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

[david.demarest at lp.org]

Is that fair to larger states? You can bet your bippy that larger states 
will howl, and rightly so. The present system is fair to both small and 
larger states, within the limits of the delegate formula. Actually, I 
think the designers of the present system did a remarkable job of 
developing a merit-based and fair representation system that 
logistically works reasonably well. They obviously put a lot of thought 
into it. Can that be said of the current expansion proposal? Elizabeth, 
to your credit, the first thing you did was to propose a possible 
logistical suggestion right from the get-go. Commendable!

Could the present system be improved? Probably, but only if the same 
level of due diligence is invested in the enhancements to match the care 
taken to create the present system. Has vigorous logistical due 
diligence been accomplish with the current proposal? Sadly, no, and in 
fact, for the most part they approving majority refuses to discuss their 
due diligence in objective terms.

so, what's the next step? Attempt to slam the faulty proposal through or 
go back to the drawing board and get it right with appropriate 
logistical due diligence? Wishful thinking about better state 
representation without appropriate logistical due diligence is not going 
to cut the mustard. Fortunately, the largely unvetted proposal will 
likely be rejected by convention delegates, particularly if the minority 
has something to say about it in a minority report before the convention 
delegate vote.

Of course, as an economist, I always look at motive. Not just what 
people do but why and how they choose to do it. That is the essence of 
Praxeology, the science of human action and decision making, the broader 
definition of economics coined by Ludwig von Mises. What was the 
thinking process by the proposal approval committee majority? That begs 
the question: What was the motive that blinded those favoring the 
current LNC expansion proposal in its current form that led to the 
conspicuous absence of logistical due diligence?

Historically, the failure to question motive has led to countless 
atrocities that might have been prevented. The same is true down to our 
level of decision making. I always try clearly state my motives. Those 
that do not clearly state their motives raise a huge red flag to me. 
Performance of due diligence goes a long way toward demonstrating the 
veracity of declared motives. If you want to be trusted, perform the due 
diligence necessary to justify and demonstrate the veracity of your 
declared motives. To those who say "Judge not that you be judged" I 
rephrase that to say "Judge and be prepared to be judged", and 
especially motives

Technical? Yes. Practical? Yes. Can we pull it off? Yes. Does the 
government practice it? No. Government is the perfect example of how not 
to perform the due diligence necessary to justify and demonstrate the 
veracity of declared motives. That led to the recent statement by the 
Cato Institute: "Those who take government-sponsored scientific studies 
seriously need to have their heads examined". Difficult to accomplish? 
Hell yes! As Arvin might tell you, it is indeed hard work and often 
risky to take the lead and tackle cutting-edge controversial issues in 
the face of pile-on bandwagon lynch-mob "When did you stop beating your 
spouse?" allegations. Copernicus was unjustly ostracized and persecuted 
for the sin of his heliocentric theory. We Libertarians and members of 
the Bylaws Committee can do better, starting with the LNC expansion 
proposal.

Thoughts?

~David Pratt Demarest

On 2018-01-15 00:47, Elizabeth Van Horn wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business