[382] in libertarians
Re: Election results
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Vernon Imrich)
Wed Nov 9 22:19:41 1994
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 94 22:16:01 -0500
From: vimrich@flying-cloud.mit.edu (Vernon Imrich)
To: libertarians@MIT.EDU, theobald@duke.cs.mcgill.ca,
vimrich@flying-cloud.mit.edu
>theobald:
>| I saw in the Globe that Steve Winter easily got permanent ballot status
>| for NH in the governors race (four or five percent).
>
>Yes! What was their threshold? Is NH the first?
NH has had permanent ballot status for some time. They need to keep
getting 3% in Gov races to maintain it.
>I noticed that most of the news graphics last night actually showed
>third-party (usually lib) totals. They even put L on them. I think
>maybe Bernie Sanders had something to do with this: they couldn't just
>ignore him after he won last time, but it would be hard to justify only
>letting one third party be recognized.
The fact that there is a LP delegation in NH (4 last year, at least
one this year) is the key. One person can be described as an
independent. Several from the same group has to be a party.
>I wouldn't say 2 wasn't very important. 2's victory establishes two
>principles, both of them bad:
>
>1. The govt., not you, owns your life. (What other interpretation could
>possibly be put on a law that basically forces you to do something for
>your own good?)>
>
>2. The best strategy for taking away people's freedoms is: if you don't
>succeed, try try again.
The thing was, unlike say smoking restrictions, or other laws, there was
almost no redeeming feature about NOT wearing a seat belt. This was almost
like supporting a euthanasia bill. Those are usually very close, even
when the idea is to help someone in great pain.
There really was no other reason to vote against this, than the principle
of the thing. And in politics, that just doesn't cover it. The good
thing is that it works in both directions. Since the principle alone is
not reason enough to stop the thing, it is generally also not enough
to allow other bills to pass on whatever principle was established.
As for the try, try, again, that's nothing new. Jim Braude and TEAM were
at their fourth attempt at a grad tax. The raging defeat this time may
have been the only thing that can shut him up for a while.
I've noticed that the PIRG ballot questions almost always go down to
defeat as well. The only one of theirs that I recall passing since
I've lived in MA is this years question 3, which was a victory for
them if you voted "NO." Almost every person commented how impossible
it was to figure out, even some politically astute folks admitted t
needing a crib sheet on that one. I say it's par for the course,
given that the whole negative check off scam (er, scheme) relies
on deception. The fact that it could be perpetrated by a consumer
advocacy group is outrageous.
Vernon
