On Nov 20, 2007 6:06 AM, Bruce Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Liberty Decides - Can It Be Improved? I'm happy to see Susan promote > 'Liberty Decides', though > the program is not very new at all, as she suggested. > > Shane came up with and implemented this idea months > ago, and should be recognized for his creativity as well > as his excellent foresight and planning. > > And while her first suggestion is good, listing the > number of contributors (how about average gift, too?), > her language betrays her bias against large donors.
I have no bias against large donors. I simply think that another (and very informative) metric besides gross total would be number of donors. I think it would give an idea of the support base in numbers of individuals. Better still would also be a number indicating how many of the donors were members of the LP. > Her second suggestion, again starts off well, but > then shows where she's coming from when it > degenerates into an online litmus test. Yes, God forbid I should want to see if the candidates asking for my vote to be the Libertarian presidential candidate are ... actually libertarians. The nerve!!! I shock myself with my boldness!!! > Having website visitors "judge which candidates > are most in line with the Party's platform" makes > no sense, except for those purists who want to > think for the rest of us. My suggestion was intended to give website visitors more information about the candidates, by having them answer an unbiased survey of key Libertarian issues. The most obvious one is the platform. A fellow activist suggested that the candidates be allowed to choose a few (say three) key issues that they feel are important and present a short statement on each of the issues. I don't feel that would be as useful as my suggestion, but it would be of some use in understanding where the candidates are coming from - and it would have the virtue of relative brevity. > Just as there are a broad spectrum of feelings > regarding the LP platform, there are a broad > spectrum of positions people will like from > Candidates, and how each one of them matches > the voter is what really counts. Of course. If you dislike Plank #2 of the platform, and Candidate X says *he* disagrees with Plank #2, then the survey has helped you, hasn't it? No Libertarian candidate should feel intimidated by being asked an ideological question. They should -welcome- the opportunity. > Neither Susan, nor I, or any other person can > determine what is the correct position for > another voter, or Libertarian. Well, yes. Let the candidates make their positions clear (my idea gives them that chance), and voters can compare how a group of candidates answers the -same- questions. How could anyone object? > This much less > weighting said issues by importance. I don't understand this sentence. > I would say, go with Susan's good idea, to > list a menu of positions, but leave the > platform matching out, and instead let the > visitor both weight and determine, for themself > what those positions mean, and how they > line up with their own. Ah, I think there is a misunderstanding. I did not mean to suggest that any sort of 'platform matching' occur on the website. My idea was that each candidate be given 25-50 words to express his position on each platform plank, and let individual viewers of the website decide whose set of positions most closely allies with their own. -- Susan Hogarth http://www.colliething.com
