[Lnc-business] At-Large Elections
Caryn Ann Harlos
caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Sat Jul 7 03:35:56 EDT 2018
I agree there is good discussion to be had on plurality v majority. But
the fact is that our Bylaws now clearly say majority and we led them by the
hand to accept plurality. That is my issue. Perhaps plurality is better.
That is something to be decided in non-rushed and reasoned debate. I see
advantages to both. As we become more diverse perhaps plurality would stop
some of factiousness by groups that feel they are being shorted (and many
times, I think they are). It helps protect more minority voices if they
vote tactically as a bloc.
But the worst of all possible worlds is to have people vote believing they
are voting for a majority race and then make it a plurality one. *Many
people would have voted differently if that were the case.*
I don't think - suspension of the rules or not - that it is at all just to
switch voting rules mid-game after people have voted. Just because the
Rules allow it isn't persuasive to the justice of the thing.
And most of all, I think it really unfair to those who have the plurality
seats. This should be a time to relax in one's accomplishments with
controversy.
What this shows - to me - is quite obvious. We - as a Party - really do
not care deeply about the composition of the LNC unless it is officers.
This would have been unthinkable in the VC race. But hey, it's At-Large so
okay. I don't think that's right.
On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 1:28 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:
> Yes of course formal objections are out of order. That does not mean
> noting real issues for discussion and learning is not (not that you
> suggested it was). As you know, I think there were some real problems with
> the way we handled it.
>
> Since the Bylaws say the method of voting of At-Large, the issue at
> present is the process until such a time those Bylaws are amended.
>
> One thing that is clear in our Bylaws is that there was always intended to
> be a system of majority not plurality. For expediency's sake and not for
> any other reason, that has been circumvented at least two years in a row.
>
> Quite obviously we have problems. And just as obviously these can't just
> boil for a month like they did in 2016 and be forgotten.
>
> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 10:42 PM, Nicholas Sarwark via Lnc-business <
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> Pursuant to the delegates suspension of the rules at convention after
>> overturning the ruling of the Chair, the top five vote-getters are
>> properly elected to the At-Large seats on the LNC by the delegates in
>> convention. Objections to the procedure taken by the delegates are
>> out of order, as such objections have to be properly raised during the
>> convention session.
>>
>> As to the Judicial Committee, I'll defer to Chuck Moulton's analysis
>> and suggest that the LNC pass a motion that acknowledges the top seven
>> vote-getters as the Judicial Committee.
>>
>> There has been a lot of discussion about convention schedules,
>> electronic voting systems, errors in tallying, etc. These discussions
>> miss the point. Using approval voting for a multi-member election
>> that does not allow for winning by plurality is likely the worst
>> possible election method to get At-Large members elected.
>>
>> In the past, we were allowed to vote for as many candidates as there
>> were positions available, and we rarely went to a second ballot. An
>> instant runoff or single transferable system would reallocate those
>> votes for candidates with minimal support.
>>
>> If the goal of At-Large members is to represent interest groups within
>> the Libertarian Party, we are using the wrong voting system. If it is
>> merely to determine who is most popular in the party, we are using the
>> correct system, but it will continue to produce results like we've had
>> two conventions in a row based on the nature of the system.
>>
>> In short, counting ballots faster doesn't matter if we're still voting
>> wrong.
>>
>> Yours truly,
>> Nick
>>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> *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/>
> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
>
> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
> *We defend your rights*
> *And oppose the use of force*
> *Taxation is theft*
>
--
--
*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/>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
-------------- next part --------------
I agree there is good discussion to be had on plurality v majority.
But the fact is that our Bylaws now clearly say majority and we led
them by the hand to accept plurality. That is my issue. Perhaps
plurality is better. That is something to be decided in non-rushed and
reasoned debate. I see advantages to both. As we become more diverse
perhaps plurality would stop some of factiousness by groups that feel
they are being shorted (and many times, I think they are). It helps
protect more minority voices if they vote tactically as a bloc.
But the worst of all possible worlds is to have people vote believing
they are voting for a majority race and then make it a plurality one.
Many people would have voted differently if that were the case.
I don't think - suspension of the rules or not - that it is at all just
to switch voting rules mid-game after people have voted. Just because
the Rules allow it isn't persuasive to the justice of the thing.
And most of all, I think it really unfair to those who have the
plurality seats. This should be a time to relax in one's
accomplishments with controversy.
What this shows - to me - is quite obvious. We - as a Party - really
do not care deeply about the composition of the LNC unless it is
officers. This would have been unthinkable in the VC race. But hey,
it's At-Large so okay. I don't think that's right.
On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 1:28 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<[1]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
Yes of course formal objections are out of order. That does not mean
noting real issues for discussion and learning is not (not that you
suggested it was). As you know, I think there were some real problems
with the way we handled it.
Since the Bylaws say the method of voting of At-Large, the issue at
present is the process until such a time those Bylaws are amended.
One thing that is clear in our Bylaws is that there was always intended
to be a system of majority not plurality. For expediency's sake and
not for any other reason, that has been circumvented at least two years
in a row.
Quite obviously we have problems. And just as obviously these can't
just boil for a month like they did in 2016 and be forgotten.
On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 10:42 PM, Nicholas Sarwark via Lnc-business
<[2]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
Dear All,
Pursuant to the delegates suspension of the rules at convention
after
overturning the ruling of the Chair, the top five vote-getters are
properly elected to the At-Large seats on the LNC by the delegates
in
convention. Objections to the procedure taken by the delegates are
out of order, as such objections have to be properly raised during
the
convention session.
As to the Judicial Committee, I'll defer to Chuck Moulton's analysis
and suggest that the LNC pass a motion that acknowledges the top
seven
vote-getters as the Judicial Committee.
There has been a lot of discussion about convention schedules,
electronic voting systems, errors in tallying, etc. These
discussions
miss the point. Using approval voting for a multi-member election
that does not allow for winning by plurality is likely the worst
possible election method to get At-Large members elected.
In the past, we were allowed to vote for as many candidates as there
were positions available, and we rarely went to a second ballot. An
instant runoff or single transferable system would reallocate those
votes for candidates with minimal support.
If the goal of At-Large members is to represent interest groups
within
the Libertarian Party, we are using the wrong voting system. If it
is
merely to determine who is most popular in the party, we are using
the
correct system, but it will continue to produce results like we've
had
two conventions in a row based on the nature of the system.
In short, counting ballots faster doesn't matter if we're still
voting wrong.
Yours truly,
Nick
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington)
- [3]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
Communications Director, [4]Libertarian Party of Colorado
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
We defend your rights
And oppose the use of force
Taxation is theft
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington)
- [5]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
Communications Director, [6]Libertarian Party of Colorado
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
We defend your rights
And oppose the use of force
Taxation is theft
References
1. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
2. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
3. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
4. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
5. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
6. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list