[Lnc-business] A hypothetical question
Caryn Ann Harlos
caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Tue Feb 27 02:55:23 EST 2018
Joshua VERY HELPFUL
So you answered my first question to my satisfaction that all of my
hypotheticals could happen. That was more of a leadup so I thank you. I
do disagree that there is not an ambiguity, in fact, I think there is a
rather clear one, but that isn't my main issue.
Do you agree that if there is to be a simultaneous position holding from
two separate bodies that both bodies should consent to or be aware of the
dual representation? That there is a big difference between me being
elected as an alternate, going to another regional caucus and getting
elected as their primary, and not overtly telling the the first region that
this happened? I am not claiming its some world-ender - as I say all the
time - no one died, but it does seem to be an issue to me because the first
body should have the option to decide to revoke its appointment,
particularly if there is a time frame in which to do that. If there isn't,
then no harm no foul. Well maybe some harm if they can't appoint a new
one. But that is pretty fact and situation specific. Not my primary
concern here however. I do think that the body who first appointed an
alternate has had their representation power diminished. They don't really
have an alternate. They only have an alternate when the alternate chooses
to be an alternate. That's real.
Now on the email voting which is where the real crux is:
1. We seem to agree that no changing hats mid-vote. For what its worth
that position is exactly why I am being accusing of depriving someone of
their vote- at least in part. I don't expect you to take a side in that, I
am just noting you reasonably came to the same conclusion. We could both
be wrong.
==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.==
You just showed how it is fundamentally different. AND it is available to
everyone. My scenario is not. Advantage isn't fungible like that. One
drop of advantage isn't able to be computed. You agree there is an
advantage. You disagree on whether it is troublesome. I think if you
consider more that the exact same advantage is not available to everyone
makes it fundamentally different. The dual-position holder can do both and
has an ace in their pocket on some votes if there is a defection.
==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.==
That isn't all it says. It says one person one vote which carries a lot of
baggage in it. It doesn't mean just not two, would 1.5 be okay? Clearly
not. And CASTING one vote carries with it the subsumed implication of
CONTROLLING ONE VOTE during a vote.
== 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.===
Perfect! Yes. That is why I said above that it would create a procedure
problem. That procedure problem could be cured by the Secretary writing
the member before the ballot starts and ask them what capacity they intend
to vote as. I agree one cannot create unfairness against the person
holding two seats. Your bolded words were very on point and much more
succinct than I was.
My goal is to be fair to all concerned. Thank you Joshua - any other
insight you have would be greatly appreciated. You really helped.
Its been quite a stumper to people I have asked. Richard was a good one
because he is familiar with us and how we work.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 10:51 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Joshua A. Katz
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 11:25 PM, Tim Hagan <[1]tim.hagan at lp.org>
> wrote:
>
> You may want to look at RONR, page 440, lines 3-17, particularly
> where it mentions, "a candidate is never deemed elected to more than
> one office by a single ballot unless the motion or rules governing
> the election specifically provide for such simultaneous election."
>
> The election here, though, does not take place on a single ballot (or
> even two votes among the same people).
>
> The sample Bylaws on p. 585 include, "No member shall hold more than
> one office at a time".
>
> Indeed - and RONR considers (rather confusingly, I think) directors to
> be officers. But, like most organizations, we know better than the
> sample bylaws ;-)
>
> Our Bylaws, Article 6, has "No offices shall be combined.", but this
> is in the Article covering the four officers.
>
> I agree that no one can be, for instance, chair and treasurer, or
> vice-chair and secretary. I think its placement, though, makes it
> clear that it doesn't apply to directors (despite the fact that RONR
> treats directors as officers).
>
> Don't know if these help, or confuses the answer.
> ---
> Tim Hagan
> Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee
>
> On 2018-02-26 20:42, Caryn Ann Harlos 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:tim.hagan 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/
>
-------------- next part --------------
Joshua VERY HELPFUL
So you answered my first question to my satisfaction that all of my
hypotheticals could happen. That was more of a leadup so I thank you.
I do disagree that there is not an ambiguity, in fact, I think there is
a rather clear one, but that isn't my main issue.
Do you agree that if there is to be a simultaneous position holding
from two separate bodies that both bodies should consent to or be aware
of the dual representation? That there is a big difference between me
being elected as an alternate, going to another regional caucus and
getting elected as their primary, and not overtly telling the the first
region that this happened? I am not claiming its some world-ender - as
I say all the time - no one died, but it does seem to be an issue to me
because the first body should have the option to decide to revoke its
appointment, particularly if there is a time frame in which to do
that. If there isn't, then no harm no foul. Well maybe some harm if
they can't appoint a new one. But that is pretty fact and situation
specific. Not my primary concern here however. I do think that the
body who first appointed an alternate has had their representation
power diminished. They don't really have an alternate. They only have
an alternate when the alternate chooses to be an alternate. That's
real.
Now on the email voting which is where the real crux is:
1. We seem to agree that no changing hats mid-vote. For what its
worth that position is exactly why I am being accusing of depriving
someone of their vote- at least in part. I don't expect you to take a
side in that, I am just noting you reasonably came to the same
conclusion. We could both be wrong.
==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.==
You just showed how it is fundamentally different. AND it is available
to everyone. My scenario is not. Advantage isn't fungible like that.
One drop of advantage isn't able to be computed. You agree there is an
advantage. You disagree on whether it is troublesome. I think if you
consider more that the exact same advantage is not available to
everyone makes it fundamentally different. The dual-position holder
can do both and has an ace in their pocket on some votes if there is a
defection.
==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.==
That isn't all it says. It says one person one vote which carries a
lot of baggage in it. It doesn't mean just not two, would 1.5 be
okay? Clearly not. And CASTING one vote carries with it the subsumed
implication of CONTROLLING ONE VOTE during a vote.
== 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.===
Perfect! Yes. That is why I said above that it would create a
procedure problem. That procedure problem could be cured by the
Secretary writing the member before the ballot starts and ask them what
capacity they intend to vote as. I agree one cannot create unfairness
against the person holding two seats. Your bolded words were very on
point and much more succinct than I was.
My goal is to be fair to all concerned. Thank you Joshua - any other
insight you have would be greatly appreciated. You really helped.
Its been quite a stumper to people I have asked. Richard was a good one
because he is familiar with us and how we work.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 10:51 PM, Joshua Katz
<[1]planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
Joshua A. Katz
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 11:25 PM, Tim Hagan
<[1][2]tim.hagan at lp.org>
wrote:
You may want to look at RONR, page 440, lines 3-17,
particularly
where it mentions, "a candidate is never deemed elected to more
than
one office by a single ballot unless the motion or rules
governing
the election specifically provide for such simultaneous
election."
The election here, though, does not take place on a single ballot
(or
even two votes among the same people).
The sample Bylaws on p. 585 include, "No member shall hold more
than
one office at a time".
Indeed - and RONR considers (rather confusingly, I think)
directors to
be officers. But, like most organizations, we know better than
the
sample bylaws ;-)
Our Bylaws, Article 6, has "No offices shall be combined.", but
this
is in the Article covering the four officers.
I agree that no one can be, for instance, chair and treasurer, or
vice-chair and secretary. I think its placement, though, makes
it
clear that it doesn't apply to directors (despite the fact that
RONR
treats directors as officers).
Don't know if these help, or confuses the answer.
---
Tim Hagan
Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee
On 2018-02-26 20:42, Caryn Ann Harlos 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][3]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][4]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][5]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][6]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][7]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][8]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][9]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][10]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
References
1. mailto:[9][10][11]planning4liberty at gmail.com
2. mailto:[10][11][12]carynannharlos at gmail.com
3. mailto:[11]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
4. [12][12][13]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
References
1. mailto:[13][14]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
2. mailto:[14][15]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
3. mailto:[15][16]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
4. mailto:[16][17]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
5. mailto:[17][18]planning4liberty at gmail.com
6. mailto:[18][19]planning4liberty at gmail.com
7. mailto:[19][20]carynannharlos at gmail.com
8. [20][21]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
9. mailto:[21][22]planning4liberty at gmail.com
10. mailto:[22][23]carynannharlos at gmail.com
11. mailto:[23]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
12. [24][24]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
References
1. mailto:[25]tim.hagan at lp.org
2. mailto:[26]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
3. mailto:[27]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
4. mailto:[28]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
5. mailto:[29]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
6. mailto:[30]planning4liberty at gmail.com
7. mailto:[31]planning4liberty at gmail.com
8. mailto:[32]carynannharlos at gmail.com
9. [33]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
10. mailto:[34]planning4liberty at gmail.com
11. mailto:[35]carynannharlos at gmail.com
12. [36]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
13. mailto:[37]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
14. mailto:[38]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
15. mailto:[39]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
16. mailto:[40]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
17. mailto:[41]planning4liberty at gmail.com
18. mailto:[42]planning4liberty at gmail.com
19. mailto:[43]carynannharlos at gmail.com
20. [44]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
21. mailto:[45]planning4liberty at gmail.com
22. mailto:[46]carynannharlos at gmail.com
23. mailto:[47]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
24. [48]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
References
1. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
2. mailto:tim.hagan 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:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
7. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
8. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
9. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
10. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
11. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
12. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
13. http://www.lpcolorado.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:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
18. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
19. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
20. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
21. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
22. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
23. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
24. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
25. mailto:tim.hagan at lp.org
26. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
27. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
28. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
29. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
30. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
31. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
32. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
33. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
34. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
35. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
36. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
37. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
38. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
39. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
40. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
41. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
42. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
43. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
44. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
45. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
46. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
47. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
48. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list