[Lnc-business] Hubbub email chain length for 134-member LNC

[Elizabeth Van Horn]

Well, they say that the communication understanding falls on the writer, 
so I'll take the blame for your misunderstanding.  (Although, I think 
Caryn Ann understood.)

I wasn't talking about delegates.  I was talking about an LNC body.  A 
rep per state.  50 states = 50 people.

(I only mentioned "delegates" to point out that currently smaller states 
have fewer delegates, and that a small state has less vote impact at 
convention.  So, the smaller states may welcome an opportunity to have 
equal footing to larger states in a different area. If they each had one 
representative on the LNC, a larger state like California wouldn't be 
able to over-power a small state in decision making.  I'm not suggesting 
changing how delegates are done.)


---
Elizabeth Van Horn


On 2018-01-15 01:31, david.demarest at lp.org wrote:
> Your state? LOL. Seriously, the proposed rule is 1 state rep per every
> 10 state convention delegates with a minimum of 1 per state. You could
> say that this formula would statistically slightly favor the smaller
> states but in practice smaller states would be overwhelmed by larger
> states. The current system is population proportional with an
> acceptable level of accuracy within the limits of the state delegates
> formula.
> 
> The delegate formula is a combination of relative national memberships
> by state and relative presidential vote totals by state from the most
> recent election. It is not perfect but fairly representative and
> participation based although concerns have been expressed about the
> national membership portion of the formula.
> 
> On 2018-01-14 23:39, Elizabeth Van Horn wrote:
>> *laughing out loud!*    I meant 50 one per state.  See?  It's even
>> better!
>> 
>> ---
>> Elizabeth Van Horn
>> 
>> On 2018-01-15 00:37, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>> 
>>> How is one per state = 100?
>>> 
>>> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 10:25 PM, Elizabeth Van Horn
>>> <elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org> wrote:
>>> I think expanding to one representative per state, for a total of
>>> 100 members, would be a plus.  (I know that's not what the bylaws
>>> people want.)
>>> 
>>> Because, it would be easier to get feedback from the members.  The
>>> actual people we represent.
>>> 
>>> Then some posting rules could be in place, such as no burdening the
>>> rest of the LNC with personal rambles and dreams.
>>> 
>>> ---
>>> Elizabeth Van Horn
>>> 
>>> On 2018-01-15 00:17, david.demarest at lp.org wrote:
>>> 
>>> Can you imagine the length of this bruhaha email chain if the bylaws
>>> committee proposal to expand the the LNC to 134 members was already
>>> in
>>> place. It boggles the imagination.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business [1]
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business [1]
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>> 
>> Links:
>> ------
>> [1] http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business