[Lnc-business] [Lnc-votes] Fwd: Remaining Members of Judicial Committee Fill Vacancies

Fri Jun 3 11:48:12 EDT 2016

I disagree with these comments.  It is certainly true that we have no idea
how the seated people would have fared at the convention.  It is also true,
though, that we do know how the other candidates fared - they didn't
receive a majority in an approval voting context.  I would agree with
Starchild if we were using some system where the ability of a delegate to
voice support for candidates is limited.  However, in approval voting, I
see only two meanings to failing to vote for a person:  disapproval, and
having no idea who the person is (or something similar).  People generally
disapprove of putting people on about whom they know nothing, and so that's
a sort of disapproval, too.

It's true that there is a problem of active vs. passive bias here - I would
prefer that we used disapproval voting, which also gives a more sensible
meaning to later rounds of balloting.

Similarly to Starchild, my remarks are not reflective of any political
preference, as the next 4 highest vote-getters seem to me to be very
qualified for the JC.

By the way, I also don't agree with the implied statement that none of the
non-majority candidates should be seated.  The bylaws are quite clear here,
both in the case of the LNC and of the JC, in assigning the task in an open
manner to the existing members.  The delegates stated that they wished for
those people to exercise this power when they adopted the bylaws as they
exist.  Those doing the appointing should consider the candidates who did
not receive a majority, as well as anyone they think is qualified.  If
appointing non-majority candidates, though, they should not say they are
honoring the will of the delegates, but rather should say "these are the
people we have chosen," the same as they would in any other circumstance.
When a vacancy exists outside of the convention, it is their choice and
their responsibility, regardless of what mechanism they might choose to
use.

It is not the case, either, that there are any clear customs here.  The LNC
used that process to seat at-large members on Monday, but did not use it to
fill officer vacancies in past terms, for example.  Arguably, it would make
more sense for officer vacancies because there is a limit to votes cast by
each delegate.  I think it is rather contradictory, though, to claim that
the will of the delegates is to seat people who were approved of by less
than half of the delegates voting.

Joshua A. Katz
Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 11:20 AM, <sfdreamer at earthlink.net> wrote:

> This approach of committees filling their own vacancies without regard to
> convention delegates' preferences on the grounds that only a minority of
> candidates for those vacancies received the affirmative approval of a
> majority of delegates seems ill-advised to me. Failing to receive such
> approval is clearly not the same thing as receiving the delegates' active
> *disapproval*. Nor is there any guarantee that subsequently appointed
> members of a committee would have received majority approval at convention.
> It is possible that one or more individuals appointed in this case would
> have received a lower approval percentage than the four next highest
> vote-getters at the convention had they chosen to actively run for seats on
> the Judicial Committee.
>
> *We seem to have a situation in which a majority of the candidates for
> office receiving the most votes at convention are routinely not meeting the
> 50% threshold required by "approval voting". Thus if the method employed by
> the remaining members of the Judicial Committee in proposing to fill the
> vacancies were to become standard practice, the result could be a
> significant disenfranchisement our membership*. it raises the prospect
> that an individual could have a better chance of getting onto a committee
> by privately expressing his or her interest in serving to the existing
> committee members, than by actually running for the position and seeking
> the approval of convention delegates. I do not think LP members anticipated
> or desired such an outcome when they were convinced to adopt approval
> voting.
>
> I therefore urge the members of the Judicial Committee to reconsider this
> decision, and appoint the next four highest vote-getters to the four seats
> in question, as the LNC did in filling the majority of its vacancies which
> were similarly unfilled as a result of m Indeed ost of the delegates'
> choices not receiving more than 50% of the vote. My recommendation is not
> based on any political favoritism toward those individuals – with whose
> identities I am in any case not acquainted – or any animus toward Michael
> Badnarik, John Buttrick, Bill Hall, and Rob Latham, all of whom strike me
> as sound and well-qualified choices. I write strictly from the point of
> view of upholding bottom-up, grassroots governance in the Libertarian Party.
>
> Love & Liberty,
>                             ((( starchild )))
> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>                           (415) 625-FREE
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lnc-votes at hq.lp.org
> Sent: Jun 3, 2016 8:41 AM
> To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> Subject: Re: [Lnc-votes] [Lnc-business] Fwd: Remaining Members of Judicial
> Committee Fill Vacancies
>
> I have been asked by a member in my region to inquire:
>
> Can someone verify eligibility for the three elected and 4 appointed
> members? Specifically, can the " All Judicial Committee members shall have
> been Party members at least four years at the time of their selection."
> portion?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Brett C. Bittner
>
> brett at brettbittner.com
> 404.492.6524
>
> "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much
> liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 12:20 AM, Alicia Mattson <secretary at lp.org> wrote:
>
>> Forwarding a message by request.
>>
>> -Alicia
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Gary Johnson <sedition at aol.com>
>> Date: Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 9:03 PM
>> Subject: Remaining Members of Judicial Committee Fill Vacancies
>> To: secretary at lp.org, AliciaDearn at bellatrixlaw.com, chuck at moulton.org,
>> scholar at constitutionpreservation.org, jabuttrick at gmail.com, whall at wnj.com,
>> rob at roblatham.pro
>> Cc: Rebecca Sink-Burris <rebecca.sinkburris at gmail.com>, Roger Roots <
>> rogerroots at msn.com>, Michael Dixon <dixonconsultinginc at gmail.com>, M
>> Carling <mcarling at gmail.com>, John Bowers <bojo3191 at aol.com>, Michael
>> Kielsky <Michael at krazlaw.com>, mikeljane <mikeljane at gmail.com>, steven r
>> Linnabary <linnabary51 at gmail.com>, Robert Jim Fulner <
>> jim.fulner at member.fsf.org>, "Christopher R. Maden" <crism at maden.org>,
>> Jeffrey Mortenson <jwmort at yahoo.com>, Thomas Robert Stevens <
>> drtomstevens at aol.com>, Tom Lippman <tnlippman at juno.com>
>>
>>
>> Dear Alicia Mattson,
>>
>> Please post this message online on the LNC Business list:
>>
>> The Judicial Committee is supposed to have seven members. Only three
>> received a majority in the approval voting process at the 2016 national
>> convention.
>>
>> The three members of the Judicial Committee elected by the delegates,
>> Alicia Dearn, Gary Johnson of Texas, and Chuck Moulton, have communicated
>> by email.
>>
>> We have ruled unanimously that, as the "remaining members" of the
>> committee, we have the authority to fill vacancies, although we are less
>> than the quorum of five specified in the bylaws.
>>
>> We have decided informally to reject, by 1 to 2, the idea of filling the
>> vacancies with the next four vote getters.
>>
>> We have decided unanimously to fill the vacancies with four individuals
>> who were not nominated at the convention and therefore were not
>> "disapproved" of by a majority of the delegates in the approval voting
>> process.
>>
>> We have voted unanimously by email ballot to fill the vacancies with
>> Michael Badnarik, John Buttrick, Bill Hall, and Rob Latham.
>>
>> Alicia Dearn
>> Gary Johnson
>> Chuck Moulton
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "lncvotes" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to lncvotes+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20160603/32a6740d/attachment-0002.html>