[Lnc-business] Fwd: [Lnc-votes] Oklahoma petition - Re: Fwd: Re: February LNC Meeting

Wed Jan 6 18:29:32 EST 2016

Just forwarding some data points from an off-list discussion when Paul
Frankel answered my question.

-Alicia

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <travellingcircus at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Lnc-votes] [Lnc-business] Oklahoma petition - Re: Fwd: Re:
February LNC Meeting
To: Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com>, Ken Moellman <
ken.moellman at lpky.org>
Cc: Wes Benedict <wes.benedict at lp.org>

*Ken Moellman has an automated function that automatically does a 20% check
on everything his team is checking at 100% and we have some others that we
are just checking at 20% only. The batches that have been done at 20%
include 11,368 signatures and included batches from everyone that is doing
any kind of volume as well as representative samples of the smaller batches
as well. 2943 signatures are in the batches that have been checked at 100%.
All of the signatures that have been checked at 100% have also been
checked at 20%. So at this point I am not expecting big surprises on
validity even though it is not exact. I copied Ken also. *

On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com> wrote:

> Paulie,
>
> I don't know what volume have been checked at 100% vs. 20%, but my
> instinct is that probably a much smaller number has been checked at 100%
> vs. 20% sampling.
>
> If you combine them into one single measurement, what's the overall
> validity rate?  In other words, the total number that we decided are valid
> out of the total number we tested.  I realize even that's not a perfect
> measure because you may have tested more out of one petitioner who has been
> turning in lower validity rates, but at least it gives us a bigger pool to
> measure.
>
> -Alicia
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 1:44 PM, <travellingcircus at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 3:37 PM, <lnc-votes at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Since the 68% validity is an estimate, I'm assuming it's an optimistic
>>> estimate.
>>>
>>
>>
>> The signatures that have been checked so far with a 20% sample are
>> running at 68.79%. The ones checked with a 100% sample are running at
>> 73.46%.
>>
>>
>>
>>>   The finances for this drive have all turned out to be very optimistic
>>> estimates.  On the previous EC call, I expressed my hunch that more money
>>> would be required, and I'm not at all surprised that here we are again with
>>> the large sunk costs now serving as strong leverage to spend whatever it
>>> takes to get some value from the sunk costs.  Based on the numbers above,
>>> I'm expecting that tonight the EC will be asked to put somewhere in the
>>> ballpark of another $20,000 into the project.  If that number proves to be
>>> the final allocation, then we will have spent $105,000 on a drive for which
>>> the original estimates were $65,000.
>>>
>>> It does not actually change things at this point, but I am curious how
>>> many of the people who voted for this project at the start would have still
>>> voted for it if the price tag had instead been $105,000 for a state where
>>> the chance of retention for the next cycle is so unrealistic.
>>>
>>> We need to deal in reality, not optimistic hopes.  What is the lowest
>>> validity rate that we realistically think we could experience when we turn
>>> in?  I realize this isn't hard science and any number is a guess, but what
>>> is the lowest validity rate that wouldn't be terribly surprising?
>>>
>>> It would be a shame to spend $105,000 and then be disqualified for being
>>> a few signatures short because we were slightly too optimistic about the
>>> validity rate.
>>>
>>> -Alicia
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Wes Benedict <wes.benedict at lp.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A few more details while we're at it.
>>>> LNC has spent $71,753 on signatures, plus around $5,500 in other
>>>> expenses (like for my travel there and the petition organizer there).
>>>> I may have exact numbers later from the accounting system, but $77,253
>>>> is a pretty close estimate unless I've forgotten about an expense.
>>>>
>>>> Wes Benedict, Executive Director
>>>> Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
>>>> 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314(202) 333-0008 ext. 232, wes.benedict at lp.orgfacebook.com/libertarians @LPNational
>>>> Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership
>>>>
>>>> On 1/6/2016 1:02 PM, Wes Benedict wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Roland,
>>>> We have 31,721 raw signatures.
>>>> We need 24,712 valid signatures. Validity estimates are only estimates,
>>>> but are around 68%. If we indeed have 68% validity, we'd need 36,341
>>>> signatures to hit right on the nose. But validity estimates are only our
>>>> estimates--we can not be sure how county officials will interpret their
>>>> guidelines.
>>>> I'm nervous.
>>>> I think we need between 37,000 and 40,000 raw signatures.
>>>> We don't have enough funds approved to pay for 37,000 raw signatures.
>>>> If you could make it there and collect 1,000 signatures for free, that
>>>> would be a big gift from you to this petition drive.
>>>>
>>>> Below, embedded in this email directly following this sentence, is a
>>>> graph showing the progress.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wes Benedict, Executive Director
>>>> Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
>>>> 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314(202) 333-0008 ext. 232, wes.benedict at lp.orgfacebook.com/libertarians @LPNational
>>>> Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership
>>>>
>>>> On 1/6/2016 12:40 PM, Roland Riemers wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Wes,
>>>>
>>>> Well last night I had my van packed and ready to travel to Tulsa for a
>>>> week but looking over the weather situation for the next week at the last
>>>> minute decided I did not want to spend a day plugging along on ice slick
>>>> roads at 20 mph to get there.  So, I put it off for later in month.   I did
>>>> talk to Charles Tuttle, and he will probably be starting in Tulsa
>>>> tomorrow.   If,  by chance I do not make it later,  I have paid Tuttle a
>>>> $1,000 advance against Ok signatures,  and will have him credit that amount
>>>> against his signature collection.
>>>>
>>>> So,  where do we stand in numbers in OK now?
>>>>
>>>> Roland Riemers
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "lncvotes" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "lncvotes" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lnc-votes mailing list
>>> Lnc-votes at hq.lp.org
>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes_hq.lp.org
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "lncvotes" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20160106/d33b351e/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 11087 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20160106/d33b351e/attachment-0002.png>