Livestream for Day 2, Libertarian National Convention July 2, 2018
By Jill Pyeatt on July 2, 2018 10:49 AM
Jill Pyeatt is a small-business owner and jewelry designer from Southern California. She currently serves on the Judicial Committee of the Libertarian Party of CA. She can be found on Facebook and Twitter.
It’s been tried a number of places, but not successfully in any of those I know.
“Let me know if you find one. Attempts I have seen made have brought in less than the cost of the mailing.”
I would think this would have to be done locally by volunteers – phone calls, e-mails or mailings. Takes time and seed money . Every registered Republican in my area gets numerous mailings at election time (and some probably give money) but the registered Libertarians never hear a darn thing . Actually, it is surprising how many register Libertarian without any contact from the Party. In my county, 2,000+ registered but county party is always struggling to re-organize. (Trying again on July 10th)
OK, then by that measure we are growing.
However, it only works in about half the states as many states either have no registration by party or do but LP is not one of the options.
Let me know if you find one. Attempts I have seen made have brought in less than the cost of the mailing.
“The club membership model is becoming less popular in general,”
Certainly seems to be true for service organizations whose goals are not to change the world. Maybe our growth metric should be “registered Libertarians?” That would be a better measure of success for the growth of the LP in state and local communities, and would solve the whole “pledge vs. no pledge” debate. Then find a way for LNC to tap contributions from registered Libertarians and not just those who sign the pledge. Like religious organizations, the very great majority of money raised should be at and to the local level. LNC is still too top down; by now in its existence the state parties should be greatly more important and self-sufficient. Those running for LNC offices are obligated to address growth issues and delegates are obligated to take their voting decisions seriously.
2016 led to 20k membership, which was higher than it had been in over a decade, although it did come back down as it usually does in the post-election year. Revenue is in fact up despite the membership level being back down to around what it was, as we are apparently getting better at getting contributions from the members we do have.
The club membership model is becoming less popular in general, from what I have read, but if you have ideas on how to revive it by all means please share them.
I did see a lot of people lining up for new life memberships at the gala last night. I expect many of those will be making additional, and in some cases substantial, contribution.
“Revenues are already growing, and membership tends to grow in anticipation of and during presidential campaigns. By how much depends on the appeal level of the candidates who seek and receive said nomination.”
So 2008, 2012 and 2016 campaigns led to essentially level results? Blaming poor candidates, even with record vote totals, or management doesn’t know how to translate votes into membership and revenue growth? 40 years of excuses.
Revenues are already growing, and membership tends to grow in anticipation of and during presidential campaigns. By how much depends on the appeal level of the candidates who seek and receive said nomination.
Business has started, credential update first followed by second round of vice chair voting.
Congratulations to Nick Sarwark. Now, what concrete proposals is he making to end ten years of stagnating membership and revenue growth?
Little bit too much of appeal to noisy special interests in platform, IMHO. (Even if I’m a member of some of those S.I.s,)
Comments are closed.