[Lnc-business] Seeking Co-Sponsors for Motion regarding internal debate rules for 2018 NatCon

[Joshua Katz]

I will not join any of these, because the following summary conveys my
impression of the state of affairs.  We have a committee to handle the
details of the convention, with this board approving certain parts of the
arrangement.  On this topic, we gave, so far as I know, no proactive
indication of board priorities or big-picture thoughts.  The committee came
up with a solution.  We now have several competing proposals for the board,
instead, to substitute its own details.  The first of these proposals came
from a member of this board who, I think, intends to participate in one of
the elections being discussed.  The latest proposal comes from a member of
the committee it is proposed we 'direct' by telling it what to decide.

None of this, in my opinion, reflects anything close to effective
governance.  If this board wants committees to prioritize things, we should
tell them - not as individuals, but as a board.  We should not, instead,
let the committee come up with its best solution with the information it
has, and then rewrite its decision ourselves.  We should, further,
recognize that every decision has trade-offs.  Personally, as I have said
several times, I oppose much about the way we run conventions. I believe
our conventions should be for business.  I do not think they should combine
business with a knock-off of Mark Skousen's thing, because, inevitably, it
drives up costs, requiring us to then focus on the things that bring in
money - i.e. not business.  I think we should stop denigrating the purposes
for which we have conventions with the now ubiquitous (and irritating)
phrase "moving commas."  (How many criminal cases, by the way, have hinged
on comma placement?  Perhaps an organization designed for the purpose,
among others, of electing legislators and, at the state level, judges,
should not treat comma placement as an obvious waste of them.)  But,
whatever my feelings on the matter, we've chosen as a party to live in a
world with trade-offs that need to be navigated.  If we're going to tell a
committee, therefore, that something is to be prioritized, we need to tell
them, also, what to deprioritize - or accept that they will decide.

In any case, I will cosponsor if someone puts forward a motion giving
general directions on the topic, although I think if we have a taste for
that, we should have done it a long time ago.  I will not cosponsor
anything that puts the LNC in the position of making the decision the board
should make.

I will also disagree with the chair (if the assumption above is correct) on
one point, while agreeing with the rest: I am not inclined to accept the
suggestion that a good way to design a debate involves the debate designer
coming to an understanding with an incumbent candidate, unless that
understanding is also going to involve every candidate.  Since it isn't
(and we don't even have a satisfactory definition of 'candidate' anyway) I
would suggest that we shouldn't be seeking an understanding of that sort.
While, as Mr. Hayes points out, there are important differences between
this and the typical election debate, one similiarity is that taking input
on the format only from the incumbent is a problem.

On a more general note, I will note that just about every debate I've seen
in recent decades has more resembled a random splicing together of speeches
than a debate.  This is less true in the LP than in the general context, so
it's not terribly relevant here, I guess, but it annoys me.  I am sick and
tired of debates featuring no interaction or engagement between candidates.

Joshua A. Katz


On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 11:03 PM, Daniel Hayes via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

> I  will be putting forward the following motion if needed, however, I
> would encourage all people sponsoring motions to withdraw their
> sponsorships until after the next COC meeting this Monday at 9:30PM
> Eastern.  I personally had reservations for the standard we put forward and
> I have much greater comfort for something along the lines of what I am
> proposing here.
>
> I had hoped people would heed Nick’s request so I held off on this.
> People haven’t withdrawn other motions so, time to seek Co-sponsors for
> this one.
>
>
> ——————-
> Move to direct the Convention Oversight Committee to amend the Chair and
> Vice-Chair debate inclusion rules to include the following provisions:
>
> There shall be a maximum of 5 candidates on stage at the 2018 Libertarian
> National Convention during any internal debate for the office being
> sought.  Tokens shall include as an option, “None of the Above (NOTA)”.
>  Also, tokens shall provide a space for a write-in candidate.
>
> Delegates shall only be allotted one token per debated office and shall
> only select one option per token.  Tokens with more than one option
> selected shall not be counted to determine debate inclusion.  Tokens shall
> not be transferable.
>
> Any candidate that receives fewer tokens than NOTA for a debated office
> shall not be included in that debate.  There shall be no representative for
> NOTA included in these debates.
>
> —————
> Daniel Hayes
> LNC At Large Member
> LNC COC Chairman
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
   I will not join any of these, because the following summary conveys my
   impression of the state of affairs.  We have a committee to handle the
   details of the convention, with this board approving certain parts of
   the arrangement.  On this topic, we gave, so far as I know, no
   proactive indication of board priorities or big-picture thoughts.  The
   committee came up with a solution.  We now have several competing
   proposals for the board, instead, to substitute its own details.  The
   first of these proposals came from a member of this board who, I think,
   intends to participate in one of the elections being discussed.  The
   latest proposal comes from a member of the committee it is proposed we
   'direct' by telling it what to decide.
   None of this, in my opinion, reflects anything close to effective
   governance.  If this board wants committees to prioritize things, we
   should tell them - not as individuals, but as a board.  We should not,
   instead, let the committee come up with its best solution with the
   information it has, and then rewrite its decision ourselves.  We
   should, further, recognize that every decision has trade-offs.
   Personally, as I have said several times, I oppose much about the way
   we run conventions. I believe our conventions should be for business.
   I do not think they should combine business with a knock-off of Mark
   Skousen's thing, because, inevitably, it drives up costs, requiring us
   to then focus on the things that bring in money - i.e. not business.  I
   think we should stop denigrating the purposes for which we have
   conventions with the now ubiquitous (and irritating) phrase "moving
   commas."  (How many criminal cases, by the way, have hinged on comma
   placement?  Perhaps an organization designed for the purpose, among
   others, of electing legislators and, at the state level, judges, should
   not treat comma placement as an obvious waste of them.)  But, whatever
   my feelings on the matter, we've chosen as a party to live in a world
   with trade-offs that need to be navigated.  If we're going to tell a
   committee, therefore, that something is to be prioritized, we need to
   tell them, also, what to deprioritize - or accept that they will
   decide.
   In any case, I will cosponsor if someone puts forward a motion giving
   general directions on the topic, although I think if we have a taste
   for that, we should have done it a long time ago.  I will not cosponsor
   anything that puts the LNC in the position of making the decision the
   board should make.
   I will also disagree with the chair (if the assumption above is
   correct) on one point, while agreeing with the rest: I am not inclined
   to accept the suggestion that a good way to design a debate involves
   the debate designer coming to an understanding with an incumbent
   candidate, unless that understanding is also going to involve every
   candidate.  Since it isn't (and we don't even have a satisfactory
   definition of 'candidate' anyway) I would suggest that we shouldn't be
   seeking an understanding of that sort.  While, as Mr. Hayes points out,
   there are important differences between this and the typical election
   debate, one similiarity is that taking input on the format only from
   the incumbent is a problem.
   On a more general note, I will note that just about every debate I've
   seen in recent decades has more resembled a random splicing together of
   speeches than a debate.  This is less true in the LP than in the
   general context, so it's not terribly relevant here, I guess, but it
   annoys me.  I am sick and tired of debates featuring no interaction or
   engagement between candidates.

   Joshua A. Katz
   On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 11:03 PM, Daniel Hayes via Lnc-business
   <[1]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

     I  will be putting forward the following motion if needed, however,
     I would encourage all people sponsoring motions to withdraw their
     sponsorships until after the next COC meeting this Monday at 9:30PM
     Eastern.  I personally had reservations for the standard we put
     forward and I have much greater comfort for something along the
     lines of what I am proposing here.
     I had hoped people would heed Nick’s request so I held off on this.
     People haven’t withdrawn other motions so, time to seek Co-sponsors
     for this one.
     ——————-
     Move to direct the Convention Oversight Committee to amend the Chair
     and Vice-Chair debate inclusion rules to include the following
     provisions:
     There shall be a maximum of 5 candidates on stage at the 2018
     Libertarian National Convention during any internal debate for the
     office being sought.  Tokens shall include as an option, “None of
     the Above (NOTA)”.   Also, tokens shall provide a space for a
     write-in candidate.
     Delegates shall only be allotted one token per debated office and
     shall only select one option per token.  Tokens with more than one
     option selected shall not be counted to determine debate inclusion.
     Tokens shall not be transferable.
     Any candidate that receives fewer tokens than NOTA for a debated
     office shall not be included in that debate.  There shall be no
     representative for NOTA included in these debates.
     —————
     Daniel Hayes
     LNC At Large Member
     LNC COC Chairman
     Sent from my iPhone

References

   1. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org