[Lnc-business] Compiling agenda for July 17 meeting

Sun Jul 3 22:22:18 EDT 2016

Aaron,

There comes a point in time in discussions where I say that the repetition
of my point doesn't make it more right with the repeating.

==When Libertarians come to a decision, let’s hope that it is never based
on something as inane as holding one’s breath (though I do recall one
instance where a convention decided the outcome of a tie by a flip of a
coin). ==

Yet it is the logic of your prior post.  I attempted to demonstrate that it
was flawed.  By *argumentum ad absurdum*.

== The post-convention decision filling the LNC vacancies was perhaps more
consequentialist in nature than many care to admit.  It is not farfetched
to imagine some LNC members took into consideration the makeup of the next
three ranking candidates and decided that they were preferable to other
possible choices (or as a display of sufferance determined they could
tolerate them and that it was not worth the time and energy to push
alternatives).==

I prefer not to imagine things, farfetched or not.  I don't think it
requires imagination to say politics influences political groups.  However,
I would have voted the way I voted no matter who was next.  One can feel
free to imagine otherwise.  Personally when this whole thing came up, I was
in favour of stating Darryl Perry should be automatically considered, then
I went through the principled argument in my mind, and decided that despite
the fact that is who I would prefer consequentially, it did not fit with
the brute consistently of my convictions on this matter, and I dropped that
from my consideration despite my personal preferences.  One might imagine
reasons why there is such opposition to this suggestion.  I prefer not to.

== In contrast, when the three elected JC members looked at the next four
ranking vote recipients, it should not surprise anyone if a majority
decided that they did not want to serve with those four.===

I have zero interest in psycho-analyzing the decision of the JC.

==I am confused by the reference to *principle* in this context. A
principle is commonly defined as “a fundamental truth or proposition that
serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain
of reasoning.”  Principles (e.g. you own yourself) are enduring concepts
not impacted by the passage of time, so I don’t understand the argument
that we ought to apply this principle but only until, say, the close of the
next meeting, after which we are free to abandon it. ==

Which is not an accurate summary of what I said.  Yes, the passage of time
can affect a principle when the principle is that we are barely out of
convention, we are close in time to when people could have run and did not,
and the decisions of the delegates are fresh.  Since relevant factors play
into principled decisions, this isn't whatsoever saying the principle
changes, it says that the factors changed.

I am reminded of an author that had a great talk about relativism.
Relativism is greatly misunderstood.  It does not mean that principles do
not have different outcomes based upon changing conditions.  It means that
they have different outcomes merely based upon changing subjective outlooks
on people.  I think your statement is an example of that conflation.

==If it is a principle that drives the decision as to who we ought to elect
and to do otherwise would be “wrong,” please identify or describe that
principle or principles.  State why they should only apply to the LNC and
not the JC.  And then state why they ought to only apply during the first
part of the term.==

I believe I explained it sufficiently already, and I am not going to pit
the JC against the LNC.

A principled decision  =/= you must give me rule A.  It is about making a
conscientious decision based on all the relevant factors, which I laid out
in prior commentary.

==Our bylaws clearly state that the LNC is to fill vacancies. Had the
delegates wanted to prescribe a method or limit the LNC’s choices, they
could have adopted bylaws that did so. (During the convention I urged
delegates to vote for as many acceptable candidates as possible or else
they would run the risk that there would be vacancies to fill later.
Obviously, an insufficient number heeded that advice.)==

I already stated that it would be well within our rules.  I do not think
the rules can proscribe every contingency that can come up and when various
paths are opened (within the side constraints of the rules to borrow a
Nozickian concept), then we choose the one that most honours the delegates
and the candidates because it is not their fault that they could not
properly vote.  The buck stops with the LNC as a corporate body.

 ==One cannot divine that the highest ranking candidate who did not obtain
majority support would earn majority support in later rounds of voting, had
there been time to conduct additional rounds.==

One cannot make that impossible and thus, as Starchild very astutely noted,
give that power to the LNC through making the proper functioning
impossible.  Yes technically under the rules it would be fine.  We have
established that.

This is an imperfect situation.  I see the arguments for another
alternative.  I will not wail and gnash my teeth over a different
decision.  I have laid out my position and am content with it and doubt
that further words will be helpful.

I actually have an argument to make to counter my own position that no one
has brought up, but I ultimately find it unpersuasive.  Here it is:  this
isn't filling a vacancy left by the LNC's failure to insure that the
delegates could properly vote.  It is a vacancy left by tragedy of a spot
that had already been properly filled by the LNC.  I admit that is a good
argument (because I do go over these things in my own mind, and in
forthrightness, do not hide the good arguments against any view of mine).
I ultimately reject this because although in technicality Dr. Feldman was
seated, he had not attended a meeting, and in principle I am viewing this
as if he were not appointed. But this is an argument against my position.

==And that is why we ought to be seeking a broad pool of applicants so that
we are afforded the opportunity to make that best possible decision. In my
opinion, to reflexively select the next ranking person without considering
anyone else is to deprive those who elected us of the judgement we are
expected to exercise and is actually a disservice to delegates and state
affiliates who chose us.==

I believe that categorizing as reflexively is unfair and not accurate.  One
may disagree with the position, but at least to me, it isn't reflexive.  We
have a pool of applicants... and this is the principle that is part of my
position.... people who honoured the Party by running.  If someone didn't
run, I would be very hard-pressed to support them for I would wonder, why
didn't you run?  Now perhaps there would be a good answer, and I do not say
never, but that is my position. And if limited to those who did run (it
being only six weeks out from Convention) then the one who got the most
support from delegates is who I would support.  And while it makes it
easier when it is someone I prefer personally, I would have come to this
conclusion even if it were not.

As far as depriving persons of the judgment expected, I have an email out
to the state chairs in my region soliciting their thoughts and
expectations.  Members of my region are always free to contact me with
their wishes.  I am here to serve my region, and if I get clear indication
of their will in a way that is contrary to my own, that will be taken into
great consideration.

*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 7:42 PM, Aaron Starr <starrcpa at gmail.com> wrote:

> Caryn,
>
>
>
> ==My opinion of rightness or wrongness isn't based on our rules.
> Technically we could hold our breaths and say whoever can hold it the
> longest gets to choose the next person.  That would be "right" under our
> rules, but "wrong" on other principles.==
>
>
>
> When Libertarians come to a decision, let’s hope that it is never based on
> something as inane as holding one’s breath (though I do recall one instance
> where a convention decided the outcome of a tie by a flip of a coin).  The
> post-convention decision filling the LNC vacancies was perhaps more
> consequentialist in nature than many care to admit.  It is not farfetched
> to imagine some LNC members took into consideration the makeup of the next
> three ranking candidates and decided that they were preferable to other
> possible choices (or as a display of sufferance determined they could
> tolerate them and that it was not worth the time and energy to push
> alternatives).  In contrast, when the three elected JC members looked at
> the next four ranking vote recipients, it should not surprise anyone if a
> majority decided that they did not want to serve with those four.
>
>
>
> I am confused by the reference to *principle* in this context. A
> principle is commonly defined as “a fundamental truth or proposition that
> serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain
> of reasoning.”  Principles (e.g. you own yourself) are enduring concepts
> not impacted by the passage of time, so I don’t understand the argument
> that we ought to apply this principle but only until, say, the close of the
> next meeting, after which we are free to abandon it. If it is a principle
> that drives the decision as to who we ought to elect and to do otherwise
> would be “wrong,” please identify or describe that principle or
> principles.  State why they should only apply to the LNC and not the JC.
> And then state why they ought to only apply during the first part of the
> term.
>
>
>
> Our bylaws clearly state that the LNC is to fill vacancies. Had the
> delegates wanted to prescribe a method or limit the LNC’s choices, they
> could have adopted bylaws that did so. (During the convention I urged
> delegates to vote for as many acceptable candidates as possible or else
> they would run the risk that there would be vacancies to fill later.
> Obviously, an insufficient number heeded that advice.)
>
>
>
> One cannot divine that the highest ranking candidate who did not obtain
> majority support would earn majority support in later rounds of voting, had
> there been time to conduct additional rounds. Back in 2010, for example,
> Wayne Root had a clear plurality in the race for Chair in the first two
> rounds of voting, but ultimately lost in the third round to Mark Hinkle.
> Had the 2010 Convention adjourned before completing the later rounds of
> voting for Chair, would the seated LNC regional representatives been
> obligated to elect Root as Chair? Of course not.
>
>
>
> We have a duty to make the best possible decision and we are expected to
> make those decisions based on our good judgement.  And that is why we ought
> to be seeking a broad pool of applicants so that we are afforded the
> opportunity to make that best possible decision. In my opinion, to
> reflexively select the next ranking person without considering anyone else
> is to deprive those who elected us of the judgement we are expected to
> exercise and is actually a disservice to delegates and state affiliates who
> chose us.
>
>
>
>
>
> Aaron Starr
>
> (805) 583-3308 Home
>
> (805) 404-8693 Mobile
>
> starrcpa at gmail.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Caryn Ann Harlos
> *Sent:* Sunday, July 03, 2016 4:01 PM
>
> *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Compiling agenda for July 17 meeting
>
>
>
> Aaron,
>
>
>
> ==I am not saying that the LNC made the wrong decision, nor am I saying
> that it made the right decision. It made a valid decision.==
>
>
>
> I understand the distinction you are making, but I don't agree it applies
> here.  If it is valid, and the reasons for it were valid, there is no
> reason for it not to be valid here (and preferable amongst competing
> options), and for us to take the reigns of this away from delegates who
> voted and candidates who chose to run because we were bad planners for the
> party elections (everything else went awesome, and I hesitate to be
> negative at all to our convention volunteers - from what I understand this
> type of thing is a recurrent problem and should have been solved a long
> time ago but I digress).  Nothing has significantly changed from a mere 6
> weeks or so ago to make another avenue better.  And while you may not be
> saying right or wrong, some of the other comments implied it.  So I am
> casting my argument net wide.  I appreciate that you were the only one to
> make an argument *why *it is different this time... i.e. rushed, tired,
> expedient.  I can only say that absolutely was not the case for my decision
> as one of the members who voted.  So from my perspective nothing is
> different.  If we had four seats to fill then, we would have done it the
> same way.  Now is the fourth.  And this is the way that the very seat we
> are looking at was filled.
>
>
>
> == The LNC had several options available to it and simply preferred that
> particular method at that particular point in time.  Any one of those
> options are allowed under our rules. I wouldn’t paint the outcome as being
> right or wrong in any case.==
>
>
>
> My opinion of rightness or wrongness isn't based on our rules. Technically
> we could hold our breaths and say whoever can hold it the longest gets to
> choose the next person.  That would be "right" under our rules, but "wrong"
> on other principles.  I am arguing based on other factors.
>
>
>
>  ==Had the LNC chose instead to fill those three vacancies in the same
> manner that the JC had done, should we then argue that it would be a
> precedent for the rest of the term and that our filling the next vacancy
> using different criteria would mean that our first decision must have been
> wrong? Of course not. These types of decisions are based on people’s
> assessments of facts and circumstances, not some underlying principle.==
>
>
>
> This isn't the rest of the term, this is a mere six weeks out to replace
> someone who tragically never even got to attend a meeting (rest in peace
> Dr. Feldman).  I find no compelling reason to do things differently, and I
> think we are in fact not honouring the reasons we did it that way then if
> we do it differently now, and in fact, saying we did it wrong then.  With
> the passage of time, there ARE other reasons.  That isn't the case.  We
> haven't even had one meeting.  And anyone else not on that list (perhaps we
> would choose someone else on that list that didn't score as high) is
> picking someone who didn't care to run a mere six weeks ago over and above
> people who showed the dedication to serve our Party this term by putting
> themselves out there.
>
>
>
> I am going to skip the rest that deals with things that may happen later
> in our term as I think I addressed that.  Except for this:
>
>
>
> ==It was simply the LNC’s preference at that time and it can be based on
> any reason. They are all valid, even if that reason is convenience or
> expediency.==
>
>
>
> I will disagree vehemently here.  I would hope that we never base weighty
> decisions on convenience or expediency.  And yes, I personally deny the
> right (not under our rules, but under principle) for the LNC to have
> preferences based "on any reason."  I believe our members have the right to
> expect certain principled reasons.  I concede that others may have
> principled arguments against this - and that is what will sway me.
>
>
>
> I, for the record, did not vote the way I did for expediency, convenience,
> or for any other reason than I thought it the principled thing to do.  The
> very fact that we had to do that and did not give these candidates and the
> delegates the opportunity to decide this for themselves in the proper way
> is the problem.
>
>
>
> *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 4:27 PM, Aaron Starr <starrcpa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Caryn,
>
>
>
> I am not saying that the LNC made the wrong decision, nor am I saying that
> it made the right decision. It made a valid decision. The LNC had several
> options available to it and simply preferred that particular method at that
> particular point in time.  Any one of those options are allowed under our
> rules. I wouldn’t paint the outcome as being right or wrong in any case.
>
>
>
> Had the LNC chose instead to fill those three vacancies in the same manner
> that the JC had done, should we then argue that it would be a precedent for
> the rest of the term and that our filling the next vacancy using different
> criteria would mean that our first decision must have been wrong? Of course
> not. These types of decisions are based on people’s assessments of facts
> and circumstances, not some underlying principle.
>
>
>
> We are going to come across other decisions during this term where we have
> leeway to choose a method, any of which are valid.  For example, we may
> create a committee and instruct the LNC Chair to populate it.  That won’t
> preclude us from later creating another committee where the LNC selects the
> members.  The fact that we use a different method later does not make the
> first decision wrong, inappropriate or disturbing.  It was simply the LNC’s
> preference at that time and it can be based on any reason. They are all
> valid, even if that reason is convenience or expediency.
>
>
>
> You are putting forth your preference, and that’s fine. But that’s all it
> is … a preference; and it is no less valid than any other preference.  The
> fact that we agreed with your preference the first time is not binding on
> any of us for all time or even for the remainder of this term. My
> preference is that we give others the opportunity to apply to fill the
> vacancy. We may wind up with an applicant who did not previously run and
> who can contribute significant value. For example, if Richard Winger were
> to throw his hat in the ring, I would give his candidacy serious
> consideration.
>
>
>
> There are choices to be made with trade-offs and different members of this
> body have different assessments of the value of those trade-offs. We are
> elected to this body to make decisions. If others on this body don’t want
> to give others the opportunity to apply, that’s also a valid decision; and
> while I might disagree with that decision if that were the outcome, I
> wouldn’t find that in any way disconcerting.
>
>
>
>
>
> Aaron Starr
>
> (805) 583-3308 Home
>
> (805) 404-8693 Mobile
>
> starrcpa at gmail.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Caryn Ann Harlos
> *Sent:* Sunday, July 03, 2016 1:05 PM
> *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Compiling agenda for July 17 meeting
>
>
>
> Aaron,
>
>
>
> ==Different LNCs have handled vacancies in various ways over time, so I
> place no value to precedent here. ==
>
>
>
> Yet it is *this LNC*'s precedence that is being referred to.  Less than
> two months ago.  Not another LNC,and not over time.
>
>
>
> == Both positions have legitimate arguments and I don’t have a strong
> opinion either way.==
>
>
>
> Agreed.  But one of those was the position of this present group.  I do
> think the JC reasonable in coming to their decision.  But that is not the
> one we came to.
>
>
>
> ==In my opinion, expediency seemed to be the main driver of the recent LNC
> decision. After a long convention there was pressure to come to an
> immediate decision and, unlike the JC, we had pending business before us
> and did not want to conduct it while being short by three people.==
>
>
>
> As someone who voted on that decision, expediency wasn't a driver of my
> decision whatsoever.  This is a situation entirely of our own making (I am
> using that as meaning the organization where the buck stops - the LNC -
> where it was not assured - by us - that the delegates had time to properly
> vote.)  People ran for these positions.  Delegates voted.
>
>
>
> While I do not think that the LNC choosing is *per se *wrong-- in fact we
> have that explicit authority-- I find the deviation from our method of less
> than two months ago deeply disturbing.  If this is the right thing to do,
> then our prior three appointments were done wrong, and because we were
> "tired."  Well it is our job to operate well when tired or stressed.  I
> don't believe we made the wrong decision before, and I believe it is still
> the right decision today.
>
>
>
> *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 1:52 PM, Aaron Starr <starrcpa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Different LNCs have handled vacancies in various ways over time, so I
> place no value to precedent here.  Recently, the Judicial Committee took
> the position that anyone who ran and did not receive a majority was an
> indication that they were rejected by the convention, so they chose people
> who did not run. In contrast, the Libertarian National Committee recently
> took the position that support by some – though less than a majority – was
> a sufficient indicator of acceptance, so they chose the next ranking
> individuals. Both bodies came to opposite conclusions based on the
> identical scenario.  Both positions have legitimate arguments and I don’t
> have a strong opinion either way.
>
>
>
> In my opinion, expediency seemed to be the main driver of the recent LNC
> decision. After a long convention there was pressure to come to an
> immediate decision and, unlike the JC, we had pending business before us
> and did not want to conduct it while being short by three people.
>
>
>
> That is no longer the environment. I suggest we open up the application
> process to anyone interested in serving. With only one vacancy we can
> operate reasonably well, and can afford to go through a recruitment and
> interviewing process to find the one who can contribute the most to our
> organization’s future. And if after going through that process that person
> turns out to be the next ranking vote recipient from the convention, that’s
> fine with me.
>
>
>
> Aaron Starr
>
> (805) 583-3308 Home
>
> (805) 404-8693 Mobile
>
> starrcpa at gmail.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Caryn Ann Harlos
> *Sent:* Sunday, July 03, 2016 8:25 AM
> *To:* ken.moellman at lpky.org
> *Cc:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Compiling agenda for July 17 meeting
>
>
>
> It is a matter of time and precedent.  The fact is that Dr Feldman himself
> was appointed in this manner.  We are not even one meeting out.  If this is
> illegitimate then the three seats filled in this way are- including Dr
> Feldman.
>
>
>
> Because we did not give the delegates and candidates what they deserved to
> have - full opportunity to vote- then we are in the position basically of
> treating it like ranked choice - and that fault is on is.
>
>
>
> These people cared enough to run.  No one else did.
>
>
>
> *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 Sunday, July 3, 2016, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org> wrote:
>
> Question: when does "the precedent" stop?  What percentage approval is too
> low?
>
>
>
> ---
>
> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
> LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
> LPKY Judicial Committee
>
>
>
> On 2016-07-03 10:52, 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
>
> 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
>
> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
> <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
>
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.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
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *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
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *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
>
>

-- 
*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/20160703/59e4f005/attachment-0002.html>