[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-12: INDEPENDENT AUDIT OF AT-LARGE VOTE RESULTS

[Sam Goldstein]

I change my vote to No on this ballot for many of the same reasons 
stated below.

---
Sam Goldstein
Libertarian National Committee
317-850-0726 Cell

On 2018-07-12 08:49, Joe Bishop-Henchman via Lnc-business wrote:
> My vote is no, for three independent reasons.
>    First, while I would support an audit of all results as a matter of
>    regular practice, that's not what this motion does. It singles out 
> one
>    race, this one time. It therefore sends the message that we think 
> the
>    problem with our elections is *inaccurate tabulation* in one race,
>    rather than systemic problems, choice of voting system, scheduling 
> and
>    labor usage, and avoidance of technological solutions. While this
>    motion does not foreclose those discussions, it distracts from them.
>    Doing elections the way we do them, plus an audit, solves nothing.
>    Second, this motion is moot. Ms. Mattson has already shown her work,
>    perhaps because she would have anyway or perhaps because this motion
>    was coming. But if Ms. Mattson rigged the election, this audit ain't
>    gonna find it. (She  also should have rigged it to give herself more
>    than a 1-vote margin.) In retrospect, Ms. Mattson and Mr. Starr
>    probably should have recused themselves from counting the 
> Secretary's
>    race, although my sense is that the army of tellers double checking
>    everything limited the ability to rig the results. More information 
> on
>    our procedures there would be helpful but this motion doesn't do 
> that.
>    The At-Large race is harder, since our voting method makes it very
>    labor intensive to count and very few people in the room are totally
>    disinterested in the race to be considered independent to be able to
>    count it above reproach. I think it would be fruitful to have those
>    discussions and adopt recusal standards for the future, but again, 
> this
>    motion doesn't do that.
>    Third, this motion does nothing to grow our Party, nothing to allow 
> us
>    to move forward to focus on goals and plans, nothing to elect and
>    re-elect Libertarians. I won't co-sponsor anything that doesn't do 
> one
>    of those or more of those things. This doesn't even do any of those
>    things indirectly or tangentially: it's backward looking, pending
>    because we must refute some rumor on Facebook or from one or two
>    regions. We can easily spend all our time doing that, spending
>    attention and resources trying to refute every conspiracy theory we 
> may
>    hear. Or we can act to grow and plan and elect, and be judged on the
>    quality and the results. I also don't appreciate Ms. Harlos's 
> repeated
>    haranguing about why I'm a monster for not immediately co-sponsoring
>    this proposal, or Ms. Adams' yesterday description of my proposal as
>    "bullshit," "unacceptable," "gross," "vile," and "sickening" that I
>    have yet to hear any sponsor of this condemn despite repeated
>    discussions of tone and decorum, or the email exchange of 
> accusations
>    and counter-accusations last night that I find childish and
>    embarrassing. Those tactics lose my vote, and the only way for that 
> to
>    be clear for the future is if I vote no now.
>    JBH