[Lnc-business] A hypothetical question

Joshua Katz planning4liberty at gmail.com
Mon Feb 26 15:51:59 EST 2018


Ms. Mattson's response makes clearer to me why it matters how the vote is
counted.  Given that, I would conclude that the system the LNC used is
correct, and the member should specify in which capacity they are voting.

Joshua A. Katz


On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:47 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I don't see anything in the bylaws saying a person could not be both,
> which leads me to conclude that it is permitted.  However, the fundamental
> rule applicable is that of "one person, one vote," not "one position, one
> vote."  Hence, such a person could not vote twice.  So, on an email ballot,
> supposing they cast a vote (say, "aye,") it will be counted only once.
> Should the rep for whom they are an alternate vote, that's clear anyway.
> Should that rep not vote, the point is that their vote cannot count for
> both the region they represent and the region they alternate for.  I don't
> see that it matters, mathematically, which one they count for - the real
> variable is whether the rep votes, which is not under the control of this
> rep/alternate.
>
> As for "what are they," well, clearly (unlike an alternate) this person is
> an LNC member, with all that entails.  For example, they could not assert
> their alternate status and serve in a position not otherwise open to an LNC
> member.
>
> Regarding officers, I think the same thing applies.  I have no idea if the
> bylaws intend that outcome or not, but I don't see any ambiguity in which
> to resort to intent.
>
> Joshua A. Katz
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 1:56 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>    Hypothetical question:
>>
>>    Do our Bylaws allow or even contemplate that one person could be a
>>    regional rep for one state and an alternate for another?  And what are
>>    they?  Both?  The “superior” position?
>>
>>    If so, how would that work in an email vote?
>>
>>    There are multiple practical issues.
>>
>>    Yes I am asking because a similar issue has come up on platcomm and
>>    will be the subject of a future meeting and many minds and opinions can
>>    lead to insights.  How the LNC would hypothetically handle would be a
>>    helpful piece of information.  The parallels are not exact but would
>>    give insight.
>>
>>    Also - if assuming the answer to paragraph one is yes - theoretically
>>    could an at-large or regional also be an officer?  Is that something
>>    our Bylaws intended to allow?
>>
>>    Any and all insight appreciated.
>>
>>    I would be more than happy to detail what issues of fundamental
>>    inequity present themselves when dealing with email voting in my first
>>    hypothetical.
>>
>>    --
>>
>>    In Liberty,
>>    Caryn Ann Harlos
>>    Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>>    Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington)
>>    - [1]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
>>    Communications Director, [2]Libertarian Party of Colorado
>>    Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
>>    A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>>    We defend your rights
>>    And oppose the use of force
>>    Taxation is theft
>>
>> References
>>
>>    1. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>>    2. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
   Ms. Mattson's response makes clearer to me why it matters how the vote
   is counted.  Given that, I would conclude that the system the LNC used
   is correct, and the member should specify in which capacity they are
   voting.

   Joshua A. Katz
   On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:47 PM, Joshua Katz
   <[1]planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:

   I don't see anything in the bylaws saying a person could not be both,
   which leads me to conclude that it is permitted.  However, the
   fundamental rule applicable is that of "one person, one vote," not "one
   position, one vote."  Hence, such a person could not vote twice.  So,
   on an email ballot, supposing they cast a vote (say, "aye,") it will be
   counted only once.  Should the rep for whom they are an alternate vote,
   that's clear anyway.  Should that rep not vote, the point is that their
   vote cannot count for both the region they represent and the region
   they alternate for.  I don't see that it matters, mathematically, which
   one they count for - the real variable is whether the rep votes, which
   is not under the control of this rep/alternate.
   As for "what are they," well, clearly (unlike an alternate) this person
   is an LNC member, with all that entails.  For example, they could not
   assert their alternate status and serve in a position not otherwise
   open to an LNC member.
   Regarding officers, I think the same thing applies.  I have no idea if
   the bylaws intend that outcome or not, but I don't see any ambiguity in
   which to resort to intent.

   Joshua A. Katz
   On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 1:56 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
   <[2]carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:

        Hypothetical question:
        Do our Bylaws allow or even contemplate that one person could be
     a
        regional rep for one state and an alternate for another?  And
     what are
        they?  Both?  The “superior” position?
        If so, how would that work in an email vote?
        There are multiple practical issues.
        Yes I am asking because a similar issue has come up on platcomm
     and
        will be the subject of a future meeting and many minds and
     opinions can
        lead to insights.  How the LNC would hypothetically handle would
     be a
        helpful piece of information.  The parallels are not exact but
     would
        give insight.
        Also - if assuming the answer to paragraph one is yes -
     theoretically
        could an at-large or regional also be an officer?  Is that
     something
        our Bylaws intended to allow?
        Any and all insight appreciated.
        I would be more than happy to detail what issues of fundamental
        inequity present themselves when dealing with email voting in my
     first
        hypothetical.
        --
        In Liberty,
        Caryn Ann Harlos
        Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
        Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming,
     Washington)
        - [1]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
        Communications Director, [2]Libertarian Party of Colorado
        Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
        A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
        We defend your rights
        And oppose the use of force
        Taxation is theft
     References
        1. mailto:[3]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
        2. [4]http://www.lpcolorado.org/

References

   1. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
   2. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
   3. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
   4. http://www.lpcolorado.org/


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list