[Lnc-business] At-Large Elections
Caryn Ann Harlos
caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Sat Jul 7 17:47:57 EDT 2018
Plurality v majority is not for us to decide.
My objections were based on the fact that the delegates were rushed to
believe there were only two options.
There weren’t.
In fact we easily could have done a rising vote to find majorities.
There is nothing that can be done now but I do think we unduly influenced
this result.
On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 12:50 PM kenneth.olsen--- via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> 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
>
> --
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
<http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
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*
-------------- next part --------------
Plurality v majority is not for us to decide.
My objections were based on the fact that the delegates were rushed to
believe there were only two options.
There weren’t.
In fact we easily could have done a rising vote to find majorities.
There is nothing that can be done now but I do think we unduly
influenced this result.
On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 12:50 PM kenneth.olsen--- via Lnc-business
<[1]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
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
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington)
- [2]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
Communications Director, [3]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:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
2. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
3. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list