[Lnc-business] Motion - Seeking Cosponsors

[Craig Bowden]

I agree that we should be more inclusive in the debates. However, I will 
point out an error in the motion language. The language states "ten 
signatures" as being the requirement. I understand the intent would be 
ten credentialed delegates, however, you could argue loophole.

I also side with Justin O'Donnell that 10 signatures is too low.

While I cannot co-sponsor as an alternate, I would hope that perhaps 
this language could be used if individuals were going to support this:

"Direct the COC to change inclusion rules as follows: Any candidate who 
can get 30 signatures from credentialed delegates should be included in 
the Chair or Vice Chair debates. Convention delegates may sign more than 
one petition."

Since there are approximately 1,0000 delegates, this places the 
requirement at approximately 3% wanting to hear from a candidate and 
they can wish to hear from more than one. This removes the concerns over 
optics and opposition research potentially being used against us on this 
matter.

In Liberty,
Craig Bowden
Region 1 Alternate

On 2018-06-02 12:01, Arvin Vohra via Lnc-business wrote:
> Fellow Members of the LNC,
>    Over the last decades, we've fought for debate inclusiveness. We've
>    fought against the 15 percent rule, 10 percent rules, 5 percent 
> rules.
>    A few days ago, the Convention Oversight Committee announced a new 
> rule
>    for the Vice Chair debate. The rule is that to participate in the
>    debate, you need 10 percent of the tokens handed out. Given that 
> there
>    are at least 5 bona fide, legitimate candidates, who have 
> participated
>    in debates around the country, and that some percentage of the
>    convention goers will forget to hand in tokens, this rule is
>    essentially guaranteed to eliminate at least one of the options. It
>    will also make it very difficult for non-insiders to be considered 
> by
>    the convention.
>    If this was a congressional debate, we'd fight this rule. If this 
> was a
>    presidential or senate debate, we'd fight this rule. If this was a
>    debate for county council, we'd fight this rule.
>    We should not be holding ourselves to lower standards than we hold
>    politics in general. I get that as a private organization we have 
> the
>    "right" to do so. But why would we want to hold ourselves to such a 
> low
>    standard?
>    In addition to the moral issue, there is a clear strategic issue. 
> When
>    we complain about debate exclusion, our opponents need only point to
>    our own behavior. "The LP complains about our 5 percent threshold, 
> but
>    they use 10 percent threshold, which is functionally a 20 percent
>    threshold, given that so many people don't hand in debate tokens." 
> At
>    least in the polls the CPD uses, people actually have to answer the
>    polling questions.
>    This is the first time in a while that there is major excitement 
> about
>    the Vice Chair debate, and it is also the time when the COC has 
> started
>    acting as a worse version of the CPD, creating an 11th hour
>    exclusionary rule.
>    The LP stands for open debates. I personally stand for open debates.
>    I've had the honor of speaking outside the CPD office in DC, 
> protesting
>    against their actions. Today, I ask the Libertarian National 
> Committee,
>    just as I have asked the Commission on Presidential Debates, to 
> ensure
>    a fair and open debate at our convention.
>    I ask for cosponsors for the following motion:
>    "Direct the COC to change inclusion rules as follows. Any candidate 
> who
>    can get 10 signatures should be included in the debate. Convention
>    delegates may sign more than one petition."
>    Respectfully,
>    Arvin Vohra
>    Vice Chair
>    Libertarian National Committee
>    --
>    Arvin Vohra
>    [1]www.VoteVohra.com
>    [2]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>    (301) 320-3634
> 
> References
> 
>    1. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>    2. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com