[Lnc-business] Proposal for LNC funding of candidates and campaigns (item for August LNC meeting)
Sam Goldstein
goldsteinatlarge at gmail.com
Fri Jun 16 07:54:04 EDT 2017
Daniel,
You have my admiration for have read that much of this opus. When I have
the time I will formulate a simple
one to two paragraph proposal to form a LNC Candidate Funding Committee and
will submit it to the LNC prior
to the Kansas City meeting.
Sam
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 Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 7:42 AM, David Demarest <dpdemarest at centurylink.net>
wrote:
> Starchild, good idea albeit with the inherent constraint of consensus. I
> like Daniel’s suggestion that focuses on individual campaign contributions.
> Other alternatives include campaign fund-raising projects sponsored by the
> LNC, other Libertarian institutions and empowered individuals.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> ~David
>
>
>
> *2018 Omaha Roads to Liberty Un-Convention*
>
>
>
> ~David Pratt Demarest
>
> LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
>
> Secretary, LPNE State Central Committee
>
> Cell: 402-981-6469 <(402)%20981-6469>
>
> Home: 402-493-0873 <(402)%20493-0873>
>
>
>
> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Daniel Hayes
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 15, 2017 11:00 PM
> *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Proposal for LNC funding of candidates and
> campaigns (item for August LNC meeting)
>
>
>
> Also we will have to up our LNC meetings to monthly just to get all the
> members appointed.
>
>
>
> Daniel
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Jun 15, 2017, at 10:52 PM, Daniel Hayes <danielehayes at icloud.com>
> wrote:
>
> I will support this if the committees are all 51 members each minimum and
> all members of the committee must be monthly recurring donors of $100/month
> or more. They would then have the authority to spend up to $60,000 a year
> supporting LIBERTARIAN candidates without further LNC approval.
>
>
>
> I actually only read the first 5 lines before I thought small governance
> at work.
>
>
>
>
>
> Daniel Hayes
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Jun 15, 2017, at 10:06 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> As Brett Bittner, Sam Goldstein, Caryn Ann Harlos, Joshua
> Katz, Patrick McKnight, and (apologies to anyone I'm missing) I think
> others on the LNC have all noted, and as I've observed myself on multiple
> previous occasions, we need some kind of consistent method for allocating
> our limited resources among many worthy candidates and campaigns, instead
> of just reacting on an ad hoc basis when we get requests for funding, or
> favoring requests from our own states, regions, or persons with whom we
> happen to be acquainted.
>
>
>
> Toward this end, I've taken a stab at creating a detailed
> proposal for establishing such a funding procedure. The basic idea is to
> create a multi-layered approach for screening and evaluating candidates and
> campaigns that is designed to minimize the role of favoritism and give the
> LNC a strong yet sufficiently flexible framework within which to
> periodically allocate funds.
>
>
>
> =============================================
>
>
>
> At the heart of this proposal is* the creation of three
> separate new LNC sub-committees: An Application Committee, and two* *Evaluation
> Committees*. Members of each of these three committees would serve for
> one candidate/campaign funding cycle, and then would be barred from serving
> on one of the three committees again until another funding cycle had
> passed. No person would be eligible to serve on more than one of the three
> committees simultaneously or during the same funding cycle, or to serve on
> one of the three committees while serving on the LNC.
>
>
>
> *Application Committee*
>
>
>
> This committee would be composed of up to 51 (but no fewer
> than 7) persons appointed by the LNC via open ballot ranked choice voting.
> It would have the following responsibilities:
>
>
>
> • Establishing funding cycles (scheduling the periods during which
> candidates and campaigns could apply for funding, and deadlines for its own
> subsequent reporting to the Evaluation Committees, and for the Evaluation
> Committees to report to the LNC). The committee could potentially decide to
> have one funding cycle per election, or multiple cycles per election.
>
> • Designing application forms for candidates and campaigns seeking
> funding, including each of the "Message" and "Effectiveness" criteria
> questions listed below (rewording would be allowed as long as essential
> meaning is preserved), along with any additional criteria it may add to
> either category at its discretion with the approval of a majority vote of
> the LNC
>
> • Receiving applications for funding from candidates and campaigns during
> the time window established for that purpose
>
> • Researching each candidate and campaign seeking LNC funding and
> preparing a report on the relative merits of the applicants based on their
> responses to each of the criteria questions listed below (and any
> additional questions added by the committee as described above), as well as
> the committee's own research
>
> • Forwarding this report, including the application information provided
> by the candidates and campaigns themselves, to the two Evaluation
> Committees as described below
>
>
>
>
>
> *Candidate/Campaign Evaluation Criteria*
>
>
>
> The two *Evaluation Committees* would also each be composed
> of up to 51 (but no fewer than 7) persons appointed by the LNC via open
> ballot ranked choice voting. Each Evaluation Committee would, working
> separately and having no contact with members of the other Evaluation
> Committee, generate rankings of each candidate or campaign. These rankings
> would be largely based on committee members' evaluations of how candidates
> and campaigns measure up to each other on the basis of two broad categories
> of questions, lumped under the headings "Message" and "Effectiveness" for
> want of better terms:
>
>
> *(1) Message* – This category will consider (as applicable depending on
> whether applicant is a candidate or campaign) the following questions and
> any additional questions in a similar vein that the Application Committee
> may add:
>
> • Has the candidate signed the Libertarian Party's membership pledge?
>
> • What are the candidate's detailed results and overall score on the
> "official" Nolan Chart used by the Advocates for Self Government (currently
> online at http://www.self-gov.org/ )?
>
> • What are the candidate's detailed results and overall score on the more
> detailed Nolan Chart based "Quiz2D" quiz (currently online at
> http://www.quiz2d.com/ )?
>
> • What are the candidate's detailed results and overall score on the more
> detailed Nolan Chart based "NolanChart.com" quiz (currently online at
> https://www.nolanchart.com/survey-php )?
>
> • Does any of the candidate's or campaign's message conflict with the
> Non-Aggression Principle?
>
> • Does any of the candidate's or campaign's message conflict with the
> Libertarian Party's platform?
>
> • What specific actions or reforms does the candidate or campaign promise
> to take or enact?
>
> • Does the candidate (or do the backers of the campaign) have a history in
> the Libertarian Party or the freedom movement, and if so what is that
> history?
>
> • Is there anything in the message, history, or personal character of
> the candidate (or the campaign backers) that is at odds with the
> Non-Aggression Principle or the Libertarian Party platform?
>
> • If the candidate is a current or former office-holder, what pro-freedom
> and/or anti-freedom votes did s/he cast while in office?
>
> • Of the annual salary that the candidate would be paid if elected to the
> office s/he is seeking, what percentage, if any, does s/he pledge to return
> to the taxpayers or donate to the freedom movement per year if elected?
>
>
>
> *(2) Effectiveness *– This category will consider the following questions
> and any additional questions in a similar vein that the Application
> Committee may add:
>
> • How good a public speaker is the candidate?
>
> • What obstacles stand in the way of the candidate getting elected (e.g.
> does s/he face two cartel party opponents, an entrenched incumbent,
> significant hurdles such as "top two" system or straight-ticket voting,
> etc.)?
>
> • How is the candidate or ballot measure polling?
>
> • What measurable positive results would accrue to the Libertarian Party
> if the candidate or campaign fell short of ballot box victory but achieved
> some lesser threshold(s), and how likely is it that the threshold(s) will
> be met?
>
> • How willing is the candidate or campaign to cooperate with and seek to
> assist the Libertarian Party and its state affiliate party (and local party
> organization, if applicable) in his or her area, to the extent allowed by
> law?
>
> • What positive but relatively non-measurable results is the candidate or
> campaign likely to achieve?
>
> • Does the candidate or campaign have a website or sites, and how good is
> it (or are they)?
>
> • How much money has the candidate or campaign already spent, and on what
> were the funds spent?
>
> • How much money does the candidate or campaign have at the time of
> application (minus any debts or obligations)?
>
> • How much money does the candidate or campaign plan to raise and spend?
>
> • How realistic are the candidate or campaign's fundraising plans?
>
> • How much time does the candidate plan to spend campaigning?
>
> • What kind of campaign team does the candidate or campaign have?
>
> • What press or other positive mentions has the candidate or campaign
> received?
>
> • What endorsements has the candidate or campaign received?
>
> • How does the candidate or campaign plan to spend any funds granted by
> the LNC?
>
>
>
>
>
> *Candidate/Campaign Evaluation Process*
>
>
>
> Each of the Evaluation Committees would prepare, within the
> time frame established by the Application Committee, a report to the LNC. *These
> reports would give each candidate or campaign seeking funding three
> rankings – one for Message criteria, one for Effectiveness criteria, and an
> overall ranking based on an average of the other two rankings. *It would
> be up to each Evaluation Committee to decide how much additional material
> to include in its report to the LNC explaining or justifying its rankings.
>
>
>
> These numbered rankings would be based on the total number of
> funding applications. For instance, if there were 120 candidates or
> campaigns applying for funding in a given cycle, each Evaluation Committee
> member would assign each of them a whole number ranking between 0 and 121
> for each of the two broad categories of "Message" and "Effectiveness", with
> a lower number indicating a better ranking. The "Message" and
> "Effectiveness" rankings assigned by individual committee members would
> then be added together and divided by the number of committee members
> ranking them, to give each candidate an overall ranking. Multiple
> candidates or campaigns might receive the same overall ranking, in which
> case the total number of *different* integers assigned to the candidates
> and campaigns might be fewer than 120 (i.e. there might be lots of 2-way,
> 3-way, or even 10-way or 20-way ties).
>
>
>
> Committee rankings for Message and Effectiveness criteria
> would be based on each committee member submitting his or her personal
> ranking list, with the averages of those rankings then compiled to generate
> the overall rankings which would appear in the committee's report.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> As an example of how rankings would be calculated, here is a simple
> hypothetical in which an Evaluation Committee has only 3 members (in
> reality each would have at least 7 members), and only 4 candidates and 1
> campaign have applied for funding:
>
>
>
> *Committee member 1 ranks the applicants as follows:*
>
> *Message Rankings*: *Effectiveness Rankings*:
>
> 1. Candidate D 1. Campaign A
>
> 2. Candidate A 2. Candidate C
>
> 3. Candidate B (tie) 3. Candidate A
>
> 3. Candidate C (tie) 4. Candidate D
>
> 4. Campaign A 5. Candidate B
>
>
>
> *Committee member 2 ranks the applicants as follows:*
>
> *Message Rankings*: *Effectiveness Rankings*:
>
> 1. Campaign A 1. Candidate C
>
> 2. Candidate A 2. Campaign A
>
> 3. Candidate D 3. Candidate A
>
> 4. Candidate C 4. Candidate D
>
> 5. Candidate B 5. Candidate B
>
>
>
> *Committee member 3 ranks the applicants as follows:*
>
> *Message Rankings*: *Effectiveness Rankings*:
>
> 1. Candidate D 1. Campaign A (tie)
>
> 2. Candidate A 1. Candidate C (tie)
>
> 3. Candidate B 1. Candidate A (tie)
>
> 4. Candidate C (tie) 2. Candidate D
>
> 4. Campaign A (tie) 3. Candidate B
>
>
>
> *These individual member rankings would generate the following rankings
> for the Evaluation Committee as a whole (raw scores listed here for ease in
> understanding how overall rankings would be calculated):*
>
> *Message Rankings (raw score)*: *Effectiveness Rankings*:
>
> 1. Candidate D (1.66) 1. Campaign A (tie -
> 1.33)
>
> 2. Candidate A (2) 1. Candidate C
> (tie - 1.33)
>
> 3. Campaign A (3) 2. Candidate A
> (1.66)
>
> 4. Candidate B (tie - 3.66) 3. Candidate D (3.33)
>
> 5. Candidate C (tie - 3.66) 4. Candidate B (4.33)
>
>
>
> *The committee Message and Effectiveness rankings listed above would
> generate the following overall rankings for the Evaluation Committee's
> report to the LNC:*
>
> *Overall Rankings*
>
> 1. Candidate A (1.665)
>
> 2. Campaign A (2.165)
>
> 3. Candidate C (2.495 – tie)
>
> 3. Candidate D (2.495 – tie)
>
> 4. Candidate B (3.995)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> So far I have not described the difference between the two
> Evaluation Committees. Here is how they would differ:
>
>
>
> *"All-Seeing" Evaluation Committee*
>
>
>
> This Evaluation Committee would receive from the Application
> Committee the complete version of that committee's report with names and
> locations of candidates and campaigns, and would also be free to conduct
> its own independent research as desired. Candidates and campaigns would be
> welcome to present additional information to the committee and lobby its
> members. All-Seeing Evaluation Committee members would be barred from
> voting on the ratings of candidates or campaigns from their own states, or
> with which they had any family ties or financial relationships (past or
> present). Committee members would be expected to thoroughly discuss and
> debate the relative merits of the candidates and campaigns, following which
> each member would submit his or her ranking of the candidates and campaigns
> seeking funding that cycle, which could be either independently prepared by
> the member himself or herself, or prepared by someone else and adopted by
> the committee member as his or her recommendations.
>
>
>
>
>
> *"Blind" Evaluation Committee*
>
>
>
> This Evaluation Committee would receive from the Application
> Committee a version of its report *with all candidate and campaign names
> and locations redacted.* If a member of this committee recognized a
> candidate or campaign from the description given, s/he would be required to
> recuse him/herself from rating that candidate or campaign. Contact between
> candidates or campaign applicants and members of the Blind Evaluation
> Committee would be prohibited, and committee members expected to try to
> avoid learning about Libertarian candidates or campaigns applying for
> funding during their terms on the committee (kind of like how jurors are
> typically instructed not to independently research the court cases on which
> they are called to serve). Members of the Blind Evaluation Committee would
> *not* discuss their proposed rankings with other members of their
> committee. Each committee member would instead submit his or her own
> rankings to the committee chair without any committee discussion or other
> outside input other than the redacted report of the Application Committee.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Role of the LNC*
>
>
>
> Upon receiving the reports of the Evaluation Committees, the
> LNC would have the choice of *which* Evaluation Committee's rankings to
> adopt. That committee's overall ranking order would then be binding upon
> the LNC in the following manner: The LNC would retain complete freedom to
> decide the *overall amount *of money to disburse for that funding cycle,
> but *would be required to allocate more funds to the candidate or
> campaign assigned the best ranking by the Evaluation Committee whose
> rankings it adopted than to the candidate or campaign with the next best
> ranking, and so on*. In any cases of ties, each equally ranked candidate
> or campaign would be required to receive the same amount of funding. For
> some candidates or campaigns (or hypothetically even all
> candidates/campaigns),* the amount allocated could be $0, so long as no
> candidate with a poorer ranking received any funding that cycle either.*
>
>
>
> The LNC would also, with a 3/4 supermajority vote, retain the
> option to adopt *neither* Evaluation Committee's ratings. In this case,
> the LNC would instead allocate funding among the applicants by some
> different method of its own devising, e.g. a combination of various parts
> of the two Evaluation Committees' recommendations, or it could totally
> ignore the Evaluation Committee's reports and adopt its own priorities on
> which candidates/campaigns to fund (if any), based on LNC members' own
> preferences and judgments (i.e. the way we do it now).
>
>
>
> Along with appointing the members of each of the three
> committees described above, the LNC would also appoint chairs *pro tem *for
> each of the three committees, who would serve until the respective
> committees chose their own chairs. A chair *pro tem* would be ineligible
> to become the permanent committee chair that cycle; his/her primary
> function would be to organize and preside over the committee's election of
> a permanent chair for that funding cycle.
>
>
>
>
>
> =============================================
>
>
>
> The major downside of this proposal as I see it is that it
> involves a lot more overall time and work than the current system. Another
> downside is that some candidates or campaigns could be embarrassed or
> offended by the rankings they receive, or decline to seek funds in order to
> avoid the possibility of such embarrassment. The upsides are that it would
> mean LP candidates and campaigns seeking funding being vetted in a much
> more thorough and organized manner, make the funding process (though not
> necessarily the outcomes) more regular and predictable, go some way toward
> minimizing favoritism and subjectivity from the process, and by generating
> two independent sets of recommendations on which to base funding decisions,
> probably make it somewhat easier for LNC members to feel comfortable in
> making those decisions.
>
>
>
> The large upper number of 51 members for each committee
> (chosen more or less randomly based on the LP having 51 state affiliates)
> is intended to enable us to take advantage of the "wisdom of crowds", and
> in the cases of the Application and "All-Seeing" Evaluation Committees,
> ensure there are plenty of members to do candidate research (hopefully we
> will have lots of candidates and lots of funds to hand out!), but the LNC
> would not be required to appoint that many members of the new committees if
> it did not wish to do so.
>
>
>
> Since this proposal is somewhat complex and the issue is one
> that has defied easy solution (and thus it's quite likely there are things
> I've overlooked!), I'd like to give fellow LNC members and anyone else
> reading this on the reflector list or elsewhere some time to review it and
> propose changes and discuss it in person at our August LNC meeting (1 hour
> of time is requested). I'm hereby giving notice to have the language as
> currently written be considered as a motion with advance notice for the
> meeting, pending any possible changes. But in the meantime, please feel
> free to discuss!
>
>
>
> Love & Liberty,
>
>
>
> ((( starchild )))
>
> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>
> RealReform at earthlink.net
>
> (415) 625-FREE
>
> @StarchildSF
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170616/04ec4c2b/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list