Hi Richard,
I "turned down" Starchild's bet for a S.F. survey, but after also
reading your and Steve Dekorte's e-mail, I am interested in
participating in the survey you describe. It would be useful to
determine in a "scientific" way what the public at large thinks of
us. I will see what I can sign up for when I come back from the
initiative meeting today.
I am hoping others in the LPSF will sign up for the survey also.
Regards,
Marcy
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Newell" <richard@n...>
wrote:
Hi Marcy,
EBLP is looking for more counties to provide additional survey data
before drawing wrong conclusions from not-enough data. Look for a
short article in the December California Freedom requesting voluteers
from some other counties. If anyone from LPSF is interested in
participating in this, please contact Guy Smith at guy@S...
The EBLP survey is more concerned with determining the brand image
of the party. While we asked if the respondents had a favorable
image of the party, and we also asked if they thought they understood
our positions, we did not ask specifically if they thought we were
more "right" or "left". After all, we already had 13 questions,
which is plenty for a supermaket survey.
After we achieve a statistically significant sample we plan on
sharing the results. Until then, we don't want to bias any
participants.
Rich
From: Amarcy D. Berry
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 8:48 PM
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Difference between "symbolic"
and "real" measures/Initiative strategy
Starchild,
I love the bet you propose! However, my perception is carved in
granite for the moment, and I can see myself saying "Well, the
survery is wrong too."
BTW, am wondering if EBLP will share with the LP eventually the
results of the survey they recently did, which sounded very
similar
to the one you propose.
Regarding Michael Edeslstein's suggested question, my perception
there is that around 60% of the answers would consist of "The
WHAT
party?" .....We better get busy and do some tabling, bet or no
bet.
Marcy
>
> This sounds like an excellent study.
>
> I recommend an open-ended question, such as, "in your view,
what
does the Libertarian Party stand for?" I think this would garner
more
useful responses.
>
> Best, Michael
>
> From: Starchild
> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 6:37 PM
> Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Difference between "symbolic"
and "real" measures/Initiative strategy
>
>
> Marcy,
>
> I am quite certain that your perception about us having an
image in
San Francisco as the "sex and drugs" party is incorrect. However
you
seem firmly convinced of it, and I am hard pressed to think of a
means of persuading you otherwise via our dialogue here.
>
> Therefore I propose that you and I do an outreach table
together at
a relatively neutral location (e.g. the Safeway you and Morey
tabled
at a few weeks ago), and survey people who claim some familiarity
with the LP on whether they see us as more of a conservative-
oriented
party, or more of a sex-and-drugs oriented party. I am willing to
bet
you $50 (or any reasonable amount you choose) that more people
will
have the former impression than the latter, with the loser of the
bet
donating the money to the party and agreeing to seek an LPSF
initiative of the type favored by the other.
>
> What do you say?
>
> Yours in liberty,
> <<< Starchild >>>
>
>
>
>
> Starchild,
>
> I will address your last point first: Perhaps an anti-tax
initiative
> is just what we need to balance out the image I perceive we
currently
> have as the sex and drugs party.
>
> Your comment about anti-tax measures appealing to the
conservative
> wing of the LP is contradicted by, for example, your
excellent
ballot
> arguments which noted that money going to point "X" would
prevent
it
> from going to point "Z", and point "Z" might constitute a more
> socially beneficial target. In my opinion, how an position
is
framed
> will determine to whom it appeals.
>
> In spite of your good arguments, I remain opposed to symbolic
> initiatives. Wasting taxpayers' money not only on paper and
ink,
but
> also, in so many cases, on attorneys' fees to defend an
untenable
> position is more than I can handle! I say, go for the
jugular,
and
> change and enforce the law.
>
> We have voted to pursue the anti-tax initiative. And I am
personally
> committed to urge the Initiative Committee to frame our
arguments
in
> a liberal-leaning, San Franciscan position.
>
> Marcy
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Starchild
<sfdreamer@e...>
wrote:
> >
> > Marcy,
> >
> > Are you saying there is necessarily a vast difference
between
> the
> > practical effect had on real-world politics by
symbolic "sense
of
> the
> > voters" measures, and measures which make actual changes to
the
> law? Do
> > the former accomplish nothing, while the latter accomplish
> something?
> > To believe this, we would have to believe (a) that
politicians
pay
> no
> > attention to the polls, and (b) that they can be relied
upon to
> follow
> > the law!
> >
> > When voters pass a symbolic initiative, it is the
equivalent
> of taking
> > a reliable and highly publicized poll. We know that
politicians
> care
> > about such things. Meanwhile, many compulsory laws
currently on
the
> > books are simply ignored by those in power. So just because
an
> > initiative actually changes the law does not mean that it
will
> > necessarily make more difference than an initiative (read:
official
> > opinion poll) that does not. It all depends on the
circumstances
> and
> > the nature of the initiatives.
> >
> > Of course if two measures are written exactly alike
except
> that one is
> > statutorily binding while the other is just a resolution,
the
> binding
> > measure can be expected to have more impact. However it may
be
more
> > difficult to convince voters to make actual changes in the
law
and
> thus
> > be more difficult to pass, it may require a higher
threshold to
> pass
> > (as in the case of city charter amendments), and it may be
open
to
> > legal challenges and reversals that a resolution would not.
So
> there
> > are often good reasons to support resolutions.
> >
> > * * *
> >
> > Getting back to practical issues, my main point here
is
not
> that we
> > should pursue an initiative in the form of a resolution --
alhough
> I
> > think a resolution against the "PATRIOT" Act would be a good
> choice. My
> > main point is that we should pursue an initiative that will
help us
> > make inroads with the left-leaning San Francisco majority.
The
tax
> > measures currently under discussion will not do that. If we
want to
> get
> > a tax initiative or initiatives passed, I think we should
submit
> our
> > ideas to the Taxpayers Union and let that group consider
whatever
> comes
> > out as "their" measure (which they'll be more likely to put
more
> > resources and energy into passing than if it's seen as
primarily an
> > LPSF initiative), while playing more of a supporting role
ourselves.
> >
> > I don't know exactly what was discussed on Saturday
regarding
> > initiatives, but I am concerned that we are not pursuing a
clear or
> > well thought-out strategy. Consider for a moment, what
significant
> > publicity did the LPSF have this election season? The name
of
our
> group
> > appeared on three ballot arguments, A, B and F. In each
case, we
> made
> > economic liberty arguments that would appeal more to fiscal
> > conservatives. Our name also appeared in full-page ads
taken
out by
> the
> > Taxpayers Union -- again associating us with fiscal
conservatism.
> > Economic liberty is an important part of our platform, but
should
> these
> > concerns be seen as our primary focus, especially in San
Francisco?
> I
> > say no. We need to do something to regain an appropriate
balance,
> not
> > pursue even more priorities on the same side of the fence.
> >
> > Yours in liberty,
> > <<< Starchild >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Starchild,
> > >
> > > No, I would not want to see an initiative urging
Supervisors
not
> to
> > > pass any more city taxes. However, I would love to
support an
> > > initiative FORBIDDING them from passing any more City
taxes.
> > > Symbolic initiatives such as the Gun Ban (which is now
going
to
> cost
> > > us taxpayers good hard earned money to "defend" in
court),
strike
> me
> > > as half baked attempts to accomplish objectives. If we
don't
like
> > > drug prohibition or the PATRIOT Act, let's have an
influence
on
> those
> > > that are directly responsible for these legislations, by
> identifying
> > > them and campaigning against their re-election to their
seats; or
> > > conversely, campaigning for those who oppose such
legislation.
> > >
> > > Agreed, we are a local group, but as the Federal layer of
> government
> > > grows to have more and more influence in our lives,
perhaps we
> should
> > > find ways to address that fact.
> > >
> > > Marcy
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Starchild
<sfdreamer@e...>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Marcy,
> > > >
> > > > Government at the federal level is driving the
raids,
but
> not
> > > only is
> > > > the SFPD not standing in the way, they are actively
cooperating
> > > with
> > > > the Feds. Local measures like Denver's put pressure on
local
> police
> > > by
> > > > letting them know that voters find such actions
unacceptable.
> > > >
> > > > To me, the merit or lack thereof of any symbolic
> initiative
> > > lies in
> > > > what it says. For example, I would love to see the city
pass a
> > > > resolution urging the Supervisors not to pass any new
taxes,
> > > wouldn't
> > > > you?
> > > >
> > > > Yours in liberty,
> > > > <<< Starchild >>>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Personally, I am not in favor of symbolic initiatives
(Gun
> Ban,
> > > > > College Not Combat, for example). In San Francisco
we
have a
> law
> > > on
> > > > > the books that encourages the city police to leave
marijuana
> users
> > > > > alone; narrow perspective, but the law accomplishes a
specific
> > > > > objective. It is my understanding (please correct me
if I
am
> > > > > mistaken) that it is government at the federal level
that
is
> > > raiding
> > > > > clinics, etc. If we can find a way to encourage drug
> > > > > decriminalization at the federal level, I would
support
such
> an
> > > > > endeavor.
> > > > >
> > > > > Marcy
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Michael R.
> Edelstein"
> > > > > <dredelstein@t...> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Suggested initiative for LPSF for 2006.
> > > > > > ---------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Denver Votes to End Marijuana Use and
Possession
> > > Penalties
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On November 1, Denver became the second major city
in
less
> than
> > > a
> > > > > > year to eliminate all civil and criminal penalties
for
the
> > > > > possession
> > > > > > of up to one ounce of marijuana by citizens age 21
and
> older.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fully 54 percent of voters passed "I-100: The
Alcohol-
> Marijuana
> > > > > > Equalization Initiative." This initiative, led by
the
> > > organization
> > > > > > SAFER (Safer Alternative For Enjoyable Recreation),
argued
> that
> > > > > local
> > > > > > laws should treat the private adult use and
possession
of
> > > marijuana
> > > > > > in a manner similar to alcohol, and that its use by
adults
> > > should
> > > > > not
> > > > > > be subject to criminal penalties.
> > > > > > ############################################
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > SPONSORED LINKS
> > > > <image.tiff>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > <image.tiff>
> > > > >
> > > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > > >
> > > > > + Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
> > > > >
> > > > > + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
to:
> > > > > lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > > >
> > > > > + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
Yahoo!
> Terms of
> > > Service.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > <image.tiff>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > <image.tiff>
> > >
> > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > >
> > > + Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
> > >
> > > + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
Yahoo!
Terms of
> Service.
> > >
> > >
> > <image.tiff>
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <image.tiff>
>
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> + Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
>
> + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
of