[Lnc-business] Motion - Seeking Cosponsors

[Starchild]

Arvin,

	I will co-sponsor this motion. Open debates are important, and we should practice what we preach. Restricting access to debates for our own party offices in ways that we would oppose if the Republicans and Democrats were applying them to debates for public office is not being the party of principle. We should run our own party the way we want to see governments run, where they are in existence.

Love & Liberty,
 
                                    ((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
                        RealReform at earthlink.net
                                 (415) 625-FREE
                                   @StarchildSF


On Jun 2, 2018, at 11:01 AM, 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