[Lnc-business] A hypothetical question
Caryn Ann Harlos
caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Tue Feb 27 10:37:19 EST 2018
Btw I will be sending this link to Richard - he had much more limited
information when we spoke and this further discussion may give him
different insight.
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 8:34 AM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:
> That does make a lot of sense but I see one problem (surprise!) well two
>
> In my daily devotional with RONR I discover that we vote wrong at our
> meetings see page 421
>
> But would we in a live meeting going around a table allow someone to
> choose what hat they are voting under when we get to them? Again that’s an
> advantage no one else has and I don’t think it has to be mathematically
> quantified other than reasonably possible to happen.
>
> The idea of the email vote is a poor simulation of a live roll call vote
> and a good reference point is what that would entail and thus Richard’s
> point that the hat must be declared at the meeting - a perspective I am now
> starting to share.
>
> The thing about notifying the appointing body of the dual representation
> is a bit of a secondary point for me/ and I’m out of time but will respond
> further to that tonight.
>
> I think your bolded principle from my response last night is a good
> controlling guideline and yes reasonable people may disagree within a
> certain margin how to apply it.
>
> More to think about, thanks!
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 7:55 AM Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On the premise that the dual-appointee has greater power than 1/n, I
>> don't think there's a need to inform either body (although, as a
>> practical matter, it will be clear pretty soon). I certainly don't
>> think they are somehow having only a partial alternate, at least any
>> more than the common situation where the alternate is rarely seen or
>> heard from. They have a rep, and they have an alternate who gets to
>> vote more often than they'd expect. I don't see that they've been
>> harmed.
>> Thinking about the voting situation some more, I have changed my mind
>> and no longer think (unless, of course, other rules are passed in a
>> body allowed to do so) that "declare at the start of voting" is better
>> than "declare when you vote," at least for email. That is, I
>> previously said (and still think) it has practical problems, but if
>> those can be fixed, I still don't think it's superior. I now think the
>> practically and theoretically correct solution is the practical one I
>> advocated in my previous email - declare when you vote. I came to that
>> decision by starting from a roll-call vote at a real meeting, and
>> thinking about how email voting differs from a roll call. It differs
>> in that the participants themselves, vote by vote, choose the order of
>> voting - and it isn't influenced by social things (sitting next to your
>> friends), length of time spent eating breakfast, or, most importantly,
>> the decision of the chair/secretary as to which direction to go.
>> Because of those factors, the collusion situation I described is made
>> easier, and I don't think we need to impose any conditions on the dual
>> appointee stricter than those on collusion. I recognize you disagreed
>> with my collusion comparison, but I think I'm right (shocker).
>> Perhaps more importantly, though, "declare before voting starts" seems
>> to me like it would require a rule, while "declare when you vote" is
>> simply a logical consequence of the act of voting - to vote in an email
>> ballot (or roll call) you must identify yourself. Identifying yourself
>> is not the sort of thing that can be changed during voting. I can
>> change my vote, but I can't decide that I'll keep my vote the same, but
>> now vote as Starchild. This isn't a big problem, unless we were,
>> hypothetically of course, talking about a committee. That is, if the
>> task is to fill a hole with the most logical rule, I think the rule
>> easiest to derive is the best fit.
>>
>> Joshua A. Katz
>> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 1:55 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
>> <[1]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>
>> 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][2]planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Joshua A. Katz
>> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 11:25 PM, Tim Hagan
>> <[1][2][3]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][4]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][5]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][6]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][7]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][8]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][9]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][10]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][11]http://www.
>> lpcolorado.org/
>> References
>> 1. mailto:[9][10][11][12]planning4lib
>> erty at gmail.com
>> 2. mailto:[10][11][12][13]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 3. mailto:[11]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>> 4. [12][12][13][14]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> References
>> 1. mailto:[13][14][15]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 2. mailto:[14][15][16]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 3. mailto:[15][16][17]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 4. mailto:[16][17][18]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 5. mailto:[17][18][19]planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 6. mailto:[18][19][20]planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 7. mailto:[19][20][21]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 8. [20][21][22]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 9. mailto:[21][22][23]planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 10. mailto:[22][23][24]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 11. mailto:[23]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>> 12. [24][24][25]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> References
>> 1. mailto:[25][26]tim.hagan at lp.org
>> 2. mailto:[26][27]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 3. mailto:[27][28]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 4. mailto:[28][29]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 5. mailto:[29][30]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 6. mailto:[30][31]planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 7. mailto:[31][32]planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 8. mailto:[32][33]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 9. [33][34]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 10. mailto:[34][35]planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 11. mailto:[35][36]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 12. [36][37]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 13. mailto:[37][38]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 14. mailto:[38][39]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 15. mailto:[39][40]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 16. mailto:[40][41]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 17. mailto:[41][42]planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 18. mailto:[42][43]planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 19. mailto:[43][44]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 20. [44][45]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 21. mailto:[45][46]planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 22. mailto:[46][47]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 23. mailto:[47]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>> 24. [48][48]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> References
>> 1. mailto:[49]planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 2. mailto:[50]tim.hagan at lp.org
>> 3. mailto:[51]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 4. mailto:[52]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 5. mailto:[53]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 6. mailto:[54]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 7. mailto:[55]planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 8. mailto:[56]planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 9. mailto:[57]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 10. [58]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 11. mailto:[59]planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 12. mailto:[60]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 13. [61]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 14. mailto:[62]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 15. mailto:[63]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 16. mailto:[64]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 17. mailto:[65]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 18. mailto:[66]planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 19. mailto:[67]planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 20. mailto:[68]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 21. [69]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 22. mailto:[70]planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 23. mailto:[71]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 24. [72]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 25. mailto:[73]tim.hagan at lp.org
>> 26. mailto:[74]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 27. mailto:[75]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 28. mailto:[76]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 29. mailto:[77]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 30. mailto:[78]planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 31. mailto:[79]planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 32. mailto:[80]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 33. [81]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 34. mailto:[82]planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 35. mailto:[83]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 36. [84]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 37. mailto:[85]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 38. mailto:[86]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 39. mailto:[87]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 40. mailto:[88]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 41. mailto:[89]planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 42. mailto:[90]planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 43. mailto:[91]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 44. [92]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 45. mailto:[93]planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 46. mailto:[94]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 47. mailto:[95]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>> 48. [96]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>>
>> References
>>
>> 1. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 2. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 3. mailto:tim.hagan 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:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 8. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 9. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 10. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 11. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 12. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 13. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 14. http://www.lpcolorado.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:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 19. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 20. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 21. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 22. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 23. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 24. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 25. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 26. mailto:tim.hagan 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:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 31. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 32. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 33. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 34. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 35. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 36. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 37. http://www.lpcolorado.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:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 42. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 43. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 44. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 45. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 46. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 47. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 48. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 49. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 50. mailto:tim.hagan at lp.org
>> 51. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 52. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 53. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 54. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 55. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 56. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 57. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 58. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 59. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 60. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 61. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 62. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 63. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 64. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 65. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 66. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 67. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 68. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 69. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 70. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 71. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 72. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 73. mailto:tim.hagan at lp.org
>> 74. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 75. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 76. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 77. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 78. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 79. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 80. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 81. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 82. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 83. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 84. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 85. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 86. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 87. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 88. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 89. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 90. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 91. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 92. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 93. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 94. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 95. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>> 96. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
Btw I will be sending this link to Richard - he had much more limited
information when we spoke and this further discussion may give him
different insight.
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 8:34 AM Caryn Ann Harlos
<[1]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
That does make a lot of sense but I see one problem (surprise!) well
two
In my daily devotional with RONR I discover that we vote wrong at our
meetings see page 421
But would we in a live meeting going around a table allow someone to
choose what hat they are voting under when we get to them? Again
that’s an advantage no one else has and I don’t think it has to be
mathematically quantified other than reasonably possible to happen.
The idea of the email vote is a poor simulation of a live roll call
vote and a good reference point is what that would entail and thus
Richard’s point that the hat must be declared at the meeting - a
perspective I am now starting to share.
The thing about notifying the appointing body of the dual
representation is a bit of a secondary point for me/ and I’m out of
time but will respond further to that tonight.
I think your bolded principle from my response last night is a good
controlling guideline and yes reasonable people may disagree within a
certain margin how to apply it.
More to think about, thanks!
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 7:55 AM Joshua Katz
<[2]planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
On the premise that the dual-appointee has greater power than
1/n, I
don't think there's a need to inform either body (although, as a
practical matter, it will be clear pretty soon). I certainly
don't
think they are somehow having only a partial alternate, at least
any
more than the common situation where the alternate is rarely seen
or
heard from. They have a rep, and they have an alternate who gets
to
vote more often than they'd expect. I don't see that they've
been
harmed.
Thinking about the voting situation some more, I have changed my
mind
and no longer think (unless, of course, other rules are passed in
a
body allowed to do so) that "declare at the start of voting" is
better
than "declare when you vote," at least for email. That is, I
previously said (and still think) it has practical problems, but
if
those can be fixed, I still don't think it's superior. I now
think the
practically and theoretically correct solution is the practical
one I
advocated in my previous email - declare when you vote. I came
to that
decision by starting from a roll-call vote at a real meeting, and
thinking about how email voting differs from a roll call. It
differs
in that the participants themselves, vote by vote, choose the
order of
voting - and it isn't influenced by social things (sitting next
to your
friends), length of time spent eating breakfast, or, most
importantly,
the decision of the chair/secretary as to which direction to go.
Because of those factors, the collusion situation I described is
made
easier, and I don't think we need to impose any conditions on the
dual
appointee stricter than those on collusion. I recognize you
disagreed
with my collusion comparison, but I think I'm right (shocker).
Perhaps more importantly, though, "declare before voting starts"
seems
to me like it would require a rule, while "declare when you vote"
is
simply a logical consequence of the act of voting - to vote in an
email
ballot (or roll call) you must identify yourself. Identifying
yourself
is not the sort of thing that can be changed during voting. I
can
change my vote, but I can't decide that I'll keep my vote the
same, but
now vote as Starchild. This isn't a big problem, unless we were,
hypothetically of course, talking about a committee. That is, if
the
task is to fill a hole with the most logical rule, I think the
rule
easiest to derive is the best fit.
Joshua A. Katz
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 1:55 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<[1][3]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
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][2][4]planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
Joshua A. Katz
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 11:25 PM, Tim Hagan
<[1][2][3][5]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][4][6]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][5][7]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][6][8]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][7][9]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][8][10]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][9][11]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][10][12]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][11][13]http://www.
[14]lpcolorado.org/
References
1. mailto:[9][10][11][12]planning4lib
[15]erty at gmail.com
2.
mailto:[10][11][12][13][16]carynannharlos at gmail.com
3. mailto:[11]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
4.
[12][12][13][14][17]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
References
1. mailto:[13][14][15][18]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
2. mailto:[14][15][16][19]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
3. mailto:[15][16][17][20]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
4. mailto:[16][17][18][21]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
5.
mailto:[17][18][19][22]planning4liberty at gmail.com
6.
mailto:[18][19][20][23]planning4liberty at gmail.com
7. mailto:[19][20][21][24]carynannharlos at gmail.com
8. [20][21][22][25]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
9.
mailto:[21][22][23][26]planning4liberty at gmail.com
10. mailto:[22][23][24][27]carynannharlos at gmail.com
11. mailto:[23]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
12. [24][24][25][28]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
References
1. mailto:[25][26][29]tim.hagan at lp.org
2. mailto:[26][27][30]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
3. mailto:[27][28][31]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
4. mailto:[28][29][32]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
5. mailto:[29][30][33]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
6. mailto:[30][31][34]planning4liberty at gmail.com
7. mailto:[31][32][35]planning4liberty at gmail.com
8. mailto:[32][33][36]carynannharlos at gmail.com
9. [33][34][37]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
10. mailto:[34][35][38]planning4liberty at gmail.com
11. mailto:[35][36][39]carynannharlos at gmail.com
12. [36][37][40]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
13. mailto:[37][38][41]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
14. mailto:[38][39][42]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
15. mailto:[39][40][43]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
16. mailto:[40][41][44]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
17. mailto:[41][42][45]planning4liberty at gmail.com
18. mailto:[42][43][46]planning4liberty at gmail.com
19. mailto:[43][44][47]carynannharlos at gmail.com
20. [44][45][48]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
21. mailto:[45][46][49]planning4liberty at gmail.com
22. mailto:[46][47][50]carynannharlos at gmail.com
23. mailto:[47]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
24. [48][48][51]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
References
1. mailto:[49][52]planning4liberty at gmail.com
2. mailto:[50][53]tim.hagan at lp.org
3. mailto:[51][54]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
4. mailto:[52][55]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
5. mailto:[53][56]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
6. mailto:[54][57]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
7. mailto:[55][58]planning4liberty at gmail.com
8. mailto:[56][59]planning4liberty at gmail.com
9. mailto:[57][60]carynannharlos at gmail.com
10. [58][61]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
11. mailto:[59][62]planning4liberty at gmail.com
12. mailto:[60][63]carynannharlos at gmail.com
13. [61][64]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
14. mailto:[62][65]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
15. mailto:[63][66]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
16. mailto:[64][67]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
17. mailto:[65][68]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
18. mailto:[66][69]planning4liberty at gmail.com
19. mailto:[67][70]planning4liberty at gmail.com
20. mailto:[68][71]carynannharlos at gmail.com
21. [69][72]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
22. mailto:[70][73]planning4liberty at gmail.com
23. mailto:[71][74]carynannharlos at gmail.com
24. [72][75]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
25. mailto:[73][76]tim.hagan at lp.org
26. mailto:[74][77]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
27. mailto:[75][78]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
28. mailto:[76][79]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
29. mailto:[77][80]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
30. mailto:[78][81]planning4liberty at gmail.com
31. mailto:[79][82]planning4liberty at gmail.com
32. mailto:[80][83]carynannharlos at gmail.com
33. [81][84]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
34. mailto:[82][85]planning4liberty at gmail.com
35. mailto:[83][86]carynannharlos at gmail.com
36. [84][87]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
37. mailto:[85][88]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
38. mailto:[86][89]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
39. mailto:[87][90]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
40. mailto:[88][91]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
41. mailto:[89][92]planning4liberty at gmail.com
42. mailto:[90][93]planning4liberty at gmail.com
43. mailto:[91][94]carynannharlos at gmail.com
44. [92][95]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
45. mailto:[93][96]planning4liberty at gmail.com
46. mailto:[94][97]carynannharlos at gmail.com
47. mailto:[95]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
48. [96][98]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
References
1. mailto:[99]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
2. mailto:[100]planning4liberty at gmail.com
3. mailto:[101]tim.hagan at lp.org
4. mailto:[102]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
5. mailto:[103]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
6. mailto:[104]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
7. mailto:[105]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
8. mailto:[106]planning4liberty at gmail.com
9. mailto:[107]planning4liberty at gmail.com
10. mailto:[108]carynannharlos at gmail.com
11. [109]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
12. mailto:[110]planning4liberty at gmail.com
13. mailto:[111]carynannharlos at gmail.com
14. [112]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
15. mailto:[113]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
16. mailto:[114]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
17. mailto:[115]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
18. mailto:[116]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
19. mailto:[117]planning4liberty at gmail.com
20. mailto:[118]planning4liberty at gmail.com
21. mailto:[119]carynannharlos at gmail.com
22. [120]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
23. mailto:[121]planning4liberty at gmail.com
24. mailto:[122]carynannharlos at gmail.com
25. [123]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
26. mailto:[124]tim.hagan at lp.org
27. mailto:[125]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
28. mailto:[126]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
29. mailto:[127]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
30. mailto:[128]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
31. mailto:[129]planning4liberty at gmail.com
32. mailto:[130]planning4liberty at gmail.com
33. mailto:[131]carynannharlos at gmail.com
34. [132]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
35. mailto:[133]planning4liberty at gmail.com
36. mailto:[134]carynannharlos at gmail.com
37. [135]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
38. mailto:[136]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
39. mailto:[137]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
40. mailto:[138]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
41. mailto:[139]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
42. mailto:[140]planning4liberty at gmail.com
43. mailto:[141]planning4liberty at gmail.com
44. mailto:[142]carynannharlos at gmail.com
45. [143]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
46. mailto:[144]planning4liberty at gmail.com
47. mailto:[145]carynannharlos at gmail.com
48. [146]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
49. mailto:[147]planning4liberty at gmail.com
50. mailto:[148]tim.hagan at lp.org
51. mailto:[149]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
52. mailto:[150]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
53. mailto:[151]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
54. mailto:[152]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
55. mailto:[153]planning4liberty at gmail.com
56. mailto:[154]planning4liberty at gmail.com
57. mailto:[155]carynannharlos at gmail.com
58. [156]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
59. mailto:[157]planning4liberty at gmail.com
60. mailto:[158]carynannharlos at gmail.com
61. [159]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
62. mailto:[160]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
63. mailto:[161]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
64. mailto:[162]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
65. mailto:[163]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
66. mailto:[164]planning4liberty at gmail.com
67. mailto:[165]planning4liberty at gmail.com
68. mailto:[166]carynannharlos at gmail.com
69. [167]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
70. mailto:[168]planning4liberty at gmail.com
71. mailto:[169]carynannharlos at gmail.com
72. [170]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
73. mailto:[171]tim.hagan at lp.org
74. mailto:[172]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
75. mailto:[173]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
76. mailto:[174]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
77. mailto:[175]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
78. mailto:[176]planning4liberty at gmail.com
79. mailto:[177]planning4liberty at gmail.com
80. mailto:[178]carynannharlos at gmail.com
81. [179]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
82. mailto:[180]planning4liberty at gmail.com
83. mailto:[181]carynannharlos at gmail.com
84. [182]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
85. mailto:[183]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
86. mailto:[184]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
87. mailto:[185]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
88. mailto:[186]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
89. mailto:[187]planning4liberty at gmail.com
90. mailto:[188]planning4liberty at gmail.com
91. mailto:[189]carynannharlos at gmail.com
92. [190]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
93. mailto:[191]planning4liberty at gmail.com
94. mailto:[192]carynannharlos at gmail.com
95. mailto:[193]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
96. [194]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
References
1. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
2. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
3. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
4. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
5. mailto:tim.hagan at lp.org
6. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
7. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
8. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
9. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
10. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
11. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
12. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
13. http://www/
14. http://lpcolorado.org/
15. mailto:erty at gmail.com
16. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
17. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
18. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
19. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
20. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
21. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
22. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
23. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
24. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
25. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
26. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
27. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
28. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
29. mailto:tim.hagan at lp.org
30. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
31. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
32. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
33. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
34. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
35. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
36. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
37. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
38. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
39. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
40. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
41. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
42. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
43. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
44. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
45. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
46. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
47. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
48. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
49. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
50. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
51. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
52. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
53. mailto:tim.hagan at lp.org
54. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
55. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
56. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
57. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
58. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
59. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
60. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
61. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
62. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
63. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
64. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
65. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
66. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
67. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
68. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
69. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
70. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
71. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
72. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
73. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
74. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
75. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
76. mailto:tim.hagan at lp.org
77. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
78. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
79. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
80. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
81. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
82. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
83. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
84. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
85. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
86. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
87. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
88. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
89. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
90. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
91. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
92. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
93. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
94. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
95. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
96. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
97. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
98. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
99. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
100. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
101. mailto:tim.hagan at lp.org
102. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
103. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
104. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
105. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
106. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
107. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
108. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
109. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
110. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
111. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
112. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
113. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
114. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
115. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
116. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
117. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
118. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
119. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
120. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
121. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
122. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
123. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
124. mailto:tim.hagan at lp.org
125. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
126. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
127. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
128. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
129. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
130. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
131. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
132. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
133. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
134. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
135. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
136. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
137. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
138. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
139. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
140. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
141. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
142. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
143. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
144. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
145. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
146. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
147. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
148. mailto:tim.hagan at lp.org
149. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
150. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
151. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
152. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
153. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
154. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
155. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
156. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
157. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
158. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
159. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
160. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
161. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
162. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
163. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
164. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
165. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
166. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
167. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
168. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
169. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
170. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
171. mailto:tim.hagan at lp.org
172. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
173. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
174. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
175. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
176. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
177. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
178. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
179. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
180. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
181. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
182. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
183. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
184. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
185. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
186. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
187. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
188. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
189. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
190. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
191. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
192. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
193. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
194. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list