- Steve

  I feel like our group is small and honorable enough that we could
trust people to fulfill pledges, but if someone wants to come up with
some kind of enforcement mechanism rather than relying on the honor
system, that's OK by me.

  If it seems like there is adequate interest in gathering signatures or
contributing money without any extra incentives, that's even better. I
have mixed feelings myself about introducing any kind of weighted
voting system for making decisions -- I'm just concerned that we set
goals for ourselves such that we will gather the signatures necessary
to succeed.

  Some ballpark figures: We have perhaps about 20 core activists. If
each of us commit to getting 500 valid signatures (say 750 raw
signatures, assuming a 66% validity rate, which seems reasonable)
between now and July 11, that would put us in the ballpark of the
10,486 valid signatures we'll need. In other words, about 125
signatures per person per month for six months. Going rate for a
signature is, I'm guessing, around $3 counting overhead. So I'd suggest
using that as the contribution equivalent, i.e. the equivalent of 500
valid signatures would be $1500 for those who would rather contribute
cash. Any combination of signatures and cash would be fine too.

  This may sound intimidating, and it probably should. But each of us
should also be out there trying to network and find other people to
circulate petitions for us or donate money to the effort, which we
could use toward our individual goals of 500 valid signatures or the
cash equivalent each. If you are saying to yourself, "I'm not going to
pledge $1500 or the equivalent in work-hours to the LPSF this year!"
that's OK -- as long as you don't have much company! If too many of us
are saying that to ourselves, then the effort is in jeopardy unless we
figure out better incentives. Weighted voting was simply one idea I had
for an incentive.

  Now if we pick an issue like marijuana which already has a strong
constituency, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that
non-Libertarians will gather a substantial percentage of the signatures
we need -- maybe more than half. But we shouldn't sit back and count on
that. As the leading organization promoting this measure, we'll need to
promote it, and coordinate efforts by non-Libertarian signature
gatherers as well as our own efforts, in order to make sure that we're
progressing at an adequate rate toward the signature total we'll have
to turn in on or before July 11.

Yours in liberty,
        <<< Starchild >>>

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Take a look at donorschoose.org, an excellent charitable web site for
anyone who cares about public education!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/_OLuKD/8WnJAA/cUmLAA/69cplB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-activists/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

I suggest we narrow the list now to one primary initiative
either...Marijauan
or.......Curb rights

Then once that is decided, we can talk about adding the Feneva
Convention resolution.

Any objections...

Come on folks out there lets here from you. We gotta get moving.