1. Judging from the LP.ORG website, they have more than reach it goal in people giving money.

The website fundraising, which is only a fraction of the overall budget, has exceeded its goal.

The overall party funds are still a fraction of what they were 10 years ago.

tb, yes and no. I coul throw a blizzard of numbers out there, but it’s my contention that Boaz’s work on the L voter a pretty good proxy for the LP’s potential.

Boaz’s work has nothing to do with or say about ballot access, debate exclusion, the “wasted vote” fallacy, and other ways in which all alternative parties are kept down regardless of ideology.

By “has the effect,” I simply mean that a highly theoretical platform with extreme-sounding positions is unlikely to attract many voters to the LP’s cause.

No platform is ever likely to attract many voters to any party’s cause. The number of voters who read political party platforms is vanishingly small when compared with the overall number of voters in the country.

2. Wayne Root has gotten a lot of media attention more than the Libertarian has ever gotten in years.

I think you need to get your facts straight.

me: As you should know by now, Brother Montoni, I’m challenging the foundation of the party, not advocating cosmetic changes. The foundation was built on the sand of NAP-ism. To be sure, some prefer the sand, but I’d like to see the party build on something more solid and serviceable. The draft St. Louis Accord resolution would allow the many paths to liberty to co-exist under the LP banner.

“Three times” sounds more impressive than “two times”, but it sounds like you’ve made a math error.

Yadda yadda…. How about “the Party was 2.36 times larger in 11/99″ or perhaps “the Party is less than half (.42) of its 11/99 size”. Whatever.

Maybe after we settle this one, we can address how continued slide in donors jives with “This has the effect of welcoming a broader number of people into the LP”.

Still, for me, the more representative number is 20K. More is better than less, but all the data observations are TINY, IMO.

Yeah, they are. And they’re trending towards infinitesimal, despite the new curtains and coat of paint.

me: “Three times” sounds more impressive than “two times,” but it sounds like you’ve made a math error. Still, for me, the more representative number is 20K. More is better than less, but all the data observations are TINY, IMO.

Membership numbers have been declining fairly steadily since October 2008, with few upward blips:

2008-10 16099
2008-11 16079
2008-12 15358
2009-01 15178
2009-02 15004
2009-03 14892
2009-04 15059
2009-05 15068
2009-06 14566
2009-07 14303
2009-08 14094
2009-09 13787
2009-10 13618
2009-11 13963

Add about 10% for non-member donors.

Ten years ago, there were almost three times as many members as there are now. November 1999 was the LP’s peak, at over 33,000.

See a previous analysis of long-term trends here.

Right now the LP is smaller than at any time since 1994 or so; it competes in fewer elections than it did a decade ago, it gets fewer wins as it did a decade ago, it gets less free media attention, and so on. As the saying goes, “pain is nature’s way of telling you you’re doing something wrong”. The LP seems determined to compound its pain with the same old prescriptions that haven’t done us any good for over nine years. The path was shown to us between 1995 and 2000; we’ve just chosen to ignore it and re-arrange deck chairs instead.

By “has the effect,” I simply mean that a highly theoretical platform with extreme-sounding positions is unlikely to attract many voters to the LP’s cause. Our message — sans the extremism — is quite popular and respectable in the public square, IMO. Some of the outlier positions that some Ls take is NOT popular and respectable by most.

All IMO, which ultimately is all we have….

“Thankfully, in recent years, much of the foolish overstatement in the old platform has been taken out. This has the effect of welcoming a broader number of people into the LP, not just NAP/ZAP theorists.”

Can you back this statement up with any numbers? You may feel that the LP is more welcoming of a broader number of people, but is this broader number of people actually showing up to be welcomed? What does the phrase “has the effect” mean? An illusion?

I know the LPHQ likes to keep membership numbers secret, so it is hard to determine if there is actual growth or growth from a month ago. What are the numbers today compared to ten years ago?

I’m down with being consistent with one’s professed principles. I’m also down with Emerson’s view of FOOLISH consistency. Thankfully, in recent years, much of the foolish overstatement in the old platform has been taken out. This has the effect of welcoming a broader number of people into the LP, not just NAP/ZAP theorists.

My take on whether abortion is a national issue, I’d say you could start with the first 3 words…”We the people…” The word “person” appears throughout the Constitution. The 14th Amendment seems quite relevant, too. Pro-lifers generally believe life begins at conception, so it seems appropriate for the platform. It’s also a national issue, therefore germane. All IMO, of course!

Re: # 103 (bonus question) It’s not. Even if abortion IS murder, it doesn’t fall into the federal category. But attempts to make that point in the plank seem to devolve into long philosophical discussion.

Also, I worry that this “right to sustain one’s existence” could be used to justify fraud or initiated force as a means to that end, so I can’t endorse that principle as stated.

It strikes me as an instance of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_fallacy to say that one’s existence implies the right to sustain one’s existence. Libertarians don’t agree on how (or whether) one can deduce the non-aggression principle from more-fundamental principles, and it would be divisive for the LP to officially take a stand on this philosophical question.

I don’t really like the “Party of Principle” label. The Green and Constitution parties are just as principled as the LP — it’s just that not all of their principles are libertarian principles.

The LP Platform is nearly exclusively devoted to the principle of banishing fraud and initiated force from human relationships. There are only two plank sentences in the 2008 platform that are not devoted to that principle, and the 2010 PlatCom has recommended deleting both of them.