[Lnc-business] [Lnc-votes] Fwd: Remaining Members of Judicial Committee Fill Vacancies
Caryn Ann Harlos
carynannharlos at gmail.com
Sat Jun 4 20:07:16 EDT 2016
Hello everyone, I am bringing this up at the request of a member.that
discussions on LNC business issues should be between the elected/appointed
LNC members unless a specific allowance was made for committee members on
specific issues. The objection was Mr. Ludlow's participation in the JC
discussion. If I am misunderstanding anything, please correct me.... I am
trying to do my duty to member requests and will make "new person" mistakes.
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Region 1 Representative
(Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming,
Washington)
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Kevin Ludlow <ludlow at gmail.com> wrote:
> "the approval voting method is problematic and should be scrapped"
>
> I don't believe this to be a true statement. There are flaws to approval
> voting. There are flaws to traditional voting. There are likely flaws to
> all other methods in between. Approval voting has been very successful in
> Texas over the years, but then again we're fairly experienced with its
> nuances at this point.
>
> There are numerous reasons that our process doesn't -- or really I should
> say, didn't -- work. Take the LNC vote for example. There were 19 people
> on stage. They gave 1 minute speeches. This happened while other chaos
> was going on. The names weren't even put on the screen until long after
> the voting started. I'm not in any way trying to assign fault or blame for
> the limitations/practicalities of the situation we were in, not even a
> little, but these factors factually DID contribute to the outcome.
>
> Many people didn't even know 5 names out of those 19, much less
> necessarily agree with those 5 people if they did know them, so how could
> we possibly expect a majority to be reached?
>
> The JC was even more problematic as I think many of the people on that
> list are even less known to the general party (my logic only being that the
> LNC is much more outward facing than the JC - the latter which is much more
> behind the scenes).
>
> There are mechanisms in place for fixing this; we chose or perhaps even
> choose not to use them. Creating objective criteria for the candidates and
> enforcing it is one suggestion. Perhaps if not every person in the
> audience could raise their hand and walk onto the stage we'd have a
> different outcome.
>
> I understand these things are seen conspiratorially as mechanisms to
> limit, restrict, and ultimately funnel a certain type of candidate, but I
> strongly reject that premise. At some point basic practicalities need to
> be factored. I believe that approaching this practically would yield a
> much stronger process, not a weaker one on the often ridiculous claims that
> "a person was excluded" because the criteria is "too hard" or whatever.
> Plus, there are plenty of people sympathetic to that conspiracy that help
> craft such rules. Presumably they would ensure the limitations are not
> "too great". Not to mention that in the absence of such a thing, we still
> find ourselves in a conspiracy situation whereby the JC just appointed 4
> people they saw fit for the job - the body be damned. And let's do call a
> spade a spade, that's exactly what has happened. Do those people have
> special interests in the 4 they chose? I doubt it, but surely some will
> claim that (and I'm sure already have).
>
> So anyway, just like the suggestion from Caryn the other day to have
> numbered ballots for regular voting (of which Texas did happen to have and
> I strongly agree with her on), I think we're still just a little immature
> with our approach. Rather than one method outright being scrapped (a
> method that was chosen by the body in 2014 I might add), we might consider
> the practical limitations of what happens when ~50 people adorn the stage
> for 12 positions with 400 people voting for them. It seems pretty
> mathematically intuitive from the start that it will fail.
>
> ~k
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 11:54 AM, <sfdreamer at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> That's as it may be Joshua, but it doesn't change the fact that this
>> action amounts to a de facto transfer of power from the membership as
>> represented by the delegates in convention to a smaller number of incumbent
>> party leaders. As you and I have discussed before, the approval voting
>> method is problematic and should be scrapped, but unless/until that
>> happens, I think it should be implemented in the manner most conducive to
>> bottom-up governance.
>>
>> Since we have no idea how delegates feel about individuals whose names
>> did not appear on their ballots, it seems to me that means filling vacant
>> positions from among those who sought the positions in the order in which
>> they received the votes of delegates, except in cases where a candidate
>> received fewer votes than None of the Above.
>>
>> Love & Liberty,
>> ((( starchild )))
>> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>> RealReform at earthlink.net
>> (415) 625-FREE
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Joshua Katz
>> Sent: Jun 3, 2016 11:48 AM
>> To: Starchild , lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] [Lnc-votes] Fwd: Remaining Members of
>> Judicial Committee Fill Vacancies
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ========================================================
> Kevin Ludlow
> 512-773-3968
> http://www.kevinludlow.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Region 1 Representative
(Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming,
Washington)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20160604/030ad09a/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list