Step 1: get underpants
Step 2: ?
Step 3: profit!

No. I did not visit the website. I just took a wild guess that the website was the same old bullshit about public financing and legislation.

Pretty much sums it up, doesn't it? Why should anyone bother with your website/idea if you can't be bothered to even look at theirs?

As has been pointed out to you, most people don't really care that much about your issue, and even less about your particular solution. In most people's minds campaign finance reform is not the One issue to rule them all, One issue to find them, One issue to bring them all and in the darkness bind them. To move your issue forward, you really need to work all angles. This website and others like them, to which you choose to ignore, are on your side. You are all working toward the same end. Collectively, if you work together, support each other and attack all fronts, not just your chosen one, you might have an effect. If you act like sects of a religion, think only you have the true path and treat all other sects as heathen, you will all fail...

doris haddock, the NH group's founder, walked over three thousand miles at age 90 to bring attention to campaign finance reform, got arrested reading the declaration of independence in the capitol, and ran a REAL small donation campaign for senate, not just as a spoiler like ralph nader or cynthia nixon, but as the actual democratic candidate. ultimately she ran into the same problem you're running into, people generally don't care as much about campaign finance reform as they do about other issues, but she and the organization she left behind have certainly done a lot more to earn attention than you have.

JL

NHrebellion has done extensive direct citizen action, not just lobbying for better legislation.

http://www.nhrebellion.org/theplan

You seem to forget that voters put representatives in office to enact legislation and to, some extent, oversee how it is implemented. That's why they are called legislators.

"Why do we need legislation to solve a problem that citizens can solve by using the tools provided by our founding fathers- our votes?"

I dunno - if God had meant man to fly, why didn't he give us tickets?

Old fashioned citizen activism focused on legislative reform. I'm inspired! Very NH-ish!

Did you even read The website? They were inspired by a real small donation candidate and are dedicated to getting big money out of politics. The many reasons your organization will fail and theirs may not fall into four categories, which I'll address soon...

if you want to know a better way to do what you're attempting, look here:

http://www.nhrebellion.org/

JL

Excellent, TS! He won't listen. In fact, tune in tomorrow when DH claims you never discussed it; his same BS over and over ad nauseam.

JL makes a great point too. DH's "magical way" is trolling... except he's achieving nothing and for some ridiculous reason thinks that'll change if he continues to whine that no one is addressing his issue when near everyone already has. Him not liking the responses he's getting is his problem... not ours... but him thinking he's going to get a different response is borderline insanity.

Excellent, TS! He won't listen. In fact, tune in tomorrow when DH claims you never discussed it; his same BS over and over ad nauseam.

JL makes a great point too. DH's "magical way" is trolling... except he's achieving nothing and for some ridiculous reason thinks that'll change if he continues to whine that no one is addressing his issue when near everyone already has. Him not liking the responses he's getting is his problem... not ours... but him thinking he's going to get a different response is borderline insanity.

"Are you willing to say that the scenarios in comment 2 are not correct? If not, why not?"

Sorry for the late reply, but Oh My, Yes!

Here goes:

1. Your scenarios are generic. Real elections are not. Time, place and current events are important. It is not credible to assign vanilla percentages like you do.

2. You assume enough voters are single issue voters to make your strategy politically viable. This flies against political science studies that show most voters are NOT driven by a single issue. Campaign financing is rarely what motivates a single issue voting.

3. You further assume that YOUR single issue is the dominant one, and will out compete other single issues like party preference, abortion,race,sex,Israel, Muslims etc. etc. etc.

4. You assume that small donation single issue voters know you exist and can therefore be mobilized by your efforts. Website and piggy backing at CW.com suggest this is not the case.

5. You assume that enough quality candidates are willing to commit to running on small donations only. Or rich, self financed candidates? Would that be better?

6. You assume the above small money candidates can actually win elections, or that they and they and their supporters are OK with simply being political spoilers.

7. You assume there is a mechanism in place to give everybody reasonable assurance the One Demand candidates doesn't cheat.

8. Your strategy does nothing to combat Dark Money. Dark Money could be used to make One Demand candidates into more effective spoilers....and I think it would be completely legal to do so.

people care about many issues, and when people are asked why they vote (or not), campaign finance isn't even in the running. The last candidate that i know of to run primarily on a campaign finance platform was doris haddock of new hampshire. in spite of her personal popularity, she lost by 32 points to a wall street lobbyist.

russ has mentioned many times the reasons why single-issue voting is not for most people, and if it were, why campaign finance would not be at the top of his list, nor most people's list. here's the most recent data:

http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/4-top-voting-issues-in-2016-election/

so, unless you have some new magical way of making people care about your cause more than they already care about all those other causes, to continue soliciting CW and his readers is really not appropriate, and in some states possibly illegal.

JL

The website was working when I checked it last week and is working now.

Wrong again, Don.

I comment here because I want CW to address One Demand.

You troll the author and therefore the entire group; yes, we know.

Why don't you stop trolling me and complaining about my comments and address the substance of my comments?

Been there, done that. You seem to NOT understand what trolling is. Do you understand that people aren't interested in discussing your repetitive solicitations?

Are you willing to say that the scenarios in comment 2 are not correct? If not, why not?

Not interested. Sell it somewhere else. Get your own blog. :)

It does bring up a possibly more catastrophic problem. You seem to be invisible to google. A mixture of never updating your site mixed with an unfortunate name conflict. Google seriously penalizes you in it's search algorithm for having a stale site. You really need to add to it regularly to keep google and the rest of the search engines interested (and probably humans as well, but we have already gone over that...). Though One Demand is a much better name than Voucher Vendetta, it is too close to "on Demand" as in on demand TV, a vastly more searched for term. Unless you update with fresh content on a regular basis, television is going to beat you out every time and kick you back to beyond five or six pages of results, which is a far as I bothered to look and probably more than most people will...

Somebody needs to intervene before the Doc goes on bender, crashes his car and self-medicates his injuries.

What neilm said. Probably hardly anyone shifted between D and R; probably almost all the shift was in turnout.

Fair point, but there is a lot of published political science arguing that both party loyalty and party mobillization are currently very volatile and have been for decades.

Kick-4

Amen. There appears to be no there there. On so many levels.

I am now returning to Orangey Snickets, A Series of
Unfortunate Polirical Events featuring Michael Avenatti and Stormy Daniels.:)

Of course, no one can participate in One Demand at the present time because your website is dead again, Don. Why don't you fix it and preach your solicitations from there instead of trolling others to do it for you? :)

If I were a candidate looking for ideas for television commercials, I believe I would look no further than this clip right here:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4670827/trump-5th-amendment

This reasoning is correct if 100% of the electorate voted in both elections. But it is more likely that almost nobody switched their votes, but that Republicans who voted in 2016 didn't turn up yesterday and a bunch of Democrats who didn't bother last time around are pissed and got out and voted.

Elections seem to be more about losing due to apathy vs. enthusiasm rather than changing people's minds.