[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-12: INDEPENDENT AUDIT OF AT-LARGE VOTE RESULTS
Richard Longstreth
richard.longstreth at lp.org
Wed Jul 25 10:21:16 EDT 2018
Alicia, stop playing a victim. I admit I skimmed most of your message, but
I have to destroy your perceived bias based on one line.
You said
"When I noted your call for recount wasn’t in both elections..."
CAH didn't call for an audit. I did and I called for auditing both. Unless
you think Caryn Ann somehow controls my independent actions and calls from
my Regional Caucus you are not remembering the past correctly at all.
And yes, at Large was a bigger concern to me initially because of the one
vote margin so I only called for an audit there initially. After a few
days, I also introduced auditing the second election as well, something you
could have easily done previously if you thought a bias was in play.
Honestly, I don't know what the source of the conflict is for you two, but
Alicia, I'm consistently seeing a woe is me attitude from you and regular
attacks on Caryn Ann and it needs to stop. CAH isn't innocent either. We
all need to act like the professional leaders of the party we were elected
to be.
Nobody wants to read blocks of accusations or attacks any more. While we
all have the freedom to post and share as we please, I'd urge all of the
LNC to take pause before sending something like Alicia's message to the
public via this email list.
Richard
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 07:29 Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> Skimmed and skipped.
> Not going to that dance Alicia. Continue solo if you wish.
> -Caryn Ann
>
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 5:20 AM, Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business
> <[1]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
> Caryn Ann,
> I see we have again reached the play-the-victim portion of the
> script.
> How rude of me to defend my actual words when they are being
> misrepresented. Defense is now accused of being aggression and
> hostility.
> When I initially pointed out that it was unfair representation to
> say I
> would be supervising the audit, your first reaction was the
> not-me-and-I-didn't-want-to-do-it bit. Later you expressed that
> you do
> actually agree with the mischaracterization, even after I pointed
> out
> it’s not what I said. You projected your complaints about the
> first
> tally onto a future audit by others. You continued to
> re-characterize
> my proposal that I, "sit in a corner and work on something else
> while
> they do their task" as "being involved", which sounds like
> something
> different.
> I see Wayne Harlos' signature on the Colorado tally sheet in the
> Secretary's race. I see Dr. Buchman's signature on the Utah
> tally
> sheet in this At-Large race in which he was a candidate. After
> telling everyone else that EVH noticed that they had also
> committed
> lapses of judgment, you're now suggesting that I'm so toxic that
> I
> cannot even sit in the corner of the room, lest my presence
> hypnotize
> Nick's chosen independent auditors into failing to do their job,
> but
> you would be happy to be present instead, as if you were some
> kind of
> non-partisan here.
> Don't forget that you were a nominator for Dr. Buchman. I presume
> him
> to be the candidate about whom you have publicly described as
> having
> been "screwed by this whole process", in the next breath calling
> it a
> "suspect election". You didn’t say all candidates were screwed
> by the
> process, just one particular candidate, as though he was entitled
> to
> win but he didn’t. That told me you were unhappy with the
> result.
> When I noted your call for recount wasn’t in both elections that
> I
> tabulated in which I was a candidate, only the one where you had
> already expressed displeasure with the result, out came the
> victim
> card. You said I was attacking you, and ridiculously accused me
> of
> using a "shaming and silencing tactic", though 1 out of every 3
> emails
> to this list is from you.
> While I was spending many hours assembling more-than-requested
> information, and giving you updates on my progress, I was accused
> of
> "ignoring" the situation. When you singled out Aaron with no
> mention
> of the others, we got the drama of, “I think the optic of this
> make
> Arvin's comments look like the height of civility.” Really?
> Worse
> than a guy saying school board shootings are a good idea? Worse
> than
> Arvin’s philosophies about 14-year-old girls?
> You're not exactly a neutral party in this matter, and yet you
> think
> it's fine for you to be present for the next audit, but somehow
> it’s a
> “huge mis-step in judgment” for me to even sit in a corner and do
> something else while others do the audit.
> The comments you posted here about Aaron’s role also do not
> accurately
> portray the situation. I realize you haven’t had to actually do
> the
> job yet, so you haven’t experienced that time pressure to get the
> data
> assembled and announced. It feels like installing a roof during
> a
> hurricane.
> I have manually tallied three conventions, including our two
> largest,
> with an unusually large number of candidates this year. The 2018
> At-Large race had 604 delegates voting for a whopping 36
> options. (In
> 2016, only 418 delegates voted for 20 At-Large options.)
> This year, while the tellers were still trying to double-check
> the
> At-Large tally sheets, we had to pause and distribute and collect
> the
> ballots on which 501 delegates voted for 22 Judicial Committee
> candidates. I was running out of At-Large data to enter because
> the
> tellers were spread too thin by the overlapping elections.
> To keep the process from completely stalling, and have a higher
> chance
> of getting results before adjournment, I pulled Aaron in to
> assist,
> plus a couple of more tellers. Aaron is a former auditor, and
> his
> brain is wired to find anomalies in a system. I knew he would do
> the
> job well, cleanly, and help train the other newcomers so we could
> keep
> the At-Large process moving. And he did.
> Aaron worked with a partner. When they checked California’s
> submission, right off the bat they realized that the number of
> votes
> written on the ballots was one more than the total on the tally
> sheet.
> When they realized the discrepancy impacted my vote total, Aaron
> stepped back and asked two other tellers to verify it and have
> them –
> not him – make the change to the tally sheet and sign it. Aaron
> also
> insisted that several others present witness a recount of the
> California ballots that had my name on it.
> At that point NOBODY knew how close the race was going to
> ultimately
> be. I was only partially through data entry. Perhaps people
> imagine
> that I’m up there looking at the totals every few seconds so that
> I
> constantly know where it stands, but the push to get the job done
> ASAP
> means that all I can afford to think about is keeping the data
> entry
> moving and watching for any anomalies. Another teller was beside
> me
> for the duration of the data entry.
> Regarding the “rumor” as you called it, I suspect someone just
> wasn't
> precise in their choice of words. It would require a time
> machine for
> the situation to have been, “…the vote for the last seat was a
> tie
> until Mr. Starr found an additional vote for Ms. Mattson in CA.”
> That
> phrasing could give the reader the impression that all the data
> entry
> was done, we knew it was a tie, and we went searching for a way
> to
> break the tie. That didn’t happen. Many people were standing
> around
> waiting for the data entry to be complete, and snapshots of my
> screen
> were taken within a few seconds of data entry being completed and
> sorted into a ranking order to see just how close it was.
> Had Aaron and his fellow teller not noticed that the California
> ballots
> contained one more vote than was on the tally sheet, when the
> data
> entry was LATER completed, the initially-reported results would
> have
> mistakenly been reported as a tie, and it would have been REALLY
> awkward had this fact gone unnoticed until post-convention.
> Instead,
> it was noticed in the presence of, and was verified and corrected
> by,
> other tellers before the initially-reported results.
> For most of a decade, I have been saying that we should move to
> electronic voting. The delegates have previously rejected it,
> leaving
> me with no choice but to do my best to try to catch and fix the
> errors
> before the initial results. I have been pointing out how
> error-susceptible our human-tallying elections are. I have been
> educating about how difficult it is to get exact results with the
> time
> pressures, multi-tasking, noise levels, disruption levels, etc.
> that
> are experienced during the convention. I have argued against the
> convention conducting other business during the votes because it
> makes
> it harder to get the really important tallying job done.
> I wrote the proposal which became Convention Rule 10, adopted by
> delegates to require tellers to double-check the state tallies,
> and to
> require the on-screen review of the tally spreadsheet (previously
> that
> step was often skipped just to save time). Though it still
> doesn’t fix
> everything, those things do increase the number of errors we
> catch
> onsite before the results are displayed.
> For me to now be portrayed with such inflammatory rhetoric as
> someone
> who ran a “suspect election”, as someone making the party look
> worse
> than Arvin Vohra did, and now to have you taint the perception of
> the
> future audit with misrepresentations of my words…well, that’s
> just a
> special experience. I do not deserve that.
> -Alicia
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 4:05 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
> <[1][2]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
> Alicia, I am not going to engage the aggression here. Your
> comment is
> completely out of bounds on multiple levels and I ask that you
> stop the
> personal hostility. But you are free to make it, and I shall
> decline
> to engage further. All those allegedly are a smooth way to try
> to call
> me a liar.
> I do respect you for all the reason I said in the past
> (intelligence,
> skill-set, competence). I do think being involved in this count
> at all
> both past and present is a huge mis-step in judgment. And I also
> think
> - and communicated to the persons that EVH pointed out - that
> delegation chairs similarly situated demonstrated a mis-step in
> judgment as well. And I do think you should step out of this
> entire
> process entirely.
> PS: I don't think the member was entirely incorrect so I would
> not say
> that to them. The reason I was reluctant to share it is
> precisely
> because of this. It seems you want to keep making things
> personal
> between you and me. They are not. A political race is not
> personal.
> I never got personal with you or about you in my campaign, and I
> don't
> intend to start now.
> -Caryn Ann
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 4:35 PM, Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business
> <[2][3]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> Caryn Ann,
> When you received this feedback from the anonymous member,
> you
> had the
> opportunity to tell them, "That's not what she said. Go
> back and
> read
> her post again." Instead you repeated the
> misrepresentation,
> with all
> its implications, here on a public list to give it a broad
> audience.
> For someone who allegedly is not attacking me, and allegedly
> has
> respect for me, and allegedly "did not even want to pass
> along",
> ya
> just flopped it right out there... Don't pretend that you
> had an
> obligation to do it. You're not fooling anyone with this
> game.
> -Alicia
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 3:59 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
> <[1][3][4]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
> Alicia I am passing along directly what the member said.
> That
> member
> reads the list and can decide if they think they were being
> unfair. I
> did not solicit this feedback and did not even want to pass
> along
> but
> it is member feedback.
> -Caryn Ann
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 12:35 AM, Alicia Mattson via
> Lnc-business
> <[2][4][5]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> CAH> A concerned member (no permission to share name)
> wrote
> me
> and
> inquired if any audit should be supervised by a
> candidate.
> Seriously? Do you think that's a fair way to portray
> what I
> proposed?
> What I actually said was, "I can sit in a corner and
> work on
> something
> else while they do their task, but if at some point
> their
> number
> doesn't match mine, we can all take a look at it right
> then
> without
> going back and forth via email."
> I also said to Nick, "Phoenix is within that zone, and
> you
> could
> personally supervise if you wish."
> I suggested that I sit in a corner, and I invited Nick
> to
> supervise.
> -Alicia
> On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 2:26 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
> <[1][3][5][6]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
> A concerned member (no permission to share name) wrote
> me
> and
> inquired
> if any audit should be supervised by a candidate.
> Since I agree with Alicia that the actual ballots are a
> better
> solution, if the Chair wishes it, I can make myself
> available as
> the
> current Secretary to be personally present at any
> audit.
> I can then confer with Alicia about any issues found.
> -Caryn Ann
> On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 2:59 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
> <[2][4][6][7]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
> I will make those two changes thank you Alicia.
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 5:51 PM Alicia Mattson via
> Lnc-business
>
> <[3][5][7][8]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> Sorry for needing to send one more email on this subject,
> however, it
> has occurred to me that if the start/end dates in the
> Secretary's
> report are listed as 07/12/18 to 07/19/18, then the
> footnote
> that
> I
> wrote will make me sound like a person who can't subtract
> 12
> from
> 19.
> I should have written the footnote to be more specific as
> follows:
> * Since the published vote period of 11:53 p.m. Pacific
> on
> 07/11/18 to
> 11:59:59 p.m. Pacific on 07/19/18 resulted in a voting
> period
> which
> exceeded 8 days, Ms. Mattson had expressed a belief that
> the
> end
> date
> should be changed from 7/19/18 to 7/18/18. During this
> final
> day
> of
> voting which is disputed, Mr. Redpath changed his vote
> from
> "no"
> to
> "yes". These reported results reflect the changed vote
> during
> the
> disputed time period, but the outcome of the vote is not
> impacted
> by
> the question of how to report this one vote.
> -Alicia
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 1:55 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
>
> <[1][4][6][8][9]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
> I added that note to the tally sheet and will
> include
> that
> in my
> Secretary's Report.
> -Caryn Ann
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 2:44 PM, Alicia Mattson
> via
> Lnc-business
>
> <[2][5][7][9][10]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> Since these results include a vote change during the
> final
> day, I
> do
> think these results need to be footnoted as follows:
> * Since the published ending time of the ballot
> resulted
> in
> a
> voting
> period which exceeded 8 days, Ms. Mattson had
> expressed
> a
> belief
> that
> the end date should be changed from 7/19/18 to
> 7/18/18.
> During
> this
> final day of voting which is disputed, Mr. Redpath
> changed
> his
> vote
> from "no" to "yes". These reported results reflect
> the
> changed
> vote
> during the disputed time period, but the outcome of
> the
> vote
> is
> not
> impacted by the question of how to report this one
> vote.
> If they're footnoted, given that it doesn't impact
> the
> result, I
> won't
> feel a need to raise a point of order about the
> reported
> results
> and
> ask the LNC to make a decision on how to report that
> vote
> change.
> -Alicia
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 12:18 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
> via
> Lnc-business
>
> <[1][3][6][8][10][11]lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
> wrote:
> Voting has ENDED for the email ballot TITLE
> Voting
> "aye":
> Bilyeu,
> Hagan, Harlos, Hewitt, Longstreth, Lyons,
> Mattson,
> Merced,
> Phillips,
> Redpath, Smith Voting "nay":
> Bishop-Henchman,
> Goldstein, Van
> Horn
> Express Abstention: Lark, Nekhaila With a
> final
> vote
> tally
> of
> 11-3-2,
> the motion PASSES. Note: Sarwark did not
> vote. You
> can
> keep
> track
> of
> the Secretary's manual tally of votes here:
>
> [1][2][4][7][9][11][12]https://tinyur
> [13]l.com/lncvoting
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 7:30 AM, William
> Redpath
> via
> Lnc-business
> <[2][3][5][8][10][12][14]lnc-
> business at hq.lp.org>
> wrote:
> I will change my vote on an LNC
> At-Large
> voting
> audit
> to
> Yes.
> Bill
> Redpath
> On 2018-07-19 02:11, Alicia Mattson via
> Lnc-business
> wrote:
> I vote yes.
> -Alicia
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 11:53 PM,
> Caryn
> Ann
> Harlos
> via
> Lnc-business
> <[1][3][4][6][9][11][13]lnc-busine
>
> [15]ss at hq.lp.org>
> wrote:
> We have an electronic mail ballot.
> Votes
> are
> due
> to the
> LNC-Business
> list by July 19, 2018 at 11:59:59pm
> Pacific
> time.
> Co-Sponsors:
> Bowden,
> Harlos, Longstreth, Mattson
> Motion: Move that the LNC would have
> an
> audit
> of
> the At
> Large
> ballots
> done by two independent auditors
> appointed
> by
> the
> Chair, ie
> someone not
> in the race. You can keep track of
> the
> Secretary's
> manual
> tally
> of
> votes here:
>
> [1][2][4][5][7][10][12][14][16]https://tinyurl.co
> m/lncvoting
> --
> --
> In Liberty,
> Caryn Ann Harlos
> Libertarian Party and
> Libertarian
> National
> Committee
> Secretary
> - [2]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.
> [3][5][6][8][11][13][15][17]https://tinyur
> [16][18]l.co
> m/lncvoting
> 2.
> mailto:[4]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.
> org
> References
> 1. mailto:[6][7][9][12][14]lnc-
> busine
> [17][19]ss at hq.lp.org
> 2.
> [7][8][10][13][15][18][20]https://tiny
> url.
> com/lncvoting
> 3.
> [8][9][11][14][16][19][21]https://tiny
> url.
> com/lncvoting
> 4. mailto:[9]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.
> org
> --
> --
> In Liberty,
> Caryn Ann Harlos
> Libertarian Party and Libertarian
> National
> Committee
> Secretary
> - [10]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
> --
> --
> In Liberty,
> Caryn Ann Harlos
> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
> - [20]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:[22]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 2. mailto:[23]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 3. mailto:[24]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 4. mailto:[25]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 5. mailto:[26]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 6. mailto:[27]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 7. mailto:[28]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 8. mailto:[29]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 9. mailto:[30]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 10. mailto:[31]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 11. [32]https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
> 12. mailto:[33]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 13. mailto:[34]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 14. [35]https://tinyurl.co/
> 15. [36]https://tinyur/
> 16. [37]http://l.co/
> 17. mailto:[38]ss at hq.lp.org
> 18. [39]https://tinyurl/
> 19. [40]https://tinyurl/
> 20. mailto:[41]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>
> --
> --
> In Liberty,
> Caryn Ann Harlos
> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
> - [42]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. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 3. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 4. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 5. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 6. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 7. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 8. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 9. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 10. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 11. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 12. https://tinyur/
> 13. http://l.com/lncvoting
> 14. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 15. mailto:ss at hq.lp.org
> 16. https://tinyurl.co/
> 17. https://tinyur/
> 18. http://l.co/
> 19. mailto:ss at hq.lp.org
> 20. https://tiny/
> 21. https://tiny/
> 22. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 23. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 24. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 25. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 26. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 27. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 28. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 29. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 30. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 31. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 32. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
> 33. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 34. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 35. https://tinyurl.co/
> 36. https://tinyur/
> 37. http://l.co/
> 38. mailto:ss at hq.lp.org
> 39. https://tinyurl/
> 40. https://tinyurl/
> 41. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 42. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>
--
Richard Longstreth
Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, KS, MT, NM, OR, HI, UT, WA, WY)
Libertarian National Committee
richard.longstreth at lp.org
931.538.9300
-------------- next part --------------
Alicia, stop playing a victim. I admit I skimmed most of your message,
but I have to destroy your perceived bias based on one line.
You said
"When I noted your call for recount wasn’t in both elections..."
CAH didn't call for an audit. I did and I called for auditing both.
Unless you think Caryn Ann somehow controls my independent actions and
calls from my Regional Caucus you are not remembering the past
correctly at all.
And yes, at Large was a bigger concern to me initially because of the
one vote margin so I only called for an audit there initially. After a
few days, I also introduced auditing the second election as well,
something you could have easily done previously if you thought a bias
was in play.
Honestly, I don't know what the source of the conflict is for you two,
but Alicia, I'm consistently seeing a woe is me attitude from you and
regular attacks on Caryn Ann and it needs to stop. CAH isn't innocent
either. We all need to act like the professional leaders of the party
we were elected to be.
Nobody wants to read blocks of accusations or attacks any more. While
we all have the freedom to post and share as we please, I'd urge all of
the LNC to take pause before sending something like Alicia's message to
the public via this email list.
Richard
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 07:29 Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business
<[1]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
Skimmed and skipped.
Not going to that dance Alicia. Continue solo if you wish.
-Caryn Ann
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 5:20 AM, Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business
<[1][2]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
Caryn Ann,
I see we have again reached the play-the-victim portion of
the
script.
How rude of me to defend my actual words when they are being
misrepresented. Defense is now accused of being aggression
and
hostility.
When I initially pointed out that it was unfair
representation to
say I
would be supervising the audit, your first reaction was the
not-me-and-I-didn't-want-to-do-it bit. Later you expressed
that
you do
actually agree with the mischaracterization, even after I
pointed
out
it’s not what I said. You projected your complaints about
the
first
tally onto a future audit by others. You continued to
re-characterize
my proposal that I, "sit in a corner and work on something
else
while
they do their task" as "being involved", which sounds like
something
different.
I see Wayne Harlos' signature on the Colorado tally sheet in
the
Secretary's race. I see Dr. Buchman's signature on the Utah
tally
sheet in this At-Large race in which he was a candidate.
After
telling everyone else that EVH noticed that they had also
committed
lapses of judgment, you're now suggesting that I'm so toxic
that
I
cannot even sit in the corner of the room, lest my presence
hypnotize
Nick's chosen independent auditors into failing to do their
job,
but
you would be happy to be present instead, as if you were
some
kind of
non-partisan here.
Don't forget that you were a nominator for Dr. Buchman. I
presume
him
to be the candidate about whom you have publicly described
as
having
been "screwed by this whole process", in the next breath
calling
it a
"suspect election". You didn’t say all candidates were
screwed
by the
process, just one particular candidate, as though he was
entitled
to
win but he didn’t. That told me you were unhappy with the
result.
When I noted your call for recount wasn’t in both elections
that
I
tabulated in which I was a candidate, only the one where you
had
already expressed displeasure with the result, out came the
victim
card. You said I was attacking you, and ridiculously
accused me
of
using a "shaming and silencing tactic", though 1 out of
every 3
emails
to this list is from you.
While I was spending many hours assembling
more-than-requested
information, and giving you updates on my progress, I was
accused
of
"ignoring" the situation. When you singled out Aaron with
no
mention
of the others, we got the drama of, “I think the optic of
this
make
Arvin's comments look like the height of civility.” Really?
Worse
than a guy saying school board shootings are a good idea?
Worse
than
Arvin’s philosophies about 14-year-old girls?
You're not exactly a neutral party in this matter, and yet
you
think
it's fine for you to be present for the next audit, but
somehow
it’s a
“huge mis-step in judgment” for me to even sit in a corner
and do
something else while others do the audit.
The comments you posted here about Aaron’s role also do not
accurately
portray the situation. I realize you haven’t had to
actually do
the
job yet, so you haven’t experienced that time pressure to
get the
data
assembled and announced. It feels like installing a roof
during
a
hurricane.
I have manually tallied three conventions, including our two
largest,
with an unusually large number of candidates this year. The
2018
At-Large race had 604 delegates voting for a whopping 36
options. (In
2016, only 418 delegates voted for 20 At-Large options.)
This year, while the tellers were still trying to
double-check
the
At-Large tally sheets, we had to pause and distribute and
collect
the
ballots on which 501 delegates voted for 22 Judicial
Committee
candidates. I was running out of At-Large data to enter
because
the
tellers were spread too thin by the overlapping elections.
To keep the process from completely stalling, and have a
higher
chance
of getting results before adjournment, I pulled Aaron in to
assist,
plus a couple of more tellers. Aaron is a former auditor,
and
his
brain is wired to find anomalies in a system. I knew he
would do
the
job well, cleanly, and help train the other newcomers so we
could
keep
the At-Large process moving. And he did.
Aaron worked with a partner. When they checked California’s
submission, right off the bat they realized that the number
of
votes
written on the ballots was one more than the total on the
tally
sheet.
When they realized the discrepancy impacted my vote total,
Aaron
stepped back and asked two other tellers to verify it and
have
them –
not him – make the change to the tally sheet and sign it.
Aaron
also
insisted that several others present witness a recount of
the
California ballots that had my name on it.
At that point NOBODY knew how close the race was going to
ultimately
be. I was only partially through data entry. Perhaps
people
imagine
that I’m up there looking at the totals every few seconds so
that
I
constantly know where it stands, but the push to get the job
done
ASAP
means that all I can afford to think about is keeping the
data
entry
moving and watching for any anomalies. Another teller was
beside
me
for the duration of the data entry.
Regarding the “rumor” as you called it, I suspect someone
just
wasn't
precise in their choice of words. It would require a time
machine for
the situation to have been, “…the vote for the last seat was
a
tie
until Mr. Starr found an additional vote for Ms. Mattson in
CA.”
That
phrasing could give the reader the impression that all the
data
entry
was done, we knew it was a tie, and we went searching for a
way
to
break the tie. That didn’t happen. Many people were
standing
around
waiting for the data entry to be complete, and snapshots of
my
screen
were taken within a few seconds of data entry being
completed and
sorted into a ranking order to see just how close it was.
Had Aaron and his fellow teller not noticed that the
California
ballots
contained one more vote than was on the tally sheet, when
the
data
entry was LATER completed, the initially-reported results
would
have
mistakenly been reported as a tie, and it would have been
REALLY
awkward had this fact gone unnoticed until post-convention.
Instead,
it was noticed in the presence of, and was verified and
corrected
by,
other tellers before the initially-reported results.
For most of a decade, I have been saying that we should move
to
electronic voting. The delegates have previously rejected
it,
leaving
me with no choice but to do my best to try to catch and fix
the
errors
before the initial results. I have been pointing out how
error-susceptible our human-tallying elections are. I have
been
educating about how difficult it is to get exact results
with the
time
pressures, multi-tasking, noise levels, disruption levels,
etc.
that
are experienced during the convention. I have argued
against the
convention conducting other business during the votes
because it
makes
it harder to get the really important tallying job done.
I wrote the proposal which became Convention Rule 10,
adopted by
delegates to require tellers to double-check the state
tallies,
and to
require the on-screen review of the tally spreadsheet
(previously
that
step was often skipped just to save time). Though it still
doesn’t fix
everything, those things do increase the number of errors we
catch
onsite before the results are displayed.
For me to now be portrayed with such inflammatory rhetoric
as
someone
who ran a “suspect election”, as someone making the party
look
worse
than Arvin Vohra did, and now to have you taint the
perception of
the
future audit with misrepresentations of my words…well,
that’s
just a
special experience. I do not deserve that.
-Alicia
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 4:05 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<[1][2][3]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
Alicia, I am not going to engage the aggression here. Your
comment is
completely out of bounds on multiple levels and I ask that
you
stop the
personal hostility. But you are free to make it, and I
shall
decline
to engage further. All those allegedly are a smooth way to
try
to call
me a liar.
I do respect you for all the reason I said in the past
(intelligence,
skill-set, competence). I do think being involved in this
count
at all
both past and present is a huge mis-step in judgment. And I
also
think
- and communicated to the persons that EVH pointed out -
that
delegation chairs similarly situated demonstrated a mis-step
in
judgment as well. And I do think you should step out of
this
entire
process entirely.
PS: I don't think the member was entirely incorrect so I
would
not say
that to them. The reason I was reluctant to share it is
precisely
because of this. It seems you want to keep making things
personal
between you and me. They are not. A political race is not
personal.
I never got personal with you or about you in my campaign,
and I
don't
intend to start now.
-Caryn Ann
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 4:35 PM, Alicia Mattson via
Lnc-business
<[2][3][4]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
Caryn Ann,
When you received this feedback from the anonymous
member,
you
had the
opportunity to tell them, "That's not what she said.
Go
back and
read
her post again." Instead you repeated the
misrepresentation,
with all
its implications, here on a public list to give it a
broad
audience.
For someone who allegedly is not attacking me, and
allegedly
has
respect for me, and allegedly "did not even want to
pass
along",
ya
just flopped it right out there... Don't pretend that
you
had an
obligation to do it. You're not fooling anyone with
this
game.
-Alicia
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 3:59 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<[1][3][4][5]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
Alicia I am passing along directly what the member
said.
That
member
reads the list and can decide if they think they were
being
unfair. I
did not solicit this feedback and did not even want to
pass
along
but
it is member feedback.
-Caryn Ann
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 12:35 AM, Alicia Mattson via
Lnc-business
<[2][4][5][6]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
CAH> A concerned member (no permission to share
name)
wrote
me
and
inquired if any audit should be supervised by a
candidate.
Seriously? Do you think that's a fair way to
portray
what I
proposed?
What I actually said was, "I can sit in a corner
and
work on
something
else while they do their task, but if at some
point
their
number
doesn't match mine, we can all take a look at it
right
then
without
going back and forth via email."
I also said to Nick, "Phoenix is within that zone,
and
you
could
personally supervise if you wish."
I suggested that I sit in a corner, and I invited
Nick
to
supervise.
-Alicia
On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 2:26 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<[1][3][5][6][7]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
A concerned member (no permission to share name)
wrote
me
and
inquired
if any audit should be supervised by a candidate.
Since I agree with Alicia that the actual ballots
are a
better
solution, if the Chair wishes it, I can make
myself
available as
the
current Secretary to be personally present at any
audit.
I can then confer with Alicia about any issues
found.
-Caryn Ann
On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 2:59 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<[2][4][6][7][8]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
I will make those two changes thank you Alicia.
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 5:51 PM Alicia Mattson via
Lnc-business
<[3][5][7][8][9]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
Sorry for needing to send one more email on this
subject,
however, it
has occurred to me that if the start/end dates in
the
Secretary's
report are listed as 07/12/18 to 07/19/18, then the
footnote
that
I
wrote will make me sound like a person who can't
subtract
12
from
19.
I should have written the footnote to be more
specific as
follows:
* Since the published vote period of 11:53 p.m.
Pacific
on
07/11/18 to
11:59:59 p.m. Pacific on 07/19/18 resulted in a
voting
period
which
exceeded 8 days, Ms. Mattson had expressed a belief
that
the
end
date
should be changed from 7/19/18 to 7/18/18. During
this
final
day
of
voting which is disputed, Mr. Redpath changed his
vote
from
"no"
to
"yes". These reported results reflect the changed
vote
during
the
disputed time period, but the outcome of the vote
is not
impacted
by
the question of how to report this one vote.
-Alicia
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 1:55 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<[1][4][6][8][9][10]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:
I added that note to the tally sheet and will
include
that
in my
Secretary's Report.
-Caryn Ann
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 2:44 PM, Alicia
Mattson
via
Lnc-business
<[2][5][7][9][10][11]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
Since these results include a vote change
during the
final
day, I
do
think these results need to be footnoted as
follows:
* Since the published ending time of the
ballot
resulted
in
a
voting
period which exceeded 8 days, Ms. Mattson had
expressed
a
belief
that
the end date should be changed from 7/19/18 to
7/18/18.
During
this
final day of voting which is disputed, Mr.
Redpath
changed
his
vote
from "no" to "yes". These reported results
reflect
the
changed
vote
during the disputed time period, but the
outcome of
the
vote
is
not
impacted by the question of how to report this
one
vote.
If they're footnoted, given that it doesn't
impact
the
result, I
won't
feel a need to raise a point of order about
the
reported
results
and
ask the LNC to make a decision on how to
report that
vote
change.
-Alicia
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 12:18 PM, Caryn Ann
Harlos
via
Lnc-business
<[1][3][6][8][10][11][12]lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
wrote:
Voting has ENDED for the email ballot
TITLE
Voting
"aye":
Bilyeu,
Hagan, Harlos, Hewitt, Longstreth,
Lyons,
Mattson,
Merced,
Phillips,
Redpath, Smith Voting "nay":
Bishop-Henchman,
Goldstein, Van
Horn
Express Abstention: Lark, Nekhaila
With a
final
vote
tally
of
11-3-2,
the motion PASSES. Note: Sarwark did
not
vote. You
can
keep
track
of
the Secretary's manual tally of votes
here:
[1][2][4][7][9][11][12][13]https://tinyur
[13][14]l.com/lncvoting
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 7:30 AM,
William
Redpath
via
Lnc-business
<[2][3][5][8][10][12][14]lnc-
[15]business at hq.lp.org>
wrote:
I will change my vote on an LNC
At-Large
voting
audit
to
Yes.
Bill
Redpath
On 2018-07-19 02:11, Alicia Mattson
via
Lnc-business
wrote:
I vote yes.
-Alicia
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 11:53
PM,
Caryn
Ann
Harlos
via
Lnc-business
<[1][3][4][6][9][11][13]lnc-busine
[15][16]ss at hq.lp.org>
wrote:
We have an electronic mail
ballot.
Votes
are
due
to the
LNC-Business
list by July 19, 2018 at
11:59:59pm
Pacific
time.
Co-Sponsors:
Bowden,
Harlos, Longstreth, Mattson
Motion: Move that the LNC would
have
an
audit
of
the At
Large
ballots
done by two independent
auditors
appointed
by
the
Chair, ie
someone not
in the race. You can keep
track of
the
Secretary's
manual
tally
of
votes here:
[1][2][4][5][7][10][12][14][16][17]https://tinyurl.co
m/lncvoting
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Libertarian Party and
Libertarian
National
Committee
Secretary
- [2]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.
[3][5][6][8][11][13][15][17][18]https://tinyur
[16][18][19]l.co
m/lncvoting
2.
mailto:[4]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.
org
References
1.
mailto:[6][7][9][12][14]lnc-
busine
[17][19][20]ss at hq.lp.org
2.
[7][8][10][13][15][18][20][21]https://tiny
url.
com/lncvoting
3.
[8][9][11][14][16][19][21][22]https://tiny
url.
com/lncvoting
4.
mailto:[9]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.
org
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Libertarian Party and Libertarian
National
Committee
Secretary
- [10]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
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee
Secretary
- [20]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:[22][23]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
2. mailto:[23][24]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
3. mailto:[24][25]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
4. mailto:[25][26]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
5. mailto:[26][27]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
6. mailto:[27][28]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
7. mailto:[28][29]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
8. mailto:[29][30]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
9. mailto:[30][31]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
10. mailto:[31][32]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
11. [32][33]https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
12. mailto:[33][34]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
13. mailto:[34][35]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
14. [35][36]https://tinyurl.co/
15. [36][37]https://tinyur/
16. [37][38]http://l.co/
17. mailto:[38][39]ss at hq.lp.org
18. [39][40]https://tinyurl/
19. [40][41]https://tinyurl/
20. mailto:[41]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
- [42]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:[42]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
2. mailto:[43]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
3. mailto:[44]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
4. mailto:[45]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
5. mailto:[46]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
6. mailto:[47]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
7. mailto:[48]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
8. mailto:[49]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
9. mailto:[50]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
10. mailto:[51]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
11. mailto:[52]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
12. [53]https://tinyur/
13. [54]http://l.com/lncvoting
14. mailto:[55]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
15. mailto:[56]ss at hq.lp.org
16. [57]https://tinyurl.co/
17. [58]https://tinyur/
18. [59]http://l.co/
19. mailto:[60]ss at hq.lp.org
20. [61]https://tiny/
21. [62]https://tiny/
22. mailto:[63]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
23. mailto:[64]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
24. mailto:[65]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
25. mailto:[66]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
26. mailto:[67]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
27. mailto:[68]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
28. mailto:[69]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
29. mailto:[70]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
30. mailto:[71]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
31. mailto:[72]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
32. [73]https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
33. mailto:[74]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
34. mailto:[75]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
35. [76]https://tinyurl.co/
36. [77]https://tinyur/
37. [78]http://l.co/
38. mailto:[79]ss at hq.lp.org
39. [80]https://tinyurl/
40. [81]https://tinyurl/
41. mailto:[82]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
42. mailto:[83]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
--
Richard Longstreth
Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, KS, MT, NM, OR, HI, UT, WA, WY)
Libertarian National Committee
[84]richard.longstreth at lp.org
931.538.9300
References
1. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
2. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
3. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
4. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
5. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
6. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
7. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
8. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
9. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
10. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
11. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
12. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
13. https://tinyur/
14. http://l.com/lncvoting
15. mailto:business at hq.lp.org
16. mailto:ss at hq.lp.org
17. https://tinyurl.co/
18. https://tinyur/
19. http://l.co/
20. mailto:ss at hq.lp.org
21. https://tiny/
22. https://tiny/
23. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
24. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
25. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
26. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
27. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
28. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
29. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
30. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
31. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
32. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
33. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
34. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
35. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
36. https://tinyurl.co/
37. https://tinyur/
38. http://l.co/
39. mailto:ss at hq.lp.org
40. https://tinyurl/
41. https://tinyurl/
42. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
43. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
44. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
45. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
46. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
47. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
48. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
49. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
50. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
51. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
52. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
53. https://tinyur/
54. http://l.com/lncvoting
55. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
56. mailto:ss at hq.lp.org
57. https://tinyurl.co/
58. https://tinyur/
59. http://l.co/
60. mailto:ss at hq.lp.org
61. https://tiny/
62. https://tiny/
63. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
64. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
65. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
66. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
67. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
68. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
69. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
70. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
71. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
72. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
73. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
74. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
75. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
76. https://tinyurl.co/
77. https://tinyur/
78. http://l.co/
79. mailto:ss at hq.lp.org
80. https://tinyurl/
81. https://tinyurl/
82. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
83. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
84. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list