[Lnc-business] Put the LNC at-large vacancy to a straw poll of the 2016 convention delegates via email?
Caryn Ann Harlos
carynannharlos at gmail.com
Sun Jul 3 15:00:59 EDT 2016
Starchild,
As always I admire *your sincerity and integrity*. And I think your
suggestions on potential ways to do things for the future very good.
On this issue, I maintain my objection to polling delegates, even if it
were opened up to everyone. First, certain people honoured our Party by
choosing to run. They made that commitment then, and to re-open the field
to have another convention-like vote seems to contravene that. Second,
some delegates chose to only come to vote for President and Vice-President
and didn't stay for Party elections. To then open it up when the
commitment to stay was not made by all again seems unfair to those who
did. Voluntary associations have certain things they bargain on, and this
is substantially widening the method without their consent.
I wrote to the state chairs of my region for their input since I am their
representative to see how they would like me to advocate as well. If
members of my region are reading this, my phone and email are open to you
for your concerns.
Starchild is spot on that "the LNC can effectively give itself more power
by limiting the time available for delegates to do party business, so that
decisions which delegates were not allowed the time to make go by default
to the LNC." None of that has to be done by design for certainly that was
not the design here, but it is the effect. Which is why I believe that the
only way we can make the best out of a bad situation is to treat it as it
if were ranked-choice and go with the next in line. We already did that for
three vacant seats, *including the one we are now voting on*. There has
been no argument at all made as to why it was okay then and not okay now.
It was either the right thing to do then... and assumedly now.... or it was
wrong then.
If we were six months down the road, I would be saying something else. But
we are not. We are not even one meeting out.
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
Harlos at LP.org
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
<http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
<http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>
On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net> wrote:
> I agree that any new election held among the delegates should be open to
> anyone, not just those who ran in Orlando – that's the whole point. Caryn
> is of course right that we have a precedent in the way we already filled
> two seats (mine included), and it would be in accord with that precedent to
> fill subsequent vacancies from the next-highest vote-getters as she
> suggests (though Ken raises an interesting question about the cut-off
> point). But although I definitely see that method as preferable to simply
> having the LNC fill the vacancies, I tend to feel that polling the 2016
> delegates electronically would be even better, so long as the process is
> open and transparent with individual delegates able to see how their
> specific votes were recorded, thus avoiding the main danger of electronic
> voting, that it could somehow be rigged or hacked.
>
> As many of you are probably aware, I believe the Libertarian Party would
> be healthier and more sustainably libertarian, not to mention a better
> model for society, if its governance were more firmly in the hands of its
> grassroots activists. Nominally, the ultimate power in the party does rest
> in the hands of a large body of members, the delegates selected to serve as
> a kind of Congress at our national conventions. Unfortunately, the
> delegates' ability to truly exercise their role as the party's highest
> decision-making body is severely limited by the infrequency and short
> duration of our conventions (only a couple days every two years).
>
> The convention schedules are of course set either directly or through
> appointees by the LNC, which is in many ways the *de facto* highest
> decision-making body of the party throughout the vast majority of the year
> (all the time except at conventions)*. This means that under the current
> approach, the LNC can effectively give itself more power by limiting the
> time available for delegates to do party business, so that decisions which
> delegates were not allowed the time to make go by default to the LNC. That
> is a dangerous built-in conflict of interest and a recipe for gradual
> centralization of power and control within the party, as if in the U.S.
> government the executive branch were allowed to limit the meeting time
> available to the legislative branch.
>
> Perhaps the most obvious solution to this problem is make conventions
> longer and allocate more time for party business, and I do favor that. But
> another solution, which could be enacted either in conjunction with longer
> convention business sessions or on its own in the meantime, would be to
> effectively enable at least some aspects of that business to be conducted
> *between* conventions, electronically. Instead of serving only at
> conventions, delegates selected for a national convention could essentially
> retain their delegate status until the following convention.
>
> Since there is at present no Bylaws provision enabling delegates to
> formally elect anyone between conventions, any LNC action to allow the
> delegates a voice in things like who is seated to fill vacancies would need
> to take the form of a straw poll, with the LNC voluntarily agreeing in
> advance to make its appointment(s) in accord with the poll results.
>
> I realize my openness to another method of filling Marc Allan Feldman's
> sadly vacated seat than the method by which I myself was seated as one of
> the all but two candidates who were not affirmatively approved by a
> majority of those voting may appear like a disingenuous attempt to pull the
> ladder up after me, however the idea of polling the delegates by email only
> now occurred to me as we've been discussing this thread. As evidence of my
> sincerity, I will offer that if we adopt the practice of polling the
> delegates as I'm suggesting, I would be willing to have my at-large
> appointment rescinded and resubmit my name for election.
>
> Love & Liberty,
> ((( starchild )))
> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee (2016-2018)
> RealReform at earthlink.net
> (415) 625-FREE
>
> *Without getting into the question here of whether the party chair and
> staff hold the *real* de facto power!
>
>
> On Jul 3, 2016, at 7:52 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>
> We used this method just over a month ago to seat two of our present
> members. I strongly urge considering that not even one meeting has passed
> that we be consistent and use that method in this time. While definitely
> imperfect it measures two thing: the wishes of the delegates and the fact
> that these persons cared enough to run for the position. This early from
> the convention, I would be highly reluctant to vote for someone who had not
> previously run. Why not? These people did run, and the fact is that we do
> not know the ultimate preferences of the delegates since they were (utterly
> unfairly in my mind) denied the chance for subsequent ballots. The next in
> line candidates are close in number to ones we have seated, and if that was
> legitimate (and it passed), this is legitimate. I see absolutely no reason
> not to follow the precedent we set just over a month ago. If more time had
> passed, then yes. And are there issues with our current system? Yes
> (though I would solve them differently than Ken suggested... maybe). But
> that is a rabbit trail that is neither here nor there to issue before us.
>
> We have a precedent. If we torpedo it now, we basically are saying the
> two seats we filled already in that manner we wrong.
>
> I object to polling the delegates after the fact as it gives the potential
> candidates another potential opportunity "to run" and if we are going to do
> that, it should be open to anyone. And then we are doing convention via
> email.
>
> *In Liberty,*
> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
> Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
> Harlos at LP.org
> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
> <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>
>
> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> I'm with Ken in strongly preferring Instant Runoff Voting, and strongly
>> agree we should ditch Approval Voting.
>>
>> As for what to do in the meantime, I think we should poll the 2016
>> Convention Delegates. We presumably have email addresses for most if not
>> all of them. I believe most of them would rather be asked their opinion,
>> than have the LNC just filling its own vacancies unilaterally.
>>
>> Love & Liberty,
>> ((( starchild )))
>> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee (2016-2018)
>> RealReform at earthlink.net
>> (415) 625-FREE
>>
>>
>> On Jul 3, 2016, at 6:57 AM, Ken Moellman wrote:
>>
>> I personally do not feel like just going down the list of people is
>> actually appropriate, given how approval voting actually works. Our bylaws
>> specifically state "The top five candidates receiving a *majority* vote
>> of the ballots cast shall be elected. Tie votes affecting the outcome shall
>> be decided by lot." (emphasis added).
>>
>> If the body follows "the precedent", we're literally under 1/3rd
>> convention body approval for the next candidate in line. I do not know the
>> person personally, and don't mean this to be any sort of personal attack or
>> anything. My concern is that there's a real possibility that given a 1/3rd
>> approval that up to 2/3rds would disapprove; mathematically, it becomes
>> more and more likely that we'd be selecting someone that the convention
>> body actually wouldn't approve of. This "next person in line" methodology
>> fails without being able to track preference.
>>
>> Given that candidate preference cannot be tracked using Approval Voting,
>> I'm not sure that there's a real mechanism to select someone in accordance
>> with the actual wishes of the convention body. And if we continue this
>> precedent, it's going to break Approval Voting entirely anyway as people
>> begin using strategic bulleted voting more and more.
>>
>> I very much think we need to switch to another system - I personally
>> prefer Instant Runoff - so we have definitive winners and clear convention
>> body preference for runners-up in the future.
>>
>> For this and all subsequent vacancies, I suggest a thoughtful
>> deliberation on the appointment and not just an automatic "next in line"
>> strategic, so long as Approval Voting is in place.
>> ---
>>
>> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
>> LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
>> LPKY Judicial Committee
>>
>>
>> On 2016-07-03 08:46, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>>
>> That is in fact my strong preference as well. The convention just
>> happened. The delegates and candidates who cared to run and put effort
>> into it (some of them actively campaigning) were give short shrift, and
>> this rankles me even now. The only metric we have of their preference is
>> these votes.
>>
>> *In Liberty,*
>> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
>> Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
>> Harlos at LP.org
>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 6:40 AM, Sam Goldstein <goldsteinatlarge at gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks, Alicia. I know the Chair is planning to place the At Large
>>> opening on the agenda for the next LNC meeting. Since I will be
>>> unable to attend, I'd prefer to address this matter in an e-mail ballot
>>> following discussion and nominations.
>>>
>>> Our precedent is to look to the At Large voting at the convention and to
>>> take the delegate's stated preferences to heart when filling
>>> vacancies of this nature.
>>>
>>> Live Free,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sam Goldstein
>>> Libertarian National Committee
>>> Member at Large
>>> 8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101
>>> Indianapolis IN 46260
>>> 317-850-0726 Phone
>>> 317-582-1773 Fax
>>> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 4:23 AM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Will we be publishing something to advertise the vacancy and invite
>>>> applicants?
>>>>
>>>> -Alicia
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 7:49 AM, Nicholas Sarwark <chair at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm putting together a proposed agenda for the July 17 meeting in Las
>>>>> Vegas. I am already planning to include time for discussion of
>>>>> filling the At-Large vacancy created by Dr. Feldman's death,
>>>>> population of the Audit Committee, and discussion of creating a
>>>>> national reregistration week (at the request of Mr. Somes).
>>>>>
>>>>> If you have other items that you would like to add to the proposed
>>>>> agenda, please email me with a description and the amount of time you
>>>>> would like on the agenda. As a reminder, we will only be having a
>>>>> one-day meeting in Las Vegas, so we will need to be efficient with our
>>>>> time. To that end, we will have a working lunch brought in so as to
>>>>> avoid losing committee members for that time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yours in liberty,
>>>>> Nick
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
>> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
> Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
> <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
<http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
<http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20160703/1120f6dc/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list