[Lnc-business] At-Large Elections

[steven.nekhaila at lp.org]

I believe a Partial Block Voting system would be ideal for At-Large 
elections, with 7 open seats, and less than 7 votes per delegate, which 
would allow minority representation to rise with a higher likelihood of 
complete Party representation. That is of course, not up to the LNC, but 
I am hoping 2020 contains a formal review of our voting procedures as 
well as an electronic voting system.

Sincerely,

Steven Nekhaila

On 2018-07-07 06:32 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
> 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