[Lnc-business] A hypothetical question
Caryn Ann Harlos
caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Mon Feb 26 16:45:28 EST 2018
And I see Joshua (and perhaps to others) that the background and lead up to
my question seems to have obscured the ultimate question.
I will be more clear a bit later.
But I do refer everyone to the part of my email where I said clearly said
my reason for asking.
There is a real situation - though not on all fours exact - that has some
points of comparison to a hypothetical here.
And I would ask that Ms. Mattson not personally attack me in my actual
desire to be sure we come to a good conclusion. That was absolutely and
utterly uncalled for.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:39 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:
> And Alicia that was unwarranted. Please do not impugn my motives or make
> this personal.
>
> Thank you.
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:38 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Joshua I’m running out but I have some questions to ask,
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:37 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I was clear exactly why I asked Alicia.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 1:51 PM Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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/
>>>>
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
And I see Joshua (and perhaps to others) that the background and lead
up to my question seems to have obscured the ultimate question.
I will be more clear a bit later.
But I do refer everyone to the part of my email where I said clearly
said my reason for asking.
There is a real situation - though not on all fours exact - that has
some points of comparison to a hypothetical here.
And I would ask that Ms. Mattson not personally attack me in my actual
desire to be sure we come to a good conclusion. That was absolutely
and utterly uncalled for.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:39 PM Caryn Ann Harlos
<[1]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
And Alicia that was unwarranted. Please do not impugn my motives or
make this personal.
Thank you.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:38 PM Caryn Ann Harlos
<[2]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
Joshua I’m running out but I have some questions to ask,
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:37 PM Caryn Ann Harlos
<[3]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
I was clear exactly why I asked Alicia.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 1:51 PM Joshua Katz
<[4]planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
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][5]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][6]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][7]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
References
1. mailto:[8]planning4liberty at gmail.com
2. mailto:[9]carynannharlos at gmail.com
3. mailto:[10]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
4. [11]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
References
1. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
2. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
3. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
4. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
5. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
6. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
7. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
8. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
9. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
10. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
11. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list