The final LDP vote (national HoR = 0.13%, Senate 0.15%) was roughly as I expected and I don’t think anybody should be overly dissapointed by the outcome. I want to quickly address a few issues.
There are lots of problems that micro-parties have and one of them is expectation inflation. The reality is that the main media always ignores mirco-parties… Australians have never understood the voting system… a majority of people are rusted on Liberal or Labor voters… and most micro-parties end up with 0.1% of the vote or less. It is important to have this context when forming expectations.
Given the above qualifications, the fact that this was our first federal campaign and our name on the ballot was the acronym “LDP”, I didn’t expect any more than 0.2% of the vote. When we calculated the chances of Terje being elected, one of my concerns was that he might not get the approx 0.2% needed to start picking up preferences. As it turned out, his primary was high enough (0.21%) but we didn’t have enough luck with preference flows.
To put our vote in perspective it is helpful to compare us with other similar parties. As expected, all parties that have some level of representation in Australia did better than us. This includes Liberal, Labor, National, Green, Democrat, Family First, Christian Democrats, One Nation, Shooters and Democratic Labor. For a micro party the better comparisons are the other un-represented parties.
The only other micro party to run lots of candidates in the House was the CEC, and we beat them in nearly all electorates where we both ran. In the Senate we got a higher vote than CEC (0.07%), Socialist Alliance (0.08%), Non-custodial Parents (0.05%), Nuclear Disarmament (0.0%), Conservatives for Climate (0.05%), Hear our Voice (0.02%), Senator on-line (0.06%), Socialist Equality (0.05%) and nearly all of the independents, including ex-National James Baker, the unendorsed Secular party, and the S.A. libertarian independent Stewart Glass. Again, I think this outcome was largely to be expected.
The final outcome was neither above nor below expectations. For those people involved with the LDP campaign, you should not be too dissapointed with the outcome. It looks like we’ll pick up about 20,000 votes, beat most of the micros, build the base for a well-organised national professional party, gain valuable experience and potentially influenece the outcome in close races. It was a job well done and I would like to thank everybody who contributed.
November 25, 2007 at 3:03 pm |
Well said, John.
I certainly don’t think anyone should be disappointed, considering we only got registered and got our name settled a couple of months ago. 20,000 people in Australiia voting for us is phenomenal for a first go-round, and with almost no media attention. A great credit to David Leyonhjelm, you and Terje in particular. It has given us all valuable experience. We already know of people who found out about us on the day when they came home and googled ‘ldp’. I think we have only started to tap our potential.
People who described us as ‘wacky’ are people who think the very idea of freedom is something outlandish and dangerous. That pretty much shows how socialist the orthodoxy is in Australia. But there is a signficiant proportion out there who are thirsty for our message, and don’t think it is wacky that they should be free to liive life how they want and not be forced to sacrifice their values for the opinions of others.
The election of yet another party of meddling pious fascists may even drive more voters in our diirection.
With a long-term goal to build on each election, we will eventually get representatives in parliaments.
November 25, 2007 at 3:07 pm |
I think there are a number of tactical things to address in the campaign, but oveall it was a good effort. In my view, the single issue that cost us a lot of votes was simply the name hickup. A lot more people would have preferenced Liberty and Democracy than the acronym they never heard of.
The other issue mentione by many people is the amazing ignorance of Australians over the nature of preferential voting. Unbelievable! I wonder how this can be addressed?
November 25, 2007 at 3:11 pm |
“and potentially influenece the outcome in close races.”
That’s right, your 2,000 odd votes which went to (and stayed with) former trade unionist David Feeney will help the cause of big government in the Senate.
Well done.
November 25, 2007 at 3:22 pm |
Boris I think the first most obvious thing to do is answer the question that many voters have on the main web page “Will my vote be wasted if I vote 1 LDP and preference a major party second?”
November 25, 2007 at 3:24 pm |
JamesP — our preferences neither help nor hurt your party. Good. Your party is a party of big government conservativism and deserves no help from libertarians. Hopefully your party can become more capitalist in opposition and then we’ll be able to support you.
November 25, 2007 at 3:26 pm |
Big Government eh James?
What was real per capita spending when Howard became PM, and what is it now champ?
Attack the virus, not the paitient.
November 25, 2007 at 3:29 pm |
If there’s one lesson out of this it’s that our primary vote in the lower house is inversely proportional to the number of candidates that are running.
In Wentworth, leafleting corflute signs and handing out how-to-vote cards had a marginal effect. In Banks, Don picked up 0.5% of the vote just by being on the ballot paper.
In Eden Monaro, getting some good media coverage didn’t help Tim Quilty.
Questions to answer once the data becomes available:
1) In the lower house, were voters following our HTV card?
2) Did running candidates in the lower house boost our senate vote?
3) How many extra votes does handing out HTV cards actually get you?
For #3, we’ll need a list of all polling booths that were manned and for how long. If people know of any manned booths, please write it on this thread or send me an email, I’ll crunch some stats later on.
john.zapper[at]gmail.com
November 25, 2007 at 3:31 pm |
As I spent time deliberately letterboxing different areas rather than just the ones we were running in Victoria, it’s useful to see the breakdown of votes by polling place & division.
We get significantly more support from rural areas. It’s clear not everyone is happy with big government.
Try Corio, where the only thing I did was distribute 2000-2500 leaflets. I’m not aware of any media coverage of the candidate. Yet we got nearly 1%.
Compare this to Deakin, where the Vic team spent all day at polling booths in Deakin handing out HTV cards, as well as letterboxing + some media. Yet we got less than Corio after all that effort.
This is also the case with McEwen, where we got more votes than the effort we put in would suggest we should get.
People in rural areas who perhaps feel the pinch from the cost of living more than the chattering class in cities clearly like our message of lower taxes and more freedom. The message is making an impact on many people. If we’re more organised next time and don’t make the same mistakes (I will not list them all here, but these can be discussed better internally), then we will definitely get an MP up within the next 1 or 2 elections.
November 25, 2007 at 3:51 pm |
Let’s be honest. We need money.
November 25, 2007 at 3:54 pm |
Mark, but what would we spend it on?
November 25, 2007 at 4:03 pm |
Get more volunteers. Volunteers have money.
Money will come if the LDP projects a professional image and an emotionally appealing/catchy message, e.g. ‘the party of principle’
Few people would donate to a party that has no prospects of winning.
November 25, 2007 at 4:05 pm |
A better website.
November 25, 2007 at 4:05 pm |
“Volunteers have money”???
November 25, 2007 at 4:13 pm |
I had to laugh at the blurb in the Courier-Mail when they said my picture was “the arm of the Statue of Liberty”. Not the torch of freedom or the torch of liberty — the arm of a statue. Great.
I couldn’t believe how some people scowled when I would say “liberty and democracy” — like I had just blew wind or something.
For whomever is counting, I was at the Catholic church in Paddington on the border of Brisbane and Ryan for 3.5 hours. I wanted to stay longer but fell ill and nearly puked on the Family First guy.
Lisa
November 25, 2007 at 4:13 pm |
A better website
But a better website needs money?
I think the policies are important, but the way they are packaged are also important. Perhaps fewer big words and make them shorter and more easily digestible.
Being too focussed on being accurate and thorough is boring. People vote for parties that have good looking candidates with engaging personalities and who connect with them on an emotional level. Maybe the LDP is really good at holding our policies to high logical standards, but not so good on selling them with generic phrases like ‘working families’ (Rudd won an election repeating this phrase non-stop)
November 25, 2007 at 4:23 pm |
The policies need to be shortened. In particular, rambling preambles should be removed and the firearms should be rewritten.
Ownership of firearms is also the only practical means by which the people can retain any semblance of ensuring that governments remain their servants and not vice versa. Although the ballot box and peaceful protest will always be the preferred means of removing unsatisfactory governments, history is full of examples where those options were denied.
All paragraphs like the above paragraph should be removed as it makes us look like crazy survivalist types.
I think we’d do well to pitch the firearms policy as a repeal of ‘96 and focus more on delivering better outcomes for sporting shooters and farmers.
November 25, 2007 at 4:24 pm |
The more support from outer-city/rural seats theory didn’t hold for Eden-Monaro, but maybe that’s because Tim talked a lot about cutting off farm subsidies. If we have a policy like that, it’s best to not talk about it if the electorate would be unreceptive. But this could also be due to unrelated reasons, like the other candidates running.
November 25, 2007 at 4:45 pm |
I don’t agree.
First of all, it doesn’t take any more money to design a good website than it does a bad one. We have a lot of smart, creative people in the LDP and I’m sure we could come up with something. It is crucial that we get smarter about social networking. The press release is dead. The journalists stopped reporting about the LDP once our press releases became silly (to them) and desperate. We need to get better at spreading the message virally and ignoring the print journalists all together–nearly 80% of Australian adults are online. The reporters lurk anyway and will report what THEY find interesting not what we feed them. Blogs and forums are important.
Secondly, I’m not sure what “big words” you are talking about. Libertarians are, I believe, smarter than your average voter and won’t take kindly to being spoken to using “little” words. If I wanted talking heads, sound-bites, and monosyllabic grunts, I’d have joined a mainstream party.
Growing the libertarian movement in general would be a good place to begin. I have started a libertarian Meetup in Brisbane and, after the holidays, will begin pushing hard to grow the group.
I think we did excellent considering the time-frame.
November 25, 2007 at 4:46 pm |
I think Mark is right about needing more volunteers.
Universities might be a good place to recruit, a libertarian student’s organisation anyone? I suspect it would have a hard time competing with ALSF.
November 25, 2007 at 4:50 pm |
I like the firearms policy. I think the wording could be simplified and examples given of what can happen to a population when it is disarmed. A good example of why firearms are important is Switzerland during WWII. They did survive because of their access to firearms and shooting skills. There is nothing crazy about that.
November 25, 2007 at 4:56 pm |
I agree Lisa, there’s nothing crazy about it. Unfortunately 99% of Australians think it is crazy.
November 25, 2007 at 5:01 pm |
There are a lot of smart “numbery” types here — isn’t there something about a bell curve and a population? 10% would agree with us, 80% would think we’re crazy, and 10% would like government “safety monitors” put in all homes so you don’t run with scissors.
November 25, 2007 at 5:18 pm |
Tim didn’t lose votes because of cutting farm subsidies. He lost because 99% of people in Eden-Monaro still haven’t heard of us. It takes time to build a brand name and we’re still very early in that process.
We will have lots of time for assessing mistakes and successes of the campaign and thinking anew about our direction, policies, website etc in the coming months. But the election has only just happened. It is probably best to let it settle for a few weeks so we can make more reasoned commentary.
We will do an internal post-mortem of the campiagn at some stage. If you want to contribute to that process (and I hope everybody does), constructive private suggestions are infinitely more useful and more likely to help.
November 25, 2007 at 5:20 pm |
LOL libertarianchick. You’re right. We should be the party of choice for at least 10 percent of the population.
Sam, the Shooters Party has returned 2 members of parliament, I think it is, in NSW, and are near gettiing a thid, accordiing to a friend of mine. So it’s probably not true that 99 percent of the population think it’s crazy.
1.
‘I think we’d do well to pitch the firearms policy as a repeal of ‘96 and focus more on delivering better outcomes for sporting shooters and farmers.’
Yes.
2.
Many people heard about us the first time when looking at the ballot sheet. The name ‘LDP’ doesn’t mean anything to them. Compare the excellent marketing contained in the names ‘What Women Want’ and ‘Families First’, nasty pack of fascists though they be. I have always thought the name is bit of a liability – it turned me off joiining for two years frinstance. Now is a good time to find a name that sells our message, with an eye to both campaigning the ballot sheet too. ‘Liberty’ or ‘Freedom’ or ‘Freedom and Responsibility’ would be better than ‘LDP’. But we might also consider less formal names, for example ‘Your Freedom’, or ‘Your Choice’, or ‘None of the Government’s Business’ or ‘Don’t Tread on Me’, or ‘Much Less Tax, Much Less Government’.
I’m not suggesting them, just floating ideas.
3. Smart goals for the lead-up to the next election.
November 25, 2007 at 5:36 pm |
I can tell you that 3.5 hours of quickly saying “Liberty and Democracy Party” makes a girl mighty thirsty.
Interesting, a Greens guy said he’d join if we took “Democracy” out of the name.
November 25, 2007 at 5:54 pm |
Very interesting. We should have a natural appeal to Greens, because the fact is, big government control of the environment is the worst thing for it, and private property generally produces better environmental outcomes than command-and-control.
‘Democracy’ adds nothing. Who is going to say they’re not in favour of democracy? And democracy is no guarantee of liberty; in fact much of what we’re against is majoritarian theft and bullying.
The reason it’s called ‘Liberty and Democracy Party’ is to preserve the initials LDP after the Electoral Commission decided we couldn’t have ‘Liberal Democratic Party’. Liberal Democratic party associates us with two of the worst political prostitutes on the scene, so on the nose with the electorate that both of them were rightly obliviated in the election.
November 25, 2007 at 5:56 pm |
Bring back the Liberal Democrats.
November 25, 2007 at 5:58 pm |
Who are the Liberal Democrats?
November 25, 2007 at 6:22 pm |
The name “Liberal Democrats” is not only truthful advertising by us… it is a good short-hand way of roughly advertising what we stand for to people who aren’t interested in politices (ie most people) and picking up a good base vote.
The name appeals to small-l liberals. The name appeals to Liberal party voters who want more civil liberties. The name appeals to ex-Democrat voters who want more economic freedom. The name appeals to people who want to vote for a sensible sounding third party. The name appeals to people who are making a protest vote. The name appeals to people who consider themselves “economically right, socially left”.
Sure — many political junkies & purists don’t like the name. But those people make up 0.1% of Australia and will vote on issues anyway, not the name. If we can go back to the name “Liberal Democrats” then we will become the 6th biggest party at the next election.
Speaking of “who is…”, somebody suggested that we could use the acronym stuff-up to our advantage by starting a “who is the LDP” campaign (ala “who is ron paul” and “who is john galt”).
November 25, 2007 at 6:52 pm |
It may help to think of some more public stunts like Nick Xenophon is always doing here in SA.
If the LDP needs website help. I might be your guy, but if I have learnt anything from the Ron Paul phenominon, that heaps of libertarians are techies.
November 25, 2007 at 7:05 pm |
That’s right, your 2,000 odd votes which went to (and stayed with) former trade unionist David Feeney will help the cause of big government in the Senate.
Well done.
You would have rathered Richard Di Natalie?
There is still 28% left to count, but Scott Ryan will likely take the sixth seat. You have no reason to complain unless the Greens pick up the last seat,
November 25, 2007 at 7:13 pm |
We get significantly more support from rural areas. It’s clear not everyone is happy with big government.
I think rural areas are more likely to Donkey Vote. Also, some rural areas are more likely to protest vote. They don’t know who we are, but at least “we’re not Liberal, Labor or the Greens.”
I think this ties into what JohnZ said. The reason we polled so poorly in electorates with a lot of candidates is that there’s a major party saturation level. If 97% of people vote Labor, Liberal or Greens there’s 3% left for the rest. If there’s only 3 other candidates, that’s 1% each. If there are 10 other candidates, that’s only 0.3% each.
There are some people that won’t change there vote in favour of a minor or micro party, even if they agree 100% with the policies. But even though our campaigns in Wentworth and Bennelong may not have done much numerically, hopefully people will start talking about “that interesting LDP bunch”.
November 25, 2007 at 7:15 pm |
Maybe we could have a website design contest at some point and let the “market” (us) decide — that could be fun. Something for the future. . .
Some of the comments I got yesterday were our policies sound “all over the place” or that we “pick and choose” — in other words, I took them as saying “wishy-washy”. I guess in ten seconds it might sound that way. I don’t believe we are but if that is a public perception we need a name that speaks for itself. I’d really like to see “Libertarian” in the name in some way.
The “John Galt Party” (JGP)?
November 25, 2007 at 7:52 pm |
“Less Tax, More Freedom” Party
That would look great on the ballot paper
e.g.
DOE, John
Less Tax, More Freedom Party
HOWARD, John
Liberal Party
November 25, 2007 at 7:53 pm |
I agree that our policies are too broad and we need more focus during an election campaign. We also need to campaign on topical issues. The electorate was talking about climate change, cost of living (housing, fuel, groceries) and WorkChoices. We should have campaigned using our unpopular viewpoints on some of these issues. Instead we were campaigning on shooters rights, gay rights, low taxes. Something the electorate wasn’t at all focused on.
We need policy credibility so when people come read our site they retain interest. But a lack of credibility isn’t what cost us votes. What cost us votes is people not knowing who we are. Next campaign will be even more about profile building. That means getting better at picking up topical issues. Getting our old name back and making 100% of people know who the LDP is.
I’d rather have 2% agree with us and 100% of people know our name than 2% of people know our name and 10% agree with us.
November 25, 2007 at 8:00 pm |
It seems from the above comments that the name debate won’t die. The reason for this is probably that the current name “Liberty and Democracy” is hard to market. It doesn’t give an idea of what we’re about. Plus, the two words actually contradict each other and can be polar opposites. Democracy doesn’t guarantee liberty.
I’ve recently come around to the view that Libertarian Party of Australia would be a good name. Some reasons:
1. The Greens Party is linked to the world-wide Greens movement…there’s also a Greens Parties in various countries. We could change the name to Libertarian Party and be linked to the global libertarian movement (e.g. Libertarian Party in the US). It would show people straight away that we stand for something different, something bigger than just ourselves.
2. Lots of people have misunderstood us as a right-wing or left-wing party, or a ‘front for the Shooters’. A name change might help get rid of the confusion.
3. The word ‘libertarian’ is odd and new to a lot of people. That’s an advantage.
4. Amother advantage is if people google it, they will come across thousands of libertarian links… this is spreading the ideas far more effectively than if someone googled ‘Liberal Democratic’ or ‘Liberal Democrats’.
5. This Liberty and Democracy name is even worse than Liberal Democratic because it sounds corny/doesn’t mean anything/is too generic.
Why doesn’t someone conduct a poll of members? This name debate can be resolved democratically, since we believe in democracy so much that it’s in our name
November 25, 2007 at 8:06 pm |
I agree that we need to change our name. Possible problems with the name Libertarian is that quite a lot of people seem to think it means ‘extreme left winger’, or confuse it with libertine. In my view we should make another try for Liberal Democrats (a name that has shown its stirling worth) and if we don’t succeed find something competely different. Liberty and Democracy is Bad.
November 25, 2007 at 8:12 pm |
I don’t like the Tarian, in libertarian, sounds like Totalitarian or something.
November 25, 2007 at 8:15 pm |
Shem: “Instead we were campaigning on shooters rights, gay rights, things the electorate wasn’t focusing on.”
At the moment we’re concentrating on getting, say 1%, of the vote. I think that to do that it *may* not matter what the broader electorate is focssing on, if 1% of the electorate cares deeply about gay rights/shooters rights and are being ignored by the majors (who are focussing on getting 50%+1) then we will score. I mean, who here wouldn’t kill to get the ASP’s 1% right now? And they don’t talk about Workchoices.
November 25, 2007 at 8:17 pm |
Liberal Democrats.
November 25, 2007 at 8:17 pm |
November 25, 2007 at 8:17 pm |
We’re libertarians aren’t we? Let’s just call the party that.
The ‘libertine’ link might be made, but at least Libertarian Party rolls off the tongue quicker at polling booths (a bit of practicality perhaps). When people ask us what we’re about we can talk about liberty! and freedom! But we have civil libertarians in Australia, so many people already know what that’s about.
The word liberal has been monopolised by big government conservatives/socialists both here and in the US. This can have good or bad connotations depending on the person. Nevertheless, ‘Liberal Democratic’ is my second choice, but it still doesn’t immediately let the world know we have a uniting set of principles rather than random policies of a right-wing/left-wing nature.
If there was no Liberal Party, then we should’ve gone for that name, as it would have been perfect given our classical liberal principles. But since ‘liberal’ is not an option, libertarian sounds good to me.
November 25, 2007 at 8:18 pm |
We had press releases on the more topical things but they weren’t picked up.
i.e, we need more money.
A party needs in order of importance, money, candidates and ideas.
We have, in order of abundance, ideas, candidates and money.
November 25, 2007 at 8:21 pm |
I’ve actually never heard anyone use the word “libertine”. Interesting.
There are many closet libertarians already in Australia. Having a libertarian party would bring these people out — they are already hanging out in Ron Paul forums. Why can’t we try to educate people about libertarianism rather than avoiding the word? The Greens volunteers thought it meant “extreme right winger”. Why do we have to choose a name to please other people’s perceptions? The newspapers called the LDP “kooky” yet there was nothing overly “kooky” about the name. It’s not the name — it’s us. Well, not me. The rest of you.
This could be a fund-raising opportunity. A vote at some point but only for paid members.
November 25, 2007 at 8:24 pm |
Sukrit,
I don’t think many people in the great Australian public understnad the word ‘libertarian’ terribly well. The public isn’t like us political junkies.
November 25, 2007 at 8:28 pm |
The Australian public didn’t know about a lot of things before somebody tried to sell it to them.
November 25, 2007 at 8:29 pm |
We aren’t going to finish the names debate here. This has been discussed a lot internally and people who are interested may want to get up to speed with the internal party discussion.
It’s easy to see things that have gone wrong… but I’d be interested to hear about what people think the successes have been. I think the Wentworth campaign was a highlight in terms of party coordination. The Solomon campaign is another that deserves a mention.
November 25, 2007 at 8:32 pm |
It’s just a discussion John. Who said anything went wrong? We had a great day.
November 25, 2007 at 8:43 pm |
Money is good, but until we can have a base, where we have 1% of the vote, I can’t see the fund-raising being very useful.
State Electorates in SA are about 20,000 people, so presumably less than 10,000 homes, so if we can focus whatever active libertarians there are on marginal electorates, with probably 10 dedicated people, we could door-knock and give leaflets to an entire electorate.
November 25, 2007 at 9:02 pm |
Michael:
I think it would be more efficient to concentrate on targeting libertarian-rich subgroups rather than the broad electorate itself. Personally, I think the most obvious ‘low hanging fruit’ is non-leftist gays. Shem wrote to some Sydney gay business association a while ago … did you get a reply, Shem? I wrote to their Melbourne sister organisation and J-M Howson but didn’t get any replies. Can anyone else think of other libertarian rich subgroups?
November 25, 2007 at 9:05 pm |
oh, and that pun was totally unintentional.
November 25, 2007 at 9:06 pm |
Mark – I just don’t see how more money would have helped.
We had some funding in Wentworth and we tried 4 different strategies: leafletting at train stations, placing corflute signs around the electorate and handing out how-to-vote cards.
I’m sure it increased our vote overall, but probably not by a huge amount.
The most important thing is to let people know who we are and what we stand for. This may or may not require lots of money.
November 25, 2007 at 9:07 pm |
I agree with John’s assessment that the result was expected for a micro party contesting our first federal election. It will take time for people to accept us as a part of the political scene. Overall, it was a success.
It shows our message is not unpopular. Even with the controversial marijuana and guns policies, and the lack of money we still beat the other micro-parties. Maybe we can approach some of their members where they agree with us and ask them to join the LDP. We’re clearly better organised and in better shape electorally, because we’re not single-issue.
I think we did the right things this campaign. All we need to do next time is the traditional stuff (leaflets, internet campaigns, doorknocking, recruiting, fundraising) except do it for a LONGER period, not just the 6 week campaign. Campaigning should begin seriously one year in advance if we’re serious about winning.
November 25, 2007 at 9:08 pm |
The fourth strategy was getting a company to place posters for us on poles around the electorate.
November 25, 2007 at 9:09 pm |
Lisa — lots of things went wrong and lots of things went right. That’s normal. I was just hoping to spark a discussion about some of the positives from the campaign. For example, the emergence of some quality people taking a more active role.
As for libertarian rich sub-groups — economics students. Seven of my students last semester signed up as LDP candidates.
I also think we should target the Chinese-Australia and other minority groups, who are often sympathetic to ideas such as low tax and high immigration.
November 25, 2007 at 9:11 pm |
P.S. The length of campaiging couldn’t have been changed this time because registration didn’t come till very late. So it was unavoidable. But we’re in good shape now for the next federal election.
I’ve posted some other comments on the LDP activists blog. Is that where the other internal discussion about the name is happening?
November 25, 2007 at 9:20 pm |
What was the party’s budget for this election and how much came from donations? You could try raising donations by door knocking, which would serve the dual purpose of raising party profile/one-to-one interaction with voters/opportunity to explain about party and maybe make raise some money on the side.
November 25, 2007 at 9:27 pm |
For us this election was a success! It gave us a focal point that we could all work together on over the last 6 weeks. As a result, we have become a far more cohesive team, have learned many valuable lessons, and are in much better stead to face the challenges we have ahead. In short, we have raised ourselves to a new level, from which there is no going back.
At Wentworth, the following booths were manned (roughly):
Potts Point: 1 person 8am-6pm
Kings Cross: 2 people 8am-11am, 1 person 11am-2pm
Bondi Junction: 1 person 8am-2pm, 2 people 2pm-3pm, 1 person 3pm-6pm
Bondi: 2 people 8:30am-10:30am
Bondi Beach: 1 person 8:30am-11:30am, 2 people 11:30am-1:30pm, 1 person 1:30pm-3:30pm, 2 people 3:30pm-6pm
South Paddington: 1 person 11am-1pm
Darling Point: 1 person 2pm-6pm
Bellvue Hill: 1 person 3pm-6pm
Thanks to all involved on the day: firstly to JohnZ, Shem Bennett, and Jarrah Job who worked the booths all day; thanks also to Martin Walsh, John Humphreys, Joseph Clark, Jason Soon, and my mates Ryan and Bill who helped out up to half a day each.
Also deserving of thanks are all the people who helped out in the lead up to the election, whether helping in the design, preparation, or printing of campaign materials, putting up signs, or handing out flyers at train stations. They are: JohnZ who was instrumental in all of the above, Shem Bennett, Martin Walsh, Don Nguyen, Jarrah Job, and our friends Mick, Ray, Tracy, Pete, and Ed.
In addition to the above 15 volunteers, I’d also like to thank the many donors who donated funds towards our campaign in Wentworth, without which a lot of what we did would not have been possible.
As for volunteers and donations, my experience has always been (and has been reaffirmed during this campaign) that “professional image” and an “emotionally appealing/catchy message” is just the beginning, not the end of attracting volunteers and donations. What is also needed is energy, drive, passion, enthusiasm, inspiration, and a lot of hard work – ie. we have to be doing stuff, and the more the better. If we’re busy, they will come.
Also, I’m not sure that “volunteers have money.” Volunteers have time. Donors have money. The two are usually not one in the same person. My experience has also been that it is better to have many volunteers each doing a little bit that they are passionate about and can focus on to do well, than to have a few volunteers each doing a lot while not being able to focus on any one thing to do it properly.
As for our policies, I don’t think there is a “one size fits all” policy document. We need detailed policy documents for internal reference, so that we can formulate a comprehensive position on an issue and know that we’re all on the same page, as well as reminding ourselves what exactly that page is when we forget. At the same time, we need far simpler external policy documents for the general public, which are not just cut-down versions of the internal policy documents, but that are also well written in a way to get the most positive emotional response from the general public. In addition, we need punchy one-sentence summaries of our policies for those situations where one-sentence or a few seconds is all the space and time we will get.
I agree that we are presently under-utilising the potential of social networking, as well as viral and guerilla marketing – the “who is” campaign is an excellent suggestion! We need to engage people online, but we also have to do it in real life, particularly in Universities.
Strange that a Greens guy wouldn’t like “Democracy” in our name, since the Greens are built on a grass-roots democracy.
November 25, 2007 at 9:31 pm |
I certainly had a lot of fun handing out htv cards and would definitely do it again. It’s good talking to people and I knew a few personally that came in to vote. Also I agree it’s good to talk to the other people handing out htv cards.
I handed out 100 cards at Runcorn SS (Moreton) in about 90 mins.
November 25, 2007 at 9:33 pm |
Forgot to mention that was during the times 11:45 – 13:15.
November 25, 2007 at 9:33 pm |
The most important thing is to let people know who we are and what we stand for. This may or may not require lots of money.
It requires heaps of money.
It requires TV advertising.
November 25, 2007 at 9:38 pm |
Shem – that’s simply not true.
Everyone knows who the greens are and what they stand for. Prior to 2007, had they ever even run a TV advertisement?
Word of mouth and good media skills are the most important thing. The LDP needs a Bob Brown.
November 25, 2007 at 9:41 pm |
Sorry, “require” is the wrong word.
But heaps on money would be the easiest way to get all of Australia to know us, even if they hated us.
November 25, 2007 at 9:43 pm |
we’ll need a list of all polling booths that were manned and for how long.
JohnZ in Vic we were only able to man booths in Deakin. We had people all day in Blackburn Lake, Blackburn West, and Blackburn North. At about 4pm when things were slowing down at Blackburn Lake I went off to Blackburn Primary (Blackburn North) and did HTV carding there.
So we manned 3 booths for the whole day, and 1 for 2 hours (4-6pm).
I met this really nice but odd Family First girl who told me she didn’t need logic to support a ban on abortion, because she spoke to God directly.
November 25, 2007 at 9:44 pm |
Oops, after the Blackburn West, I meant to say Blackburn South. We did North for 2 hours.
November 25, 2007 at 9:48 pm |
If you go to the house results by division, and the senate results by division, the senate results are well down on the house votes for us. I assume the senate count is incomplete at this stage.
November 25, 2007 at 9:52 pm |
But heaps on money would be the easiest way to get all of Australia to know us, even if they hated us.
True enough, but would it really be a good way to spend a couple of hundred grand?
November 25, 2007 at 10:06 pm |
Word of mouth and good media skills are the most important thing. The LDP needs a Bob Brown.
The greens have hundreds of organisations campaigning on their behalf which have been going for decades. Greenpeace, PETA, ACF etc etc.
They are mostly famous here because of their stupid stunts. Not that every stupid enviro-stunt is actually the work of the greens, but they tend to get the credit anyway.
What the LDP needs is stupid stunts that piss people off enough to make it onto to TV. The trick is to piss off the people we want to piss off, rather than those whose votes we are trying to get.
November 25, 2007 at 10:17 pm |
“Libertarian” siccintly describes what this party is. However judging by the success of the US libertarian party, you should only adopt this name if you want to remain a purist micro-party forever. If you want to promote ideas of classical liberalism in the wider community (rather than preach to the converted), Liberal Democrats will have much broader appeal. I agree with John this can make this party one of the smaller parties pretty soon.
At the moment even many people who already have classical liberal views (such as CIS bunch) do not take LDP seriously. Ibvolving these people should be a priority.
November 25, 2007 at 10:20 pm |
I should add that an extremely broad and largely meaningless term Australian Democrats did work.
November 25, 2007 at 10:26 pm |
The Greens were founded in 1992 with an existing support base of environmental charities and lobby groups. The LDP has an even larger potential base; small business owners, free-market think tanks, sporting shooters, business lobby groups, gambling companies, the sex industry etc.
If we could find people willing to run for councils on an LDP ticket then we’d be popular with property developers.
November 26, 2007 at 1:13 am |
Please change the name to:
Libertarian Democratic Party
Having ‘democracy’ in the name is just lame, it’s a frickin election so the concept of Democracy is hardly a topic of debate and ‘Liberty’ as nice as it is is a buzzword you hear out of American presidents as they justify dropping bombs on people – about the last thing we want to be associated with in peoples minds
Focusing on the Libertarian meaning and marketing that will give a much better base to work on than two basically stupid words (politically) like Liberty & Democracy.
November 26, 2007 at 5:59 am |
Boris, the Libertarian Party seems to be the third-largest party in the US.
http://www.lp.org/article_85.shtml
November 26, 2007 at 9:17 am |
Agreed Mikel.
The Libertarian Party in the US gets a steady 1% of the vote. They don’t win because the US has first past the post, not preferential quotas.
November 26, 2007 at 9:51 am |
I’m sorry Troy but, I’ll never stop promoting “liberty” because of other people’s perception of the word nor do I find it “stupid”.
I hear GWB talk about spreading democracy, not liberty. He wouldn’t know the first thing about it.
November 26, 2007 at 12:24 pm |
How come the CIS don’t take the LDP seriously?
November 26, 2007 at 1:18 pm |
How about joining forces with the Eros Association in the ACT next time?
http://www.eros.org.au/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1
November 26, 2007 at 1:34 pm |
Jason-
They actually endorsed us last Monday.
November 26, 2007 at 9:36 pm |
libchick: surely we can be libertarians without having ‘Liberty & Democracy’ in the name and going on about the ‘torch of freedom’ etc, everyone is probably pretty sick of that dogma these days. No politics is going to openly argue against Liberty or Democracy, so it’s not really up for debate in terms of the way the mainstream see Australia. ‘We’re already a free democracy, wtf are they on about’ is the kind of response i can imagine from the average joe. We all know we’re in a democracy, there’s no need to vote one in.
I also think the name of a party is very important. In my electorate of Corio the LDP candidate got around 500 votes. We probably could have got 5000 simply by naming the party ‘Free Beer Party’. Let’s face it ‘LDP’ means nothing to anyone and if they look further and see ‘Liberty & Democracy’ well it just comes across as pointless IMO.
November 26, 2007 at 9:54 pm |
You didn’t bother to read my earlier posts. You’re preaching to the choir about the name. Before I got flamed last night, I said I preferred libertarian in the name, but it isn’t up to me.
My problem is with you overgeneralising. How can you speak for all Australians? Many of them have no clue what liberty means.We should be educating people rather than running away from such “stupid” terms just because the average joe would rather belong to the “beer party”. What libertarian is embarrassed by his/own message?
This is a marketing issue more than a name issue.
November 27, 2007 at 2:51 pm |
It is a marketing issue, and one of the principles of marketing is to sell the benefits, rather than the features. For example, the features of a car is that it’s a red sportscar. The benefit is how you feel good driving and owning it.
So we need to think, what are the benefits of all the freedoms we are in favour of, how would life be better, and how would one feel, enjoying all those benefits. Then we need a name or phrase that conveys that.
November 28, 2007 at 12:45 am |
As for controversial policies you should let the libertarian concept speak for itself. If you campaign on things that are repugnant to many people, such as abortion and “gay” rights, which are already thoroughly owned by the left-wing Greens and Labor and Australian Democrat socialists, then that will drive away regular people, who might want to support a libertarian party for its policies of reducing the burden of government!
I didn’t see any great problem with the name Liberty and Democracy Party, except that it wasn’t spelled out on the ballot, unlike all sorts of other parties that managed to get their names fully spelled out on the ballot! How’s that “What Women Want” party?! I thought “which women?” Imagine if it had been simply “www” on the ballot? At least I could guess that they might be some bunch of radical feminists.
November 29, 2007 at 9:10 pm |
A few points. Ms Milat has set this party back decades (with her appearance on the Chaser). You ran too far too fast by trying too many candidates and not properly selecting competent people. Secondly you need to argue your policies that don’t alienate (e.g. tax, federalism, free trade) – it doesn’t mean abandoning the other, but the firearms policy should not be front of mind. Next the hierarchy have done a poor job of promoting the party in the mainstream media – was Ron Paul’s success not a free kick with which to align yourselves? Finally you (we) are Libertarians – stop messing around and call the party that.
Hope to be part of it someday.
Regards
November 29, 2007 at 9:56 pm |
Yes please, let your firearms policy not be “front of mind” whatever that means. We want all the shooters to come to us, after all, we care much more about them than your party,
It is very naughty of you libertines to be trying to steal our voters whilst dismissing their genuine needs. Oh, if you need a vote winner, when you are lobbying in for gay rights, why don’t you advocate that polygamy be legalised.
November 30, 2007 at 12:11 pm |
Is it just me or does TopGun’s post not make a lick of sense?
November 30, 2007 at 12:39 pm |
Newton: Hewson “sent the GST back decades”, re more of ACA’s sub par journalism and a little bit of cake.
Since very few people still know who we are – the effect is miniscule.
“You’ve done a poor job…Ron Paul”.
It’s hard work – you could have written press releases. The press virtually ignored us. Elections aren’t cheap, people wanted the earth but won’t stump up cash.
Only libertarians in Australia really know who Ron Paul is- preaching to the converted might get more candidates but that is about it.
Our candidates were good. How were they flawed – a couple of incidents where we don’t have spin doctors. Get over it.
The name is not so easy – Australian Libertarian Party – (ALP). It something we can’t seem to agree on.
You’ll join when we’re good enough for you – you must be like the Arabs waiting for the jewel to fall out of the sky into the Kabaa. Your input is always appreciated but when people join, doante, volunteer, run as candidates and have input, they are more useful. We want you to be more useful.
Top Gun – more people are in favour of gay marriage than guns. I don’t think it is right, but guns are more “libertine” as comapred to what a lot people see as a legitiamte lifestyle choice.
Furthermore, we aren’t libertines – our beliefs are close to: “you broke it, you bought for it”, e.g personal responsibility. It isn’t that hard to distinguish us from libertines. We’re more like Barry Goldwater republicans.
Ian – “reducing the burden of Government” is preaching to the converted. People want to know how things will affect them – i.e we will allow you to marry who you like, pay less tax, etc. We need to push both angles.
November 30, 2007 at 2:08 pm |
“Only libertarians in Aus really know who Ron paul is – preaching to the converted.”
The first part is correct, the second not. I think there are quite a few libertarians in Aus who heard of Ron Paul but never heard of LDP.
November 30, 2007 at 2:23 pm |
I heard of Ron Paul, then heard of libertarianism. A lot of people with an interest in politics will find out about libertarianism through Ron Paul.
December 1, 2007 at 1:31 pm |
If my earlier post came across as overly critical, I apologise. I’m just giving an honest assessment from someone who has followed the party, voted for it but is not a member. At the end of the day you need to win the hearts and minds of people who don’t sit on this blog.
While it would be an enormous achievement to slip it through the editorial comrades of our major dailys, I expect some savvy journalist will write an article about Ron Paul’s campaign in the next twelve months. Hopefully at the time this party gets mentioned for its values and not for Ms Milat.
Rgds
December 1, 2007 at 7:05 pm |
Good arguments for/against the various names.
I am now happy with either Libertarian Party or Liberal Democratic Party. I think Libertarian is just better (short’n'accurate) and I no longer think name-recognition is important, because we are only hunting for a few % of the vote at this stage, and once we have that, people will know the party like they know Family First, the Greens (when they started getting a few %) and One Nation.
Also, won’t we be banned from having that name, wasn’t our last name banned because it had “Liberal” in it?
I agree with focusing on a few key issues, especially the ones other parties completely ignore.
December 1, 2007 at 7:07 pm |
No you weren’t. But the party is better off if you join.
December 1, 2007 at 10:17 pm |
Let’s go for the names of either
Liberty Party of Australia (LPA)
………………….OR……………………
Australian Freedom Party (AFP)
Freedom Party and liberty party are short, sweet and to the point. And most of all they mean something to both the general public and Libertarians/Classical liberals.
I don’t like the name “Australian Libertarian Party” for one reason; it is not a broadly known ideology, especially in Australia. This ignorance will probably lead the media to manipulate and misconstrue libertarianism, labelling it as an extreme and fringe ideology (especially since libertarianism can encompass anarcho-capitalism). So just because WE as libertarians know what libertarianism is doesn’t mean the party should be named that way. To me it would be kind of like calling a dog by its scientific classification ~Canis lupus familiaris~ while trying to have a conversation with a normal person. So why call the party the Australian Libertarian Party when you can call us the Liberty Party OR Freedom Party. At least you can’t attach a stigma to the word liberty or freedom.
*Please don’t argue that “But we can educate people on the name (Libertarian Party)” because this party will probably be dead in the water before even given the chance to counter the medias onslaught and the misconceptions of the public. I mean come on, this is politics not a class room, people will take advantage of this ignorance and destroy the party along with its principles.
December 4, 2007 at 12:09 am |
I agree that our policies are too broad and we need more focus during an election campaign. We also need to campaign on topical issues. The electorate was talking about climate change, cost of living (housing, fuel, groceries) and WorkChoices. We should have campaigned using our unpopular viewpoints on some of these issues.
Seriously? You should pick your most unpopular beliefs and run on those?
A lot of you guys need to seriously think about what you are trying to accomplish with the LDP. If it’s to promote libertarian ideas, the Australian Libertarian Society already exists. If it’s to try to achieve actual results, you should drop all the ideological bullshit and come back to the core message – tax is too high and there are too many laws governing personal behavior.
“Libertarian” siccintly describes what this party is. However judging by the success of the US libertarian party, you should only adopt this name if you want to remain a purist micro-party forever. If you want to promote ideas of classical liberalism in the wider community (rather than preach to the converted), Liberal Democrats will have much broader appeal. I agree with John this can make this party one of the smaller parties pretty soon.
At the moment even many people who already have classical liberal views (such as CIS bunch) do not take LDP seriously. Ibvolving these people should be a priority.
Bingo. I am easily in the top 0.5% most libertarian people in the nation and I did not want to run for the LDP because frankly I would have been embarrassed to have my name associated with the policy documents. Several times I mentioned to friends and family that I was considering running, and after reading through the LDP website their response was invariably to ask me “Have you read this shit?”. I don’t mind being in the same party as whichever lunatic wrote that stuff about privatising endangered species when we share policy goals, but cmon it would be nice to feel some love flowing in the other direction.
Less tax. More personal liberty. That’s all the LDP message needs to be. The Kyoto Protocol et al are side issues compared to the tax and welfare burden suffocating this nation.
December 4, 2007 at 10:55 am |
You could call it the Australian Librarian Party, that way it would at least attract the votes of some librarians.
Oh BTW, if you did propose laws to legitimize polygamy, you would merely be endorsing something which many Australians regard as a reasonable lifestyle choice.
December 4, 2007 at 2:09 pm |
[...] final result was pretty much as expected. We picked up an average of about 0.4% in House seats and just under 0.2% in the Senate. We had the [...]
December 4, 2007 at 8:38 pm |
the Australian Libertarian Society already exists.
Really. When was its last meeting?
I am easily in the top 0.5% most libertarian people in the nation
I don’t think so. The Woolemi Pine was privatised by the NSW Labor government, hardly a paragon of libertarian thinking. The Greens opposed it.
And the Earth Sanctuaries concept is alive and well too, supported by both sides of politics.
Nope, I reckon you’re a statist Liberal who just favours less tax.
December 5, 2007 at 10:11 am |
Chris,
Did you try to defend the policies – I think your biggest problem may have been PR rather than policy.
Or did they just say “this is shit”? Did you ask them why it was shit, and the alternatives offered by Rudd and Nelson are any better?
I can’t see a problem with
- economic policy with the greatest benfit over all other alternatives
- the freeest social policy and repeal of policies which the designers of now renounce as pointless – e.g the national firearms “agreement”
- environmental policy that actually demands the Government stop encouraging pollution before it forces everyone else to cut back
can you? Perhaps you should have pointed this out to your friends.