[Lnc-business] At-Large Elections

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

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 -
innocently and with the best of intent, but still not appropriate.



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
>
>
-------------- 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 - innocently and with the best of intent, but still not
   appropriate.
   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

References

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