[Lnc-business] At-Large Elections

[kenneth.olsen at lp.org]

I agree with Nick on this one.  WHile I still support electronic voting, 
I agree that the At-Large elections should be based on plurality and not 
approval.  It would allow for better overall representation within the 
party.

In Liberty,
K. Brent Olsen, Psy.D.
Alternate, Region 4
559-960-3613

On 2018-07-06 21:42, Nicholas Sarwark via Lnc-business wrote:
> Dear All,
> 
> Pursuant to the delegates suspension of the rules at convention after
> overturning the ruling of the Chair, the top five vote-getters are
> properly elected to the At-Large seats on the LNC by the delegates in
> convention.  Objections to the procedure taken by the delegates are
> out of order, as such objections have to be properly raised during the
> convention session.
> 
> As to the Judicial Committee, I'll defer to Chuck Moulton's analysis
> and suggest that the LNC pass a motion that acknowledges the top seven
> vote-getters as the Judicial Committee.
> 
> There has been a lot of discussion about convention schedules,
> electronic voting systems, errors in tallying, etc. These discussions
> miss the point.  Using approval voting for a multi-member election
> that does not allow for winning by plurality is likely the worst
> possible election method to get At-Large members elected.
> 
> In the past, we were allowed to vote for as many candidates as there
> were positions available, and we rarely went to a second ballot.  An
> instant runoff or single transferable system would reallocate those
> votes for candidates with minimal support.
> 
> If the goal of At-Large members is to represent interest groups within
> the Libertarian Party, we are using the wrong voting system.  If it is
> merely to determine who is most popular in the party, we are using the
> correct system, but it will continue to produce results like we've had
> two conventions in a row based on the nature of the system.
> 
> In short, counting ballots faster doesn't matter if we're still voting 
> wrong.
> 
> Yours truly,
> Nick