[Lnc-business] At-Large Elections

john.phillips at lp.org john.phillips at lp.org
Wed Jul 11 08:06:48 EDT 2018


Agreed with Caryn Ann.
John Phillips
Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
Cell 217-412-5973
------ Original message------From: Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business Date: Wed, Jul 11, 2018 7:01 AMTo: Libertarian National Committee list;Cc: Caryn Ann Harlos;Nicholas Sarwark;Subject:Re: [Lnc-business] At-Large Elections
I am totally in favour of RCV.  Totally opposed to getting rid of regions -
when done properly they serve a direct purpose to keep the states connected
and served.

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 1:14 PM, William Redpath via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

> I would like to see Single Transferable Vote (a/k/a Choice Voting or
> Ranked Choice Voting) to elect the LNC At-Large positions.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote
>
> but we would need better technology to effect that.
>
> I would support Approval Voting over Plurality Voting, however.
>
> I would support all non-officer LNC reps to be elected at-large, with
> regions ended.
>
> Bill Redpath
>
>
>
> On 2018-07-08 20:27, steven.nekhaila--- via Lnc-business wrote:
>
>> I believe a Partial Block Voting system would be ideal for At-Large
>> elections, with 7 open seats, and less than 7 votes per delegate,
>> which would allow minority representation to rise with a higher
>> likelihood of complete Party representation. That is of course, not up
>> to the LNC, but I am hoping 2020 contains a formal review of our
>> voting procedures as well as an electronic voting system.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Steven Nekhaila
>>
>> On 2018-07-07 06:32 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
>>
>>> Plurality v majority is not for us to decide.
>>>    My objections were based on the fact that the delegates were rushed to
>>>    believe there were only two options.
>>>    There weren’t.
>>>    In fact we easily could have done a rising vote to find majorities.
>>>    There is nothing that can be done now but I do think we unduly
>>>    influenced - innocently and with the best of intent, but still not
>>>    appropriate.
>>>    On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 12:50 PM kenneth.olsen--- via Lnc-business
>>>    <[1]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>      I agree with Nick on this one.  WHile I still support electronic
>>>      voting,
>>>      I agree that the At-Large elections should be based on plurality and
>>>      not
>>>      approval.  It would allow for better overall representation within
>>>      the
>>>      party.
>>>      In Liberty,
>>>      K. Brent Olsen, Psy.D.
>>>      Alternate, Region 4
>>>      559-960-3613
>>>      On 2018-07-06 21:42, Nicholas Sarwark via Lnc-business 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
>>>
>>> References
>>>
>>>    1. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>
>>


-- 
-- 
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary - Caryn.Ann.
Harlos at LP.org  or Secretary at LP.org.
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org

A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*

   I am totally in favour of RCV.  Totally opposed to getting rid of
   regions - when done properly they serve a direct purpose to keep the
   states connected and served.

   On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 1:14 PM, William Redpath via Lnc-business
   <[1]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

     I would like to see Single Transferable Vote (a/k/a Choice Voting or
     Ranked Choice Voting) to elect the LNC At-Large positions.
     [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote
     but we would need better technology to effect that.
     I would support Approval Voting over Plurality Voting, however.
     I would support all non-officer LNC reps to be elected at-large,
     with regions ended.
     Bill Redpath

   On 2018-07-08 20:27, steven.nekhaila--- via Lnc-business wrote:

     I believe a Partial Block Voting system would be ideal for At-Large
     elections, with 7 open seats, and less than 7 votes per delegate,
     which would allow minority representation to rise with a higher
     likelihood of complete Party representation. That is of course, not
     up
     to the LNC, but I am hoping 2020 contains a formal review of our
     voting procedures as well as an electronic voting system.
     Sincerely,
     Steven Nekhaila
     On 2018-07-07 06:32 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:

     Plurality v majority is not for us to decide.
        My objections were based on the fact that the delegates were
     rushed to
        believe there were only two options.
        There weren’t.
        In fact we easily could have done a rising vote to find
     majorities.
        There is nothing that can be done now but I do think we unduly
        influenced - innocently and with the best of intent, but still
     not
        appropriate.
        On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 12:50 PM kenneth.olsen--- via Lnc-business
        <[1][3]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
          I agree with Nick on this one.  WHile I still support
     electronic
          voting,
          I agree that the At-Large elections should be based on
     plurality and
          not
          approval.  It would allow for better overall representation
     within
          the
          party.
          In Liberty,
          K. Brent Olsen, Psy.D.
          Alternate, Region 4
          559-960-3613
          On 2018-07-06 21:42, Nicholas Sarwark via Lnc-business 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
     References
        1. mailto:[4]lnc-business at hq.lp.org

   --
   --
   In Liberty,
   Caryn Ann Harlos
   Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
   - [5]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or Secretary at LP.org.
   Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
   A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
   We defend your rights
   And oppose the use of force
   Taxation is theft

References

   1. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
   2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote
   3. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
   4. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
   5. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
-------------- next part --------------
   Agreed with Caryn Ann.
   John Phillips
   Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
   Cell [1]217-412-5973

   ------ Original message------
   From: Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business
   Date: Wed, Jul 11, 2018 7:01 AM
   To: Libertarian National Committee list;
   Cc: Caryn Ann Harlos;Nicholas Sarwark;
   Subject:Re: [Lnc-business] At-Large Elections
I am totally in favour of RCV.  Totally opposed to getting rid of regions -
when done properly they serve a direct purpose to keep the states connected
and served.

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 1:14 PM, William Redpath via Lnc-business <[2]
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

> I would like to see Single Transferable Vote (a/k/a Choice Voting or
> Ranked Choice Voting) to elect the LNC At-Large positions.
>
> [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote
>
> but we would need better technology to effect that.
>
> I would support Approval Voting over Plurality Voting, however.
>
> I would support all non-officer LNC reps to be elected at-large, with
> regions ended.
>
> Bill Redpath
>
>
>
> On [4]2018-07-08 20:27, [5]steven.nekhaila--- via Lnc-business wrote:
>
>> I believe a Partial Block Voting system would be ideal for At-Large
>> elections, with 7 open seats, and less than 7 votes per delegate,
>> which would allow minority representation to rise with a higher
>> likelihood of complete Party representation. That is of course, not up
>> to the LNC, but I am hoping 2020 contains a formal review of our
>> voting procedures as well as an electronic voting system.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Steven Nekhaila
>>
>> On [6]2018-07-07 06:32 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
>>
>>> Plurality v majority is not for us to decide.
>>>    My objections were based on the fact that the delegates were rushed to
>>>    believe there were only two options.
>>>    There weren’t.
>>>    In fact we easily could have done a rising vote to find majorities.
>>>    There is nothing that can be done now but I do think we unduly
>>>    influenced - innocently and with the best of intent, but still not
>>>    appropriate.
>>>    On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 12:50 PM kenneth.olsen--- via Lnc-business
>>>    <[1[7]]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>      I agree with Nick on this one.  WHile I still support electronic
>>>      voting,
>>>      I agree that the At-Large elections should be based on plurality and
>>>      not
>>>      approval.  It would allow for better overall representation within
>>>      the
>>>      party.
>>>      In Liberty,
>>>      K. Brent Olsen, Psy.D.
>>>      Alternate, Region 4
>>>      [8]559-960-3613
>>>      On [9]2018-07-06 21:42, Nicholas Sarwark via Lnc-business 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
>>>
>>> References
>>>
>>>    1. mailto[10]:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>
>>


--
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary - [11]Caryn.Ann.[
12]
Harlos at LP.org  or[13] Secretary at LP.org.
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee -[14] LPedia at LP.org

A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*

   I am totally in favour of RCV.  Totally opposed to getting rid of
   regions - when done properly they serve a direct purpose to keep the
   states connected and served.

   On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 1:14 PM, William Redpath via Lnc-business
   <[1[15]]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

     I would like to see Single Transferable Vote (a/k/a Choice Voting or
     Ranked Choice Voting) to elect the LNC At-Large positions.
     [2][16]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote
     but we would need better technology to effect that.
     I would support Approval Voting over Plurality Voting, however.
     I would support all non-officer LNC reps to be elected at-large,
     with regions ended.
     Bill Redpath

   On [17]2018-07-08 20:27, [18]steven.nekhaila--- via Lnc-business wrote:

     I believe a Partial Block Voting system would be ideal for At-Large
     elections, with 7 open seats, and less than 7 votes per delegate,
     which would allow minority representation to rise with a higher
     likelihood of complete Party representation. That is of course, not
     up
     to the LNC, but I am hoping 2020 contains a formal review of our
     voting procedures as well as an electronic voting system.
     Sincerely,
     Steven Nekhaila
     On [19]2018-07-07 06:32 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:

     Plurality v majority is not for us to decide.
        My objections were based on the fact that the delegates were
     rushed to
        believe there were only two options.
        There weren’t.
        In fact we easily could have done a rising vote to find
     majorities.
        There is nothing that can be done now but I do think we unduly
        influenced - innocently and with the best of intent, but still
     not
        appropriate.
        On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 12:50 PM kenneth.olsen--- via Lnc-business
        <[1][3[20]]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
          I agree with Nick on this one.  WHile I still support
     electronic
          voting,
          I agree that the At-Large elections should be based on
     plurality and
          not
          approval.  It would allow for better overall representation
     within
          the
          party.
          In Liberty,
          K. Brent Olsen, Psy.D.
          Alternate, Region [21]4
          559-960-3613
          On [22]2018-07-06 21:42, Nicholas Sarwark via Lnc-business 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
     References
        1. mailto:[4[23]]lnc-business at hq.lp.org

   --
   --
   In Liberty,
   Caryn Ann Harlos
   Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
   - [5][24]Caryn.Ann.[25] Harlos at LP.org or[26] Secretary at LP.org.
   Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee -[27] LPedia at LP.org
   A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
   We defend your rights
   And oppose the use of force
   Taxation is theft

References

   1. mailto[28]:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
   2. [29]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote
   3. mailto[30]:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
   4. mailto[31]:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
   5. mailto[32]:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org

References

   1. tel:217-412-5973
   2. mailto:
lnc-business at hq.lp.org
   3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote
   4. tel:2018-07-08 20
   5. http://steven.ne/
   6. tel:2018-07-07 06
   7. mailto:]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
   8. tel:559-960-3613
   9. tel:2018-07-06 21
  10. mailto::lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  11. http://Caryn.An/
  12. mailto:
Harlos at LP.org
  13. mailto: Secretary at LP.org.
  14. mailto: LPedia at LP.org
  15. mailto:]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  16. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote
  17. tel:2018-07-08 20
  18. http://steven.ne/
  19. tel:2018-07-07 06
  20. mailto:]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  21. tel:4
          559-960-3613
  22. tel:2018-07-06 21
  23. mailto:]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  24. http://Caryn.An/
  25. mailto: Harlos at LP.org
  26. mailto: Secretary at LP.org.
  27. mailto: LPedia at LP.org
  28. mailto::lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  29. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote
  30. mailto::lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  31. mailto::lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  32. mailto::Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list