[Lnc-business] A hypothetical question
Joshua Katz
planning4liberty at gmail.com
Tue Feb 27 00:48:29 EST 2018
It's certainly not always the case that those things which are not
forbidden, are permitted. There is a general canon to that effect, but
often there are dueling canons - for example, that when something is
specifically permitted, all things of the same type are prohibited. What
do the canons have to do with it? Well, nothing - except that some of them
have been codified as general principles of bylaw interpretation. So there
is a general presumption that when the bylaws do not prohibit something, it
is permitted, but it's not absolute.
I don't think I need it here, though. Our parliamentary authority
expressly allows for the holding of two voting positions. Even more so,
the holding of a voting position and a partial-voting position seems
clearly permitted by the parliamentary authority. Our bylaws, of course,
could override it. Do they? Well, as I said, I don't see a prohibition,
so they don't seem to.
The opposing argument is that, by creating the category of 'alternate,'
they impliedly created a prohibition, at least in that context. But why
should we believe that? It doesn't seem to logically follow, and there's
no principle I can see that gets there. I don't think creating alternates
makes our bylaws fail to be silent on holding two positions.
Why has it never happened? Well, most regions prefer to elect
representatives who live there or are residents (not all, and there are
exceptions, but it seems like something of a preference). Since no two
regions can overlap, it seems like it wouldn't come up very often. Even
where a region is open to doing it, it probably doesn't occur to many to do
such a thing - and even a region open to having a rep/alternate who doesn't
live in the region (or who has homes in more than one region) might still
balk at this particular arrangement. Reps and alternates are directors
elected by a constituency, and under our bylaws (and other rules) are only
removable by that constituency. I think most regions, if asked to serve as
the "second region" (the first might not know about it, after all) wouldn't
like the idea that a vote to remove their rep/alternate would leave that
very person on the LNC. Hence, there's likely internal reasons for this
not to happen. Furthermore (and to answer the question about all regions
selecting the same rep), the fact of "one person, one vote" is a strong
disincentive most of the time. If two regions "agree" enough to select the
same person as rep, they're unlikely to want to dilute their expected
voting power by selecting the same rep. What about the arrangement you
suggest - overlapping a rep and alternate? Well, it's not as harmful to
their interests, but assuming enough overlap in desires to make it happen,
they could also just talk to each other and gain more power that way, see
below.
It would also be a problematic situation for the rep, if they believe that
they are supposed to vote based on their perception of their region's
desires (within their general duty of loyalty and care, of course). Most
people wouldn't want to subject themselves to such conflicts, which might
lead to abstaining more often than desirable.
Context, intent, and history matter when the language is ambiguous. That's
when interpretation is called for. When the language is unambiguous, they
do not matter, since there's nothing to interpret. There's room to
interpret as to the how, but I simply don't see any language, in any
document, that is ambiguous on the question as to whether.
I don't see how your question as to whether a regional rep serving as
treasurer is correct is any different from your original question - well,
it's narrower, and it creates fewer problems, but I just mean I don't see
how it requires a separate answer.
The final question is what the most logical rule is (since RONR doesn't
give guidance on email ballots, and our bylaws don't directly answer the
question). Well, I'll just say off the bat that I'm not all that troubled
by the tactical advantage. Consider that exactly the same advantage can be
gained simply by an agreement between a rep and an alternate from another
region to communicate and align their votes, either on a particular matter
or throughout a term. They give up some degree of certainty (i.e. people
can defect), but gain the potential for an extra vote, which can't happen
with the same person in both positions. As a result, it strikes me as
roughly the same tactical position.
But let's suppose there is some sort of tactical advantage to holding both
positions. Reps and alternates are selected by 10% of BSM. This
hypothetical person received the trust of 20% of BSM, in some degree. I'm
not entirely sure it's wrong for that to reflect itself in incrementally
more power. (This is not the case in the actual scenario, where the
constituencies overlap.)
The rule of "one person, one vote" is a fundamental principle, though, and
could be taken to be an attempt to reach voting power. In that spirit, it
makes sense that, since we need to make a judgment anyway, we should make
those choices which minimize the power discrepancy. That choice seems to
be the one the LNC used in the past when it comes to email ballots - the
person must state before voting begins which position they will vote. But
that itself creates its own unfairness - it implies that anyone else could
keep them from voting simply by voting before they declare their position.
So I don't think that's feasible. The next best is that I must declare
when I am voting - and, as a result, I cannot cast one vote in one
position, then later, when I see how other things have turned out, change
my position. Now that means I can see how my alternate votes and decide
what to do, if the rep votes early enough. That's some advantage, but a
relatively minor one, and our task is only to minimize the difference
(within practical limits), not eliminate it. So, how does this play out?
My alternate votes yes. I also want to vote yes, so I choose to vote
instead as an alternate. Now I run the risk of not having my vote count at
all.
My alternate votes no. I want to vote yes, so I choose to vote as the rep,
running the risk that my second region might go unrepresented.
Or I could look to my rep's vote, but I can't do much from that perspective
- only the way my alternate votes (assuming they vote early enough for me
to decide what to do) gives me any freedom, so far as I can see, to do
anything, and anything I do in response comes at a probabilistic cost. So
it remains unclear to me just how much power this is. Certainly not twice
the power of the average member, which is what RONR tells us shouldn't
happen.
There might be a way to figure out how much power I have, if I know the
probability of my rep voting. The formula for voting power is to list all
winning coalitions, then circle all critical voters in each coalition.
Then you count how many times an individual is a critical voter, and divide
by the total number of critical voters. If all members have equal power,
then everyone's power is 1/n. Here, the work is a little more complicated,
but the method would be to assume that everyone else's vote is
pre-determined and that you then do the most rational thing with all
information known (which is unrealistic, so it gives an upper bound for
your power, not your actual power). In some cases, you'll gain an extra
critical vote. In others, you'll have no vote at all (non-voters have
power 0, but sometimes voters have power 0 too - the model was developed in
a court case over representation for the three towns forming Nassau County,
and it turned out that the smallest town, even though it had 3 votes on the
council, had 0 power). It's likely that it will work out that you have
power greater than 1/n, but not dramatically so.
It is true that the LNC has free substitution at meetings, but I don't
think it follows that you can substitute during a vote by roll call, and
even if you could, I have trouble seeing how you could use that power -
once your alternate votes, you can't then override their vote. You can by
email if you are voting as a rep.
I would note that Richard's position, when applied to email votes, simply
means they need to say what they are for the email ballot, since each
ballot is its own session.
I think it is clearly not the case that the best answer is to allow such a
person to switch their position after casting a vote. The only argument
for that outcome is that votes can change until the ballot closes - and,
indeed, they can change their vote from yes to no or vice versa. It
doesn't follow, though, that they can change the position from which they
cast that vote. I think they need to say that, and stick to it.
The alternate is to say - well, what? That they must always vote as a
rep? That would not make any sense to me.
Joshua A. Katz
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 10:42 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:
> Okay thanks for getting the discussion started, and I want to clear up
> any confusion I may have inadvertently inserted.
> First, like I openly stated in my opening email I am asking questions
> about hypotheticals on the LNC because I am seeking insights from many
> people that could be in similar circumstances to be sure I have thought
> of every angle on an issue on the Platform Committee. If anyone wants
> the specifics of that, please write me. The situation is not exactly
> parallel to the questions I asked here but similar enough for me to
> understand how eveyrone would see certain principles.
> My first 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?==
> I asked about our Bylaws. Ms. Mattson pointed out a historical
> situation I was previously made aware of, but that isn't the specific
> scenario I gave here which was specific, can a person be a regional rep
> for one region and an alternate for another separate region.
> Mr. Katz responded: == I don't see anything in the bylaws saying a
> person could not be both, which leads me to conclude that it is
> permitted. ==
> I would ask here then why has that never happened? It seems to me that
> the Bylaws do not mention it because it is inherently incoherent and
> defies the entire purpose of an alternate which is to be available if
> their primary is not present. Incoherent or absurd interpretations do
> not seem to me to be the intent of a rule. So, next convention, could
> I run for Region 1 rep, At Large, Secretary, and Region 7 alternate and
> on the unlikely chance that delegates were foolish enough to pick that,
> you really are arguing that our Bylaws are okay with that? Is there
> not a presumption of sense of purpose?
> The historical situation was a mid-term vacancy in which a present
> regional rep was appointed as Treasurer. It is my fault for not being
> clear I am referring to elections at convention. Can a regional
> representative run for Treasurer too? This actually is a very
> pertinent question as a state chair suggested I run for region 1 and an
> officer position which I told him was not possible even if I were crazy
> enough to do it. But am I wrong? Do I have that option? Can anyone
> really say that is what our Bylaws really meant? If so then our Bylaws
> need to be significantly longer because all kinds of absurd
> interpretations result. Now I can think of a contrary argument -
> normally I would say if it doesn't say it is allowed, it is not. That
> is the commonsense approach. Joshua you seem to be arguing that if it
> isn't forbidden it is permitted. What is the justification for that?
> Does not context, intent, and history matter? I am not a conjoined
> twin. An officer has different and potentially conflicting
> responsibilities. When absurd output comes out of input, that is a
> clear clue the input is false. But here is a piece of contrary
> evidence, our Bylaws do say that officers MUST be separate people. So
> if it is says it there and doesn't say it in another place after it
> demonstrated that it was aware of the possibility that grants your
> position weight Joshua. And if that is the case, our Bylaws have a
> huge problem, and now I have another option to consider - instead of
> declaring for one or the other, as the meme goes, why not both? I
> don't think even 1% of our membership would think that is at all what
> was ever intended. Theoretically then all of the Regionals could be
> one person? If not, why not? You can confine your answer to
> elections at conventions not mid-term appointments because that was my
> intent.
> So to continue with my questions:
> ==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? ==
> Again that was meant for at convention rather than some dastardly
> concealment of the fact that I am aware that a mid-term appointment
> historically happened as Ms. Mattson alleged. But let's speak to that
> historical appointment. It happened, was it right? What was the
> justification? Not everything the LNC does is right, but it is indeed
> a precedent.
> That leads to the crux of my question:
> ==If so, how would that work in an email vote?==
> Okay let's say I am Region 1 Representative and Region 8 Alternate and
> that is allowed (which to be clear I think is an absurdity that our
> Bylaws never contemplated and utterly defeats the purpose of an
> alternate). There is an email ballot. When do I have to declare what
> capacity I am voting as? Before voting starts? At any time? Can I
> withdraw my vote as one position and then turn around and vote as the
> other?
> Let's look at these various scenarios:
> Before Voting Starts
> If we grant I can hold both seats, then that makes sense. It raises
> issue of procedure but that is a separate issue.
> At any time? (and this is the most directly parallel to the situation
> on the Platform Committee)
> That would give me a tactical advantage that no one else has and the
> previously cited RONR passage of one person, one vote gives us guidance
> in both letter and spirit. The reason for that is a foundation of
> fairness and proper representation. In fact all of Robert's has that
> as a foundation. Protection of people and rights.
> The rest of the assembly has a right not to have one member have an
> inherent tactical advantage that others members do not and cannot
> have. How so?
> Well I could wait to see how the Region 1 alternate votes. And if I
> like that vote, and the Region 8 primary has not yet voted, I can
> gamble that they won't and amplify my preference. No one else can do
> that. It is patently absurd and unfair.
> Can I withdraw my vote as one position and then turn around and vote as
> the other? (this is also directly parallel to the question on the
> Platform Committee)
> What if then the Region 1 alternate changes their mind and changes
> their vote to something I don't like. Can I then withdraw my vote as
> Region 8 alternate and assert my seat as Region 1 primary MID VOTE???
> There is a big problem there, and I would like to see that answered.
> And this shows how this turns the purpose of an alternate on its head.
> And what I had the Region 8 alternate position first, then got the
> Region 1 primary position later and Region 8 was not made explicitly
> aware of this so that they consented to the compromise of their use of
> their alternate?
> _________________________________________________
> Counter arguments have been made that there are planned for possible
> inequities in the system. Why does the maker of a motion get to speak
> first? Etc. But that is available to everyone similarly situated.
> That is a common theme in law, and I see no reason to believe
> parliamentary law is any different.
> I hope in seeing what I am struggling with, I have shown that any
> accusation that I am "s attempting to deprive someone of their voting
> rights, and deprive an appointing body of its choice of
> representative" is a completely unacceptable attack.
> I see a situation and I am trying to resolve it to protect everyone.
> We really need to stop in this Party jumping to the worst possible
> speculations on motives.
> Joshua, I deeply respect your insights and your manner. I would truly
> like to hear what you have to say. I have consulted early on with
> Richard Brown on this but I will be giving him these extra details too
> as I have groked it more.
> As I see it there are two issues:
> 1. When must the hat be declared?
> 2. Can the hat be changed mid-vote?
> Thoughts?
>
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:45 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
> <[1]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>
> 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
> <[2]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
> <[3]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
> <[4]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
> <[5]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][6]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][7]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][8]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> References
> 1. mailto:[9]planning4liberty at gmail.com
> 2. mailto:[10]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 3. mailto:[11]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 4. [12]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:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 5. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
> 6. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
> 7. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 8. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 9. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
> 10. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 11. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 12. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>
-------------- next part --------------
It's certainly not always the case that those things which are not
forbidden, are permitted. There is a general canon to that effect, but
often there are dueling canons - for example, that when something is
specifically permitted, all things of the same type are prohibited.
What do the canons have to do with it? Well, nothing - except that
some of them have been codified as general principles of bylaw
interpretation. So there is a general presumption that when the bylaws
do not prohibit something, it is permitted, but it's not absolute.
I don't think I need it here, though. Our parliamentary authority
expressly allows for the holding of two voting positions. Even more
so, the holding of a voting position and a partial-voting position
seems clearly permitted by the parliamentary authority. Our bylaws, of
course, could override it. Do they? Well, as I said, I don't see a
prohibition, so they don't seem to.
The opposing argument is that, by creating the category of 'alternate,'
they impliedly created a prohibition, at least in that context. But
why should we believe that? It doesn't seem to logically follow, and
there's no principle I can see that gets there. I don't think creating
alternates makes our bylaws fail to be silent on holding two positions.
Why has it never happened? Well, most regions prefer to elect
representatives who live there or are residents (not all, and there are
exceptions, but it seems like something of a preference). Since no two
regions can overlap, it seems like it wouldn't come up very often.
Even where a region is open to doing it, it probably doesn't occur to
many to do such a thing - and even a region open to having a
rep/alternate who doesn't live in the region (or who has homes in more
than one region) might still balk at this particular arrangement. Reps
and alternates are directors elected by a constituency, and under our
bylaws (and other rules) are only removable by that constituency. I
think most regions, if asked to serve as the "second region" (the first
might not know about it, after all) wouldn't like the idea that a vote
to remove their rep/alternate would leave that very person on the LNC.
Hence, there's likely internal reasons for this not to happen.
Furthermore (and to answer the question about all regions selecting the
same rep), the fact of "one person, one vote" is a strong disincentive
most of the time. If two regions "agree" enough to select the same
person as rep, they're unlikely to want to dilute their expected voting
power by selecting the same rep. What about the arrangement you
suggest - overlapping a rep and alternate? Well, it's not as harmful
to their interests, but assuming enough overlap in desires to make it
happen, they could also just talk to each other and gain more power
that way, see below.
It would also be a problematic situation for the rep, if they believe
that they are supposed to vote based on their perception of their
region's desires (within their general duty of loyalty and care, of
course). Most people wouldn't want to subject themselves to such
conflicts, which might lead to abstaining more often than desirable.
Context, intent, and history matter when the language is ambiguous.
That's when interpretation is called for. When the language is
unambiguous, they do not matter, since there's nothing to interpret.
There's room to interpret as to the how, but I simply don't see any
language, in any document, that is ambiguous on the question as to
whether.
I don't see how your question as to whether a regional rep serving as
treasurer is correct is any different from your original question -
well, it's narrower, and it creates fewer problems, but I just mean I
don't see how it requires a separate answer.
The final question is what the most logical rule is (since RONR doesn't
give guidance on email ballots, and our bylaws don't directly answer
the question). Well, I'll just say off the bat that I'm not all that
troubled by the tactical advantage. Consider that exactly the same
advantage can be gained simply by an agreement between a rep and an
alternate from another region to communicate and align their votes,
either on a particular matter or throughout a term. They give up some
degree of certainty (i.e. people can defect), but gain the potential
for an extra vote, which can't happen with the same person in both
positions. As a result, it strikes me as roughly the same tactical
position.
But let's suppose there is some sort of tactical advantage to holding
both positions. Reps and alternates are selected by 10% of BSM. This
hypothetical person received the trust of 20% of BSM, in some degree.
I'm not entirely sure it's wrong for that to reflect itself in
incrementally more power. (This is not the case in the actual
scenario, where the constituencies overlap.)
The rule of "one person, one vote" is a fundamental principle, though,
and could be taken to be an attempt to reach voting power. In that
spirit, it makes sense that, since we need to make a judgment anyway,
we should make those choices which minimize the power discrepancy.
That choice seems to be the one the LNC used in the past when it comes
to email ballots - the person must state before voting begins which
position they will vote. But that itself creates its own unfairness -
it implies that anyone else could keep them from voting simply by
voting before they declare their position. So I don't think that's
feasible. The next best is that I must declare when I am voting - and,
as a result, I cannot cast one vote in one position, then later, when I
see how other things have turned out, change my position. Now that
means I can see how my alternate votes and decide what to do, if the
rep votes early enough. That's some advantage, but a relatively minor
one, and our task is only to minimize the difference (within practical
limits), not eliminate it. So, how does this play out?
My alternate votes yes. I also want to vote yes, so I choose to vote
instead as an alternate. Now I run the risk of not having my vote
count at all.
My alternate votes no. I want to vote yes, so I choose to vote as the
rep, running the risk that my second region might go unrepresented.
Or I could look to my rep's vote, but I can't do much from that
perspective - only the way my alternate votes (assuming they vote early
enough for me to decide what to do) gives me any freedom, so far as I
can see, to do anything, and anything I do in response comes at a
probabilistic cost. So it remains unclear to me just how much power
this is. Certainly not twice the power of the average member, which is
what RONR tells us shouldn't happen.
There might be a way to figure out how much power I have, if I know the
probability of my rep voting. The formula for voting power is to list
all winning coalitions, then circle all critical voters in each
coalition. Then you count how many times an individual is a critical
voter, and divide by the total number of critical voters. If all
members have equal power, then everyone's power is 1/n. Here, the work
is a little more complicated, but the method would be to assume that
everyone else's vote is pre-determined and that you then do the most
rational thing with all information known (which is unrealistic, so it
gives an upper bound for your power, not your actual power). In some
cases, you'll gain an extra critical vote. In others, you'll have no
vote at all (non-voters have power 0, but sometimes voters have power 0
too - the model was developed in a court case over representation for
the three towns forming Nassau County, and it turned out that the
smallest town, even though it had 3 votes on the council, had 0
power). It's likely that it will work out that you have power greater
than 1/n, but not dramatically so.
It is true that the LNC has free substitution at meetings, but I don't
think it follows that you can substitute during a vote by roll call,
and even if you could, I have trouble seeing how you could use that
power - once your alternate votes, you can't then override their vote.
You can by email if you are voting as a rep.
I would note that Richard's position, when applied to email votes,
simply means they need to say what they are for the email ballot, since
each ballot is its own session.
I think it is clearly not the case that the best answer is to allow
such a person to switch their position after casting a vote. The only
argument for that outcome is that votes can change until the ballot
closes - and, indeed, they can change their vote from yes to no or vice
versa. It doesn't follow, though, that they can change the position
from which they cast that vote. I think they need to say that, and
stick to it.
The alternate is to say - well, what? That they must always vote as a
rep? That would not make any sense to me.
Joshua A. Katz
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 10:42 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<[1]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
Okay thanks for getting the discussion started, and I want to
clear up
any confusion I may have inadvertently inserted.
First, like I openly stated in my opening email I am asking
questions
about hypotheticals on the LNC because I am seeking insights from
many
people that could be in similar circumstances to be sure I have
thought
of every angle on an issue on the Platform Committee. If anyone
wants
the specifics of that, please write me. The situation is not
exactly
parallel to the questions I asked here but similar enough for me
to
understand how eveyrone would see certain principles.
My first 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?==
I asked about our Bylaws. Ms. Mattson pointed out a historical
situation I was previously made aware of, but that isn't the
specific
scenario I gave here which was specific, can a person be a
regional rep
for one region and an alternate for another separate region.
Mr. Katz responded: == I don't see anything in the bylaws saying
a
person could not be both, which leads me to conclude that it is
permitted. ==
I would ask here then why has that never happened? It seems to
me that
the Bylaws do not mention it because it is inherently incoherent
and
defies the entire purpose of an alternate which is to be
available if
their primary is not present. Incoherent or absurd
interpretations do
not seem to me to be the intent of a rule. So, next convention,
could
I run for Region 1 rep, At Large, Secretary, and Region 7
alternate and
on the unlikely chance that delegates were foolish enough to pick
that,
you really are arguing that our Bylaws are okay with that? Is
there
not a presumption of sense of purpose?
The historical situation was a mid-term vacancy in which a
present
regional rep was appointed as Treasurer. It is my fault for not
being
clear I am referring to elections at convention. Can a regional
representative run for Treasurer too? This actually is a very
pertinent question as a state chair suggested I run for region 1
and an
officer position which I told him was not possible even if I were
crazy
enough to do it. But am I wrong? Do I have that option? Can
anyone
really say that is what our Bylaws really meant? If so then our
Bylaws
need to be significantly longer because all kinds of absurd
interpretations result. Now I can think of a contrary argument -
normally I would say if it doesn't say it is allowed, it is not.
That
is the commonsense approach. Joshua you seem to be arguing that
if it
isn't forbidden it is permitted. What is the justification for
that?
Does not context, intent, and history matter? I am not a
conjoined
twin. An officer has different and potentially conflicting
responsibilities. When absurd output comes out of input, that is
a
clear clue the input is false. But here is a piece of contrary
evidence, our Bylaws do say that officers MUST be separate
people. So
if it is says it there and doesn't say it in another place after
it
demonstrated that it was aware of the possibility that grants
your
position weight Joshua. And if that is the case, our Bylaws have
a
huge problem, and now I have another option to consider - instead
of
declaring for one or the other, as the meme goes, why not both?
I
don't think even 1% of our membership would think that is at all
what
was ever intended. Theoretically then all of the Regionals could
be
one person? If not, why not? You can confine your answer to
elections at conventions not mid-term appointments because that
was my
intent.
So to continue with my questions:
==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? ==
Again that was meant for at convention rather than some dastardly
concealment of the fact that I am aware that a mid-term
appointment
historically happened as Ms. Mattson alleged. But let's speak to
that
historical appointment. It happened, was it right? What was the
justification? Not everything the LNC does is right, but it is
indeed
a precedent.
That leads to the crux of my question:
==If so, how would that work in an email vote?==
Okay let's say I am Region 1 Representative and Region 8
Alternate and
that is allowed (which to be clear I think is an absurdity that
our
Bylaws never contemplated and utterly defeats the purpose of an
alternate). There is an email ballot. When do I have to declare
what
capacity I am voting as? Before voting starts? At any time?
Can I
withdraw my vote as one position and then turn around and vote as
the
other?
Let's look at these various scenarios:
Before Voting Starts
If we grant I can hold both seats, then that makes sense. It
raises
issue of procedure but that is a separate issue.
At any time? (and this is the most directly parallel to the
situation
on the Platform Committee)
That would give me a tactical advantage that no one else has and
the
previously cited RONR passage of one person, one vote gives us
guidance
in both letter and spirit. The reason for that is a foundation
of
fairness and proper representation. In fact all of Robert's has
that
as a foundation. Protection of people and rights.
The rest of the assembly has a right not to have one member have
an
inherent tactical advantage that others members do not and cannot
have. How so?
Well I could wait to see how the Region 1 alternate votes. And
if I
like that vote, and the Region 8 primary has not yet voted, I can
gamble that they won't and amplify my preference. No one else
can do
that. It is patently absurd and unfair.
Can I withdraw my vote as one position and then turn around and
vote as
the other? (this is also directly parallel to the question on
the
Platform Committee)
What if then the Region 1 alternate changes their mind and
changes
their vote to something I don't like. Can I then withdraw my
vote as
Region 8 alternate and assert my seat as Region 1 primary MID
VOTE???
There is a big problem there, and I would like to see that
answered.
And this shows how this turns the purpose of an alternate on its
head.
And what I had the Region 8 alternate position first, then got
the
Region 1 primary position later and Region 8 was not made
explicitly
aware of this so that they consented to the compromise of their
use of
their alternate?
_________________________________________________
Counter arguments have been made that there are planned for
possible
inequities in the system. Why does the maker of a motion get to
speak
first? Etc. But that is available to everyone similarly
situated.
That is a common theme in law, and I see no reason to believe
parliamentary law is any different.
I hope in seeing what I am struggling with, I have shown that any
accusation that I am "s attempting to deprive someone of their
voting
rights, and deprive an appointing body of its choice of
representative" is a completely unacceptable attack.
I see a situation and I am trying to resolve it to protect
everyone.
We really need to stop in this Party jumping to the worst
possible
speculations on motives.
Joshua, I deeply respect your insights and your manner. I would
truly
like to hear what you have to say. I have consulted early on
with
Richard Brown on this but I will be giving him these extra
details too
as I have groked it more.
As I see it there are two issues:
1. When must the hat be declared?
2. Can the hat be changed mid-vote?
Thoughts?
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:45 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<[1][2]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
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
<[2][3]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
<[3][4]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
<[4][5]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
<[5][6]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][6][7]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][7][8]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][8][9]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
References
1. mailto:[9][10]planning4liberty at gmail.com
2. mailto:[10][11]carynannharlos at gmail.com
3. mailto:[11]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
4. [12][12]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
References
1. mailto:[13]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
2. mailto:[14]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
3. mailto:[15]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
4. mailto:[16]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
5. mailto:[17]planning4liberty at gmail.com
6. mailto:[18]planning4liberty at gmail.com
7. mailto:[19]carynannharlos at gmail.com
8. [20]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
9. mailto:[21]planning4liberty at gmail.com
10. mailto:[22]carynannharlos at gmail.com
11. mailto:[23]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
12. [24]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:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
5. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
6. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
7. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
8. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
9. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
10. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
11. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
12. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
13. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
14. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
15. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
16. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
17. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
18. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
19. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
20. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
21. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
22. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
23. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
24. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list