[Lnc-business] Top Two

Fri Jul 18 22:47:57 EDT 2014

So you would suggest that, in the unlikely event that either Oregon
disaffiliates or is disaffiliated by the LNC, the LNC not establish a new
affiliate?

Joshua A. Katz

Region 8 (Region of Badassdom) Alternate
Libertarian National Committee

Chair, Libertarian Party of Connecticut

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:36 PM, Daniel Hayes <danielehayes at icloud.com>
wrote:

> We have no need to spend money where we might not have an affiliate to
> defend.
>
> On Jul 18, 2014, at 9:32 PM, Joshua Katz <joshua.katz at lp.org> wrote:
>
> I don't know.  I proposed acting to stop Top Two without discussing it
> with anyone in Oregon.  There is no blackmail, there is no demand.  What's
> really going on here is an LNC member making a proposal.
>
> Joshua A. Katz
>
> Region 8 (Region of Badassdom) Alternate
> Libertarian National Committee
>
> Chair, Libertarian Party of Connecticut
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 8:12 PM, Daniel Hayes <danielehayes at icloud.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Mr Wiener,
>>
>> I can appreciate differences,  that all said.  Does Oregon want HELP or
>> do they want to disaffiliate if we don’t cater to their demands. Are we up
>> to giving them bribe money now to stay? Really? what’s going on here? Think
>> about it folks.
>>
>> Daniel Hayes
>> LNC R7 AR
>>
>> On Jul 18, 2014, at 7:07 PM, Daniel Wiener <wiener at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Daniel,
>>
>> There are some crucial differences between the Louisiana system and that
>> of California and Washington.  In Louisiana your primary is really the
>> general election held in November, and a candidate can win with 50%+ of the
>> vote.  If no candidate gets over 50%, there is a special run-off only a
>> month later between the top two candidates.  So the election that really
>> counts -- the one that will attract the most voters and provide the most
>> visibility for the ballot-qualified candidates -- is in fact that regular
>> election which occurs simultaneously with the rest of the nation.
>> Furthermore, the filing fees or in-lieu-of-filing-fee petition requirements
>> for candidates are not out of reach for LP candidates in Louisiana.  So
>> it's feasible (even if not necessarily easy) to get your candidates on the
>> ballot.
>>
>> In California our jungle primary is a true primary, held in June, and the
>> top two candidates must meet in November regardless of their vote
>> percentages.  The fees and petitioning requirements for minor party
>> candidates, which used to be very attainable, are now the same as those of
>> the major party candidates, i.e., very high (since all of our districts are
>> so large).  So getting an LP candidate on the June primary ballot is
>> expensive and serves very little purpose: There is almost no chance that
>> the LP candidate will appear on the November general election ballot, which
>> voters still think of as the "real" election.
>>
>> If California's system matched Louisiana's system, with much more
>> reasonable fees and petitioning requirements, I probably wouldn't mind it.
>> We'd be able to field a good number of candidates for the November ballot,
>> and their presence would impact the races.  I'd be fine with following the
>> November general election with quick runoffs in those instances where
>> nobody received an outright majority.  But as it is now, the
>> California/Washington jungle primaries are disasters for minor parties, as
>> well as for voters whose choices are not infrequently limited to two
>> candidates from a single major party in an election held five months later.
>>
>> Dan Wiener
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Daniel Hayes <danielehayes at icloud.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Members,
>>>
>>> As to Top Two, Louisiana currently has a non partisan open blanket
>>> primary…or as we call it..a jungle primary. All affiliations run at the
>>> same time and if nobody gets over 50%, the top two go to a run off.
>>> We were the 4th fastest growing affiliate last year in states that have
>>> party recognition.  Our Executive Director got nervous when a bill was
>>> proposed last year that would have moved Federal Elections to closed
>>> primaries.  One of the sticking points for a lot of people to switch is
>>> because they are worried the Libertarian candidate will cause one of the
>>> big two to lose the race.  What having a top two system allows us to do is
>>> overcome one of the biggest sticking points people have by saying…vote your
>>> conscience in the primary and then do what you feel you gotta do in the run
>>> off.
>>>
>>> I just related this all back to Wendy(our ED) about how you guys are all
>>> worried about it.  She LOLed. She was freaked out because she was scared it
>>> was going to mess up our recruitment when a Republican Rep put up a bill
>>> about moving to closed Federal primaries in La. He never brought it to
>>> committee .Myself..I can grow the party in any climate..its all about
>>> altering and tailoring the message.  Though when its working…don’t try and
>>> fix it…wait a second…
>>>
>>> HELP!!! Louisiana suffers from TOP TWO!! Send us money!! Send us
>>> MONEY!!! HELP!!!!…
>>>
>>> https://secure.piryx.com/donate/3rejnkrb/Libertarian-Party-of-Louisiana/
>>>
>>> Did it work?
>>>
>>> Daniel Hayes
>>> LNC R7 Alternate
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 17, 2014, at 4:32 PM, Nicholas Sarwark <chair at lp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> > The LNC can, I believe, spend money to oppose top-two in Oregon.  It
>>> > is simpler, if the Libertarian Party of Oregon is FEC filing to
>>> > transfer funds to them to spend in Oregon.  That's my read on it,
>>> > though I'll defer to our lawyer and/or FEC consultant if they believe
>>> > my interpretation is incorrect.
>>> >
>>> > The Libertarian Party of Oregon has placed language in the voter guide
>>> > before to argue for or against initiatives, and can do so in this case
>>> > as well.  It costs $1200.  I believe we would also be able to place a
>>> > separate argument as the LNC, though if we choose to do so, we should
>>> > coordinate with the Libertarian Party of Oregon to ensure we're not
>>> > making the same arguments in both.
>>> >
>>> > If top two passes, the Libertarian Party of Oregon would still be
>>> > recognized as a political party, it would just become much less likely
>>> > that their candidates would appear on the November ballot.  See, e.g.
>>> > California.
>>> >
>>> > -Nick
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Joshua Katz <joshua.katz at lp.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> >> Is it within the jurisdiction of the LNC to take action to oppose
>>> top-two in
>>> >> Oregon, perhaps by setting aside money for a legal challenge or
>>> advertising
>>> >> before the vote?  If so, I suggest someone with the ability move to
>>> do so,
>>> >> as I do not think our affiliate there is in a position to fight it,
>>> being
>>> >> somewhat busy with other things?
>>> >>
>>> >> As a side note, does if top-two passes, does that impact the JC
>>> decision?
>>> >> Will there still be such a thing as SOS recognition for a party?
>>> >>
>>> >> Joshua A. Katz
>>> >>
>>> >> Region 8 (Region of Badassdom) Alternate
>>> >> Libertarian National Committee
>>> >>
>>> >> Chair, Libertarian Party of Connecticut
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> Lnc-business mailing list
>>> >> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> >> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Lnc-business mailing list
>>> > Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *"In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we
>> guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we
>> compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if
>> this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare
>> the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or
>> experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it
>> disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG. In that simple statement is the key
>> to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it
>> doesn’t matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is.
>> If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”*
>> -- Richard Feynman
>>  _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20140718/b7ce6bbf/attachment-0002.html>