Previous Notice - Constructive Candidate Portrayal
Attached is another policy proposal I would like added to the agenda for the December meeting. My sense is that this will generate more debate than the previous one, so I'll ask for 15 minutes. This new policy would require that our public communications portray our candidates as people seeking to change public policy by getting themselves elected, not as spoilers who get their kicks by just being monkey wrenches in some other candidate's election plans. Over the past few years, a large number of state chairs have complained repeatedly about spoiler talk in national party communications. In the 2012 election cycle, one state chair repeatedly asked that one of their candidates not be portrayed that way, yet it continued. Half of the front page of the most recent LP News edition was a table of which candidates might be spoilers. First is the obvious philosophical point that other parties don't "own" anyone's vote, therefore we're not "stealing" votes from anyone. Second, I don't think it's true that the presence of our candidates frequently changes the outcome, as exit polls suggest that if our candidates had not been on the ballot, those votes would have been fairly evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, or those people wouldn't have voted at all. Third, I think we just shoot ourselves in the foot for ballot access fights. The reason the GOP tries so hard to kick us off the ballot after we have qualified is because they believe we play the spoiler role for their candidates. Why would we perpetuate that idea, when we see how many hundreds of thousands of dollars it has cost over the years to defend ballot access challenges? Fourth, it tells the world that we don't even see ourselves as serious candidates. Overall, I think this approach to our image is self-destructive. -Alicia
You're right, Alicia, this will be more controversial. I have pushed back against our representing ourselves as being "spoilers" or costing a major party candidate an election, since I think that just feeds the "wasted vote syndrome" and also tends to get us labeled as anti-Republican (since many Republicans and conservatives see us as stealing their votes). Instead we should play up the fact that many of our candidates draw as many or more Democratic votes as Republican ones (in addition to attracting voters who'd refuse to vote for either major candidate). Nonetheless, I think there is also value in pointing our that our candidates are having a significant impact on important races, as evidenced by the fact that our vote totals often far exceed the difference between the major candidates. After all, this is what attracts a lot of media attention -- the horse race aspect. That's why we've gotten so much extra publicity in many of these races. We want both major parties to be worried that we're siphoning votes from them, and that the less libertarian their candidates sound (be they Republicans or Democrats) the more they have to worry about us. It's a fine line to walk: We don't want to claim that we were responsible for defeating a Republican or Democrat just because the Libertarian's votes exceeded the margin of victory. But we do want to claim that we are significantly impacting the election, as evidenced by the fact that both major party candidates fell well short of 50% when a Libertarian was in the race. I think we're doing better at walking this line than we have in past years. I don't want to straight-jacket our messaging, so I am not inclined to support this proposed Policy Manual amendment. Dan Wiener On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote:
Attached is another policy proposal I would like added to the agenda for the December meeting. My sense is that this will generate more debate than the previous one, so I'll ask for 15 minutes.
This new policy would require that our public communications portray our candidates as people seeking to change public policy by getting themselves elected, not as spoilers who get their kicks by just being monkey wrenches in some other candidate's election plans.
Over the past few years, a large number of state chairs have complained repeatedly about spoiler talk in national party communications. In the 2012 election cycle, one state chair repeatedly asked that one of their candidates not be portrayed that way, yet it continued. Half of the front page of the most recent LP News edition was a table of which candidates might be spoilers.
First is the obvious philosophical point that other parties don't "own" anyone's vote, therefore we're not "stealing" votes from anyone. Second, I don't think it's true that the presence of our candidates frequently changes the outcome, as exit polls suggest that if our candidates had not been on the ballot, those votes would have been fairly evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, or those people wouldn't have voted at all. Third, I think we just shoot ourselves in the foot for ballot access fights. The reason the GOP tries so hard to kick us off the ballot after we have qualified is because they believe we play the spoiler role for their candidates. Why would we perpetuate that idea, when we see how many hundreds of thousands of dollars it has cost over the years to defend ballot access challenges? Fourth, it tells the world that we don't even see ourselves as serious candidates.
Overall, I think this approach to our image is self-destructive.
-Alicia
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@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 (https://tinyurl.com/lozjjps)
On 11/29/2014 4:59 PM, Alicia Mattson wrote:
This new policy would require that our public communications portray our candidates as people seeking to change public policy by getting themselves elected, not as spoilers who get their kicks by just being monkey wrenches in some other candidate's election plans.
Just to clarify, with your proposed language, would an article highlighting a poll showing the Libertarian candidate polling at greater than the difference b/t his or her opponents be considered in violation of this? Or should there simply be no text pointing out their percentage is greater than the difference of the other candidates? ~Rich Region 8 Rep
Rich, Thanks for the good question. The portion of my proposal in question reads (caps added for emphasis), "They shall not be portrayed as spoilers, either directly or by implication, such as NOTING that the candidate's performance spans the margin between two other candidates." With this wording, I would interpret it as the latter of the two things you asked about. Poll results can be shown, even if they happen to demonstrate that the candidate spans the gap, so long as that detail is not the point of what they are saying. The surrounding text should not about some "spoiler" angle of that data. The news should rather be that the candidate may be poised to retain our ballot access, or that the polling may suggest we'll see better results than past similar candidates, or some other positive news, etc. -Alicia On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Rich Tomasso <rtomasso@lpnh.org> wrote:
On 11/29/2014 4:59 PM, Alicia Mattson wrote:
This new policy would require that our public communications portray our candidates as people seeking to change public policy by getting themselves elected, not as spoilers who get their kicks by just being monkey wrenches in some other candidate's election plans.
Just to clarify, with your proposed language, would an article highlighting a poll showing the Libertarian candidate polling at greater than the difference b/t his or her opponents be considered in violation of this? Or should there simply be no text pointing out their percentage is greater than the difference of the other candidates?
~Rich Region 8 Rep
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
I disagree. Out p.r. people should be skilled enough to see what works best. If you think you have better ideas, then present the evidence and educate them. Micro-managing p.r. by LNC policy makes no sense to me. Shouldn't this be an issue for the communications committee? On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 4:58 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote:
Rich,
Thanks for the good question.
The portion of my proposal in question reads (caps added for emphasis), "They shall not be portrayed as spoilers, either directly or by implication, such as NOTING that the candidate's performance spans the margin between two other candidates."
With this wording, I would interpret it as the latter of the two things you asked about. Poll results can be shown, even if they happen to demonstrate that the candidate spans the gap, so long as that detail is not the point of what they are saying. The surrounding text should not about some "spoiler" angle of that data. The news should rather be that the candidate may be poised to retain our ballot access, or that the polling may suggest we'll see better results than past similar candidates, or some other positive news, etc.
-Alicia
On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Rich Tomasso <rtomasso@lpnh.org> wrote:
On 11/29/2014 4:59 PM, Alicia Mattson wrote:
This new policy would require that our public communications portray our candidates as people seeking to change public policy by getting themselves elected, not as spoilers who get their kicks by just being monkey wrenches in some other candidate's election plans.
Just to clarify, with your proposed language, would an article highlighting a poll showing the Libertarian candidate polling at greater than the difference b/t his or her opponents be considered in violation of this? Or should there simply be no text pointing out their percentage is greater than the difference of the other candidates?
~Rich Region 8 Rep
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- Marc Allan Feldman CEO OpenIVO, Inc. Beachwood, OH marc@openivo.com http://about.me/marcallanfeldman 216-312-4169 (direct)
"ARTICLE 3: PURPOSES The Party is organized to implement and give voice to the principles embodied in the Statement of Principles by: functioning as a libertarian political entity separate and distinct from all other political parties or movements; moving public policy in a libertarian direction by building a political party that elects Libertarians to public office; chartering affiliate parties throughout the United States and promoting their growth and activities; nominating candidates for President and Vice-President of the United States, and supporting Party and affiliate party candidates for political office; and, entering into public information activities." Dr Feldman: Our Bylaws require the LNC, Inc. to promote winning elections, not spoiling them. Also, promoting our role as spoilers waves a big red flag in front of the noses of incumbent State Legislators and gives them a perfect excuse to pass legislation that makes it more difficult for third parties to retain ballot access. "The APRC shall review and advise whether public communications of the Party violate our bylaws, Policy Manual or advocate moving public policy in a different direction other than a libertarian direction, as delineated by the Party Platform." As you can see, the APRC does not review public communications for their effectiveness in achieving our Purposes Bylaw. Therefore, that responsibility falls onto the LNC. Scott Lieberman GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG "I disagree. Out p.r. people should be skilled enough to see what works best. If you think you have better ideas, then present the evidence and educate them. Micro-managing p.r. by LNC policy makes no sense to me. Shouldn't this be an issue for the communications committee? Dr Feldman" HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Rich,
Thanks for the good question.
The portion of my proposal in question reads (caps added for emphasis), "They shall not be portrayed as spoilers, either directly or by implication,
such as NOTING that the candidate's performance spans the margin between two other candidates."
With this wording, I would interpret it as the latter of the two things you asked about. Poll results can be shown, even if they happen to demonstrate
that the candidate spans the gap, so long as that detail is not the point of what they are saying. The surrounding text should not about some "spoiler"
angle of that data. The news should rather be that the candidate may be poised to retain our ballot access, or that the polling may suggest we'll
see better results than past similar candidates, or some other positive news, etc.
-Alicia
On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Rich Tomasso <rtomasso@lpnh.org> wrote:
On 11/29/2014 4:59 PM, Alicia Mattson wrote:
This new policy would require that our public communications portray our
candidates as people seeking to change public policy by getting
themselves elected, not as spoilers who get their kicks by just being
monkey wrenches in some other candidate's election plans.
Just to clarify, with your proposed language, would an article
highlighting a poll showing the Libertarian candidate polling at greater
than the difference b/t his or her opponents be considered in violation of
this? Or should there simply be no text pointing out their percentage is
greater than the difference of the other candidates?
~Rich
Region 8 Rep
I strongly support this motion. What is at issue here goes back to basic purposes. What are publications and literature meant to accomplish? Purposefully promoting losing campaigns transmits that we are not serious about winning. Publications touting a 5% finish as an accomplishment (other than for ballot access purposes) reinforce an image of this party as unable to win elections. Touting that 5% specifically because it "beats the spread" reinforces a perception that this party is meant to be an irritant, not a serious political organization. Why would someone want to promote beating the spread? The best argument for it is a strategy that revolves around costing other parties elections in the hopes that they will adopt our policies as their own. This, in turn, envisions us as, at best, a pressure group on other parties. My support for this motion is born out of my vision for this party - a vision that entails increasing freedom by placing candidates in public, elected office, so that while there, they can act in a libertarian manner. Wanting a party to serve as a pressure group has some serious problems. For one, it is rather silly to deal with FEC regulations if you don't intend to actually run meaningful campaigns. For another, it assumes that you have some ability to pressure other parties. Some would point to, say, the Prohibition Party spoiling the Republicans enough to get Prohibition. If our mission were to pressure other parties to adopt policies of greater control over people's lives, I'd agree, this would probably be viable. However, we are not the Prohibition Party, and rather than converting themselves to libertarians, other parties will simply use their ample resources to put us out of business. In addition, we are not living in the same time period as Prohibition, and we have a more rigid ideological divide from our old parties than they did - Prohibition and related concerns were mainstream issues already, with bipartisan support. Finally, the rolling back of state control, and preventing it from growing right back - is an ongoing concern, not a one-hit wonder. Parties that make it their mission to influence other parties either die or live on so weakened that they should have - take a look at the Prohibition Party today. I want to see this LNC take positions that enable the building of a more viable political party structure and organization. This motion is an important step forward, as it stops HQ from doing one of the more harmful things that we do to ourselves. A person need only read one article where the LP itself declares proudly that they came in last but beat the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans to conclude that the LP does not take itself seriously, and that the LP itself believes that there are only two parties of significance when it comes to electoral politics. This perception is deadly to a party. We already have to deal with people afraid they are "wasting their vote" by voting for us in preference to their least-hated option among the two braindead parties - why add to that by saying "by the way, we're not serious about winning" and telling them that, indeed, we relish the opportunity to take out their least-hated option by tilting the election to their more-hated option, without trying to win ourselves? Consider the problems presented to a person running for a local, winnable office, either a partisan office or a non-partisan one where he nonethless ties himself to the LP label to help build this party - when we run an article about the Congressional candidate, within whose district that local candidate resides - beating the spread. Whichever party this shows our candidate "hurting," the members of that party are now unlikely to vote for our local candidate. The remainder of voters are going to look at this candidate and wonder "who is he going to hurt?" rather than "would he make a good Commissioner?" Furthermore, presenting these polls in this way is inherently dishonest. We know that, just because our candidate has more votes than the spread between the top two, it does not follow that our candidate has switched the election. We say it to desperately claim relevance while punching above our weight class; they say it to promote adopting stronger ballot access requirements, keep us out of debates, etc. - we should gain very little from a misleading presentation while our opponents gain much. The objections that have been raised: 1. The horse-race aspect is the most popular part of campaign coverage, and we can use publications that would fall under this policy to remind major parties to adopt libertarian positions or face the loss of votes, and to maintain relevance. 2. We hire staff to determine what works best, and presumably we are not better at PR than staff hired for that purpose. LNC members who disagree should just try to convince staff that they are right. 3. This is micro-management and best left to the communications committee. 1. I would have to agree that almost all campaign coverage focuses on horse-races rather than issues. It is also true that, other than reporting the "spoiler effect" the LP has trouble saying much about horse-race issues that are helpful to us. The solution to that, in my opinion, is to remedy the underlying problems - primarily, too much energy spent punching above our weight class and too little success to actually tout. If we can change those things, we will have more horse-race aspects to report. Relevance, also, can be maintained by winning elections - facilitated by running for offices that can win. Candidates respond to incentives, and one way we incentivize candidates to run for unreasonable offices is by running this type of coverage. A person can, by beating the spread, gain notoriety within the party through our publications. We should not be encouraging candidates to run for this reason, but to influence the outside world. And, yes, we do need to punch too high sometimes, particularly for ballot-access purposes, but even those campaigns can be taken seriously and relevant statements can be made without promoting this spoiler effect. In fact, maybe this party can use its resources, when it comes to those races, to try to pressure the media into actually reporting about issues of relevance to a race. 2. As a board, we mostly do not write our own press releases, it is true that we hire staff with PR expertise to do that for us. A board's job is to present a vision and present a direction, though. It would be micro-management to tell staff exactly what to write, or to stand over someone's shoulders saying "no, no, the active voice." It is not micro-management to specify the type of publications we wish to see and the type we do not; it is part of responsible board governance to give broad directives of this sort. We employ staff to carry out our vision and to execute the strategy we have come up with - demanding that they do so is just proper corporate behavior. 3. The APRC has no power on this issue. The APRC can check for compliance with bylaws, platform, and policy manual. This motion, if passed, would essentially give the APRC the ability to handle exactly this type of question. At present, for the APRC to say "this portrays a candidate as not serious" has no policy implications and can't justify a refusal by the APRC to allow the publication. This motion would enable the APRC to use this as a reason to reject a publication. So, if you think the APRC should be handling this, you should support this motion. Joshua A. Katz Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat) On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Marc Allan Feldman <marc@openivo.com> wrote:
I disagree. Out p.r. people should be skilled enough to see what works best. If you think you have better ideas, then present the evidence and educate them. Micro-managing p.r. by LNC policy makes no sense to me. Shouldn't this be an issue for the communications committee?
On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 4:58 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote:
Rich,
Thanks for the good question.
The portion of my proposal in question reads (caps added for emphasis), "They shall not be portrayed as spoilers, either directly or by implication, such as NOTING that the candidate's performance spans the margin between two other candidates."
With this wording, I would interpret it as the latter of the two things you asked about. Poll results can be shown, even if they happen to demonstrate that the candidate spans the gap, so long as that detail is not the point of what they are saying. The surrounding text should not about some "spoiler" angle of that data. The news should rather be that the candidate may be poised to retain our ballot access, or that the polling may suggest we'll see better results than past similar candidates, or some other positive news, etc.
-Alicia
On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Rich Tomasso <rtomasso@lpnh.org> wrote:
On 11/29/2014 4:59 PM, Alicia Mattson wrote:
This new policy would require that our public communications portray
our
candidates as people seeking to change public policy by getting themselves elected, not as spoilers who get their kicks by just being monkey wrenches in some other candidate's election plans.
Just to clarify, with your proposed language, would an article highlighting a poll showing the Libertarian candidate polling at greater than the difference b/t his or her opponents be considered in violation of this? Or should there simply be no text pointing out their percentage is greater than the difference of the other candidates?
~Rich Region 8 Rep
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- Marc Allan Feldman CEO OpenIVO, Inc. Beachwood, OH marc@openivo.com http://about.me/marcallanfeldman 216-312-4169 (direct)
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
We have PR people? I have to do damage control with people on a non stop basis to convince them we are NOT splitting the vote. This portrayal as spoilers is not helpful. If thats all you have to offer people...rethink your strategy and resources. Daniel Hayes Sent from my iPad
On Dec 7, 2014, at 4:12 PM, Marc Allan Feldman <marc@openivo.com> wrote:
I disagree. Out p.r. people should be skilled enough to see what works best. If you think you have better ideas, then present the evidence and educate them. Micro-managing p.r. by LNC policy makes no sense to me. Shouldn't this be an issue for the communications committee?
On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 4:58 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote: Rich,
Thanks for the good question.
The portion of my proposal in question reads (caps added for emphasis), "They shall not be portrayed as spoilers, either directly or by implication, such as NOTING that the candidate's performance spans the margin between two other candidates."
With this wording, I would interpret it as the latter of the two things you asked about. Poll results can be shown, even if they happen to demonstrate that the candidate spans the gap, so long as that detail is not the point of what they are saying. The surrounding text should not about some "spoiler" angle of that data. The news should rather be that the candidate may be poised to retain our ballot access, or that the polling may suggest we'll see better results than past similar candidates, or some other positive news, etc.
-Alicia
On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Rich Tomasso <rtomasso@lpnh.org> wrote:
On 11/29/2014 4:59 PM, Alicia Mattson wrote:
This new policy would require that our public communications portray our candidates as people seeking to change public policy by getting themselves elected, not as spoilers who get their kicks by just being monkey wrenches in some other candidate's election plans.
Just to clarify, with your proposed language, would an article highlighting a poll showing the Libertarian candidate polling at greater than the difference b/t his or her opponents be considered in violation of this? Or should there simply be no text pointing out their percentage is greater than the difference of the other candidates?
~Rich Region 8 Rep
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- Marc Allan Feldman CEO OpenIVO, Inc. Beachwood, OH marc@openivo.com http://about.me/marcallanfeldman 216-312-4169 (direct)
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
Top 10 reasons why I oppose this policy proposal: 10. The voters do not read our policy manual. Our press relations should be guided by a rational and effective strategy based on what can successfully enhance the brand and our image in the national media, not by our own internal politics. 9. Showing our candidates are making a difference can be good P.R. There is a saying: "There is no such thing as bad publicity". This is certainly an over-statement, but the fact is that being ignored can be worse than being viewed as an irritant. It is good to be noticed. Remember the adage: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." We need to keep moving away from steps 1 and 2. 8. Candidates are important when we help an authoritarian incumbent get rejected by the people. Richard Cordray was the Democratic incumbent Ohio Attorney General in 2010. He was instrumental in the state taking lakefront property by eminent domain and winning the right for Ohio police to give speeding tickets by sight alone. He also took $50,000 in campaign contributions from New York lawyers to whom he sent millions of dollars of Ohio legal work. He lost the election 46% to 47%. I sincerely believe had I not run, and received 3% of the vote, he would have won re-election, and had a good shot at Governor, and perhaps President. Now he is a loser, and I am proud of my role. That is part of the reason I am here. http://ballotpedia.org/Richard_Cordray 7. What is good P.R for the party should be determined by the voters and the candidates, not the LNC. P.R. is not just to win elections. We need to establish our brand and enhance our image in the public. Part of this is to recruit and retain excellent candidates. I do not think it is helpful for the LNC to interfere in this process through changes to the policy manual. 6. It is already the job of the APRC. As Scott helpfully pointed out, " "The APRC shall review and advise whether public communications of the Party violate our bylaws, Policy Manual or advocate moving public policy in a different direction other than a libertarian direction, as delineated by the Party Platform." If any communication is hindering the promotion and success of our candidates, the APRC can certainly object, and should. 5. Being a spoiler really upsets Republicans. I like upsetting Republicans. When Ann Coulter said "If you are considering voting for the Libertarian candidate in any Senate election, please send me your name and address so I can track you down and drown you." I cannot think of a time I was more proud to vote Libertarian. 4. Being a spoiler means that you are having an effect on the electoral process. 1% is ten times better than 0.1%. 3% is three times better than 1%. Having influence is better than having no influence. It is a positive step, a step in the right direction. It should be promoted. 3. If the most important thing to us is winning elections, then we are no different than the other power-hungry parties. It is the Democrats and Republicans who believe that winning is everything. We are different. We are part of a movement. We are on a mission. Winning elections is a means to an end. We are already seeing a lot of success in our movement. 2. There is nothing wrong with being a spoiler because the other candidates are already rotten. The only people concerned about us splitting votes or spoiling elections, are the people who want Democrats or Republicans to win. I don't care much for those people. Our primary targets should be people who do not support Democrats or Republicans. This is a very large group of people that is only getting larger. 1. Just because something something is bad, does not mean their should be a law against it. This is the most important point. As we say in our party platform "we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power." We should extend this same freedom and tolerance to our P.R. staff. It is the Libertarian thing to do. On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 7:28 PM, Daniel Hayes <danielehayes@icloud.com> wrote:
We have PR people? I have to do damage control with people on a non stop basis to convince them we are NOT splitting the vote. This portrayal as spoilers is not helpful. If thats all you have to offer people...rethink your strategy and resources. Daniel Hayes
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 7, 2014, at 4:12 PM, Marc Allan Feldman <marc@openivo.com> wrote:
I disagree. Out p.r. people should be skilled enough to see what works best. If you think you have better ideas, then present the evidence and educate them. Micro-managing p.r. by LNC policy makes no sense to me. Shouldn't this be an issue for the communications committee?
On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 4:58 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote: Rich,
Thanks for the good question.
The portion of my proposal in question reads (caps added for emphasis), "They shall not be portrayed as spoilers, either directly or by implication, such as NOTING that the candidate's performance spans the margin between two other candidates."
With this wording, I would interpret it as the latter of the two things you asked about. Poll results can be shown, even if they happen to demonstrate that the candidate spans the gap, so long as that detail is not the point of what they are saying. The surrounding text should not about some "spoiler" angle of that data. The news should rather be that the candidate may be poised to retain our ballot access, or that the polling may suggest we'll see better results than past similar candidates, or some other positive news, etc.
-Alicia
On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Rich Tomasso <rtomasso@lpnh.org> wrote:
On 11/29/2014 4:59 PM, Alicia Mattson wrote:
This new policy would require that our public communications portray our candidates as people seeking to change public policy by getting themselves elected, not as spoilers who get their kicks by just being monkey wrenches in some other candidate's election plans.
Just to clarify, with your proposed language, would an article highlighting a poll showing the Libertarian candidate polling at greater than the difference b/t his or her opponents be considered in violation of this? Or should there simply be no text pointing out their percentage is greater than the difference of the other candidates?
~Rich Region 8 Rep
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- Marc Allan Feldman CEO OpenIVO, Inc. Beachwood, OH marc@openivo.com http://about.me/marcallanfeldman 216-312-4169 (direct)
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- Marc Allan Feldman CEO OpenIVO, Inc. Beachwood, OH marc@openivo.com http://about.me/marcallanfeldman 216-312-4169 (direct)
I will do my best to not repeat myself and respond only to points I have something to say about: 10. I agree; that is why I support a policy outlining a rational and effective strategy that is aimed at presenting this party as viable and credible, and one that actively discourages the use of coverage for internal political reasons. 9. If our only two options were to be ignored or to present ourselves as non-serious candidates merely seeking to determine which brain-dead party gets to win the election, then I'd agree. Similarly, we cannot control what reporters and others write about us, and they may well decide to take this tack. We can, in our own efforts to promote ourselves, attempt to present ourselves as running serious candidates. 7. I have no idea how the voters and candidates should determine what is good PR for the party. Should each proposed publication be put up for popular vote? In any case, yes, we need to brand and market ourselves - for the ultimate goal of elections. So, sure, part of PR is attracting quality candidates. Are high quality candidates drawn to "hey, looky here, we got 1%" I would submit that you get higher quality candidates if you at least make an effort to look like the purpose of the party is running quality, serious, credible candidates for the purpose of winning. The idea that there is something anathema about a board directing its staff on general guidelines is something I find very problematic. We are ultimately responsible for this organization, and part of that responsibility is transmitting to staff the purposes towards which we want publications to be used. 6. Communications presenting candidates as spoilers, or bragging about beating the spread, and so on, neither violate bylaws, policy manual, or platform. They also do not advocate moving public policy in a different direction than libertarians. The APRC is not empowered to reject publications simply because we don't like them - we only have discretion within those categories. Yes, those categories are broad and subject to interpretation, which is why the APRC does deliberate and serves an important task, but the APRC can only set policy within those guidelines. The types of presentations in this motion do not fit into any of those categories. If this motion is passed, the APRC will then have discretion as to what, in the interpretation of the members, constitutes a violation of this policy. 4. Winning elections also means you are having an impact. You decrease your ability to win elections when you publicly present the party as not being serious about running and electing candidates. 3. The Democrats and Republicans wish to win elections in order to provide corporate welfare for their big donors and increase state control over our lives in the process. The Libertarian Party should seek to win elections for the purpose of rolling back state control over our lives. That both entail winning elections doesn't make them the same goal. By this logic, you could criticize seeking publicity because, hey, Democrats and Republicans seek publicity. Democrats and Republicans spend time fundraising - it doesn't follow that we shouldn't fundraise. If we say "oh, hey, can't strive to win elections because that's what Democrats and Republicans do" who exactly will be in office to protect people's rights, block bad legislation, and introduce good legislation? I ran for Comptroller and lost - the Comptroller's office did not get any better at protecting the people from corporate welfare as a result. I ran for Planning Commission and won. Since then, I've cast the deciding votes to allow small businesses to get around legislation designed to protect their larger competitors, ensured that several residents could rebuild their homes after storms, and stopped a remarkable proposal to ban donation bins on private property because of the danger they present to our "New England aesthetic." Have I therefore turned into a Republican or a Democrat? 2. You will attract those voters you want to attract by presenting this party as being serious about being a political party. Yes, the only people who care about spoilers are those who care whether Democrats or Republicans win - and assume that it must always be one or the other. So, who exactly does spoiler talk attract? It repels those people, but certainly doesn't attract those who hate both. 1. Directing staff is not legislation. How much of the employee manual do you find 'non-libertarian' by this standard? How much of the policy manual? Should we hire staff and simply abdicate responsibility for supervision and direction because we don't want to be a government? You wouldn't consider it legislating the details of someone's behavior if you, for instance, told a CRNA to remove a tube placed into the esophagus - you wouldn't say "well, it's best for it to be in the trachea, but I'm not going to exercise power over people." Similarly, when I direct EMTs under my responsibility, I am not behaving as a tyrant. This is the difference between public policy and private organizations. We would never want our bylaws, for instance, to be adopted by law - but our members agree to them, voluntarily, by joining this organization. Similarly, when you take a job, you agree to work under the general direction of the corporate board, and direct supervision of those appointed to directly supervise you. You cannot have the benefits of a voluntary, mutually-agreed-upon association, without accepting that you don't always get to do what you want. Staff is not hired by the delegates in convention; we are selected by the delegates. If we cannot "legislate" regarding staff instructions, and the delegates cannot directly influence staff - you have just cut the highest decision-making power in any organization, its members assembled in convention, entirely out of the process of influencing what happens at HQ. If we take responsibility for what happens at HQ, we can be voted out. If we refuse to take such responsibility because we're libertarians, this amounts to irresponsible use of donor and member funds. We can debate the specifics of a policy, but an argument that essentially says that we cannot set policy for staff is, to me, a direct abdication of the nature of free association.
participants (7)
-
Alicia Mattson -
Daniel Hayes -
Daniel Wiener -
Joshua Katz -
Marc Allan Feldman -
Rich Tomasso -
Scott L.