[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-11: ACKNOWLEDGE ELECTION OF JC
Caryn Ann Harlos
caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Mon Jul 9 18:34:15 EDT 2018
PS: Before this vote ends, I am going to put something together to try to
convince you that this is actually one of the worst ways to solve.
My first issue - that of steering the delegates down that road with
at-large is unsolvable- at least unsolvable in any way that we would ever
do. If it were up to me, I would punt it all back to the delegates.
The second issue - of how to handle this situation with the JC - well we
are trying to solve it now and I think we are solving it wrong both
ethically and procedurally.
And a remaining issue - is one where me and RONR come into conflict. Rules
are tools. Just because a rule allows something doesn't mean it is right,
and this is probably why the first issue is sticking in my craw so badly.
It is fundamentally NOT RIGHT to change the rules of an election mid-way.
There is a huge difference between majority and plurality and our
candidates deserve to know as it effects the way they campaign. We treated
them and their efforts as pawns, and it isn't right.
I know some of you are thinking, just shut up about this already. Well, I
am a hard-nose on some things, and this is one of them. Just like it was
with the eternal secrecy clause last term.
The only way we are going to learn as an organization is if this is a bit
painful. And in so doing we will model over-the-top integrity to our
members rather than political expediency.
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 3:36 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:
> ==I get the anger. I'm angry. When we ultimately do get the state-by-state
> tallies, I'm sure we'll find that hundreds of delegates didn't even vote in
> the two races because we put them off so long. In the 2016 convention,
> whole states didn't cast votes in the At-Large and JC races. Them's the
> rules - elections are won by those who stay and vote - but oh my did we
> make it hard. The combination of voting methodology, tabulation method, and
> scheduling left us in a bad place.===
>
> You mean we ran in front of a racing car and now are surprised we got ran
> over?
>
> But it is more than that. The delegates were led to make a decision in a
> certain direction. There WERE other options. Whether or not one agrees
> with the voting methodology, it is the methodology and its intent was to
> use approval voting to show approval and we turned it on its head. Why
> weren't the delegates given other options?
>
> ==All that said, I don't want to just be angry and complain. As far as
> actions that can be taken, this resolution is the most reasonable. Other
> possibilities - revotes or mail votes of all Party members or us filling
> the JC seats or setting multiple JCs in motion - are even more violative of
> the Bylaws and Rules.==
>
> Are they all? I don't think so. And I do think my very real complaint of
> how the delegates were steered in a certain direction is being ignored at
> best (or maligned at worst).
>
> ==The contrary view admittedly rests on a thread of legality: the
> delegates expressed their wish to take the top at-large candidates and the
> Bylaws say the same applies for the JC. There's also no doubt in my mind
> that had they been asked they would have done the same for the JC. A room
> of several hundred Libertarians were not coerced into doing that - they
> went with what Nick suggested because that's what they wanted to do. He
> just told them how.===
>
> And that is where the dispute is. Most of the people there trusted us (I
> use us as Nick was acting as the spokesperson of the LNC and this isn't
> about Nick ultimately) not to tell them what they wanted. They were
> presented with two choices in which they were led down a particular path.
> You are an attorney Joe, you know exactly what I am getting at here.
>
> Do you really think that if they were offered a majority rising vote on
> the spot to choose between options they would not have taken that? It
> never ocurred to most of them that there WERE any other options. It didn't
> immediately occur to me and I am well-versed in this stuff. It stinks. If
> a government acted this way we would be all lathered up.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Joe Bishop-Henchman <
> joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org> wrote:
>
>> I get the anger. I'm angry. When we ultimately do get the state-by-state
>> tallies, I'm sure we'll find that hundreds of delegates didn't even vote in
>> the two races because we put them off so long. In the 2016 convention,
>> whole states didn't cast votes in the At-Large and JC races. Them's the
>> rules - elections are won by those who stay and vote - but oh my did we
>> make it hard. The combination of voting methodology, tabulation method, and
>> scheduling left us in a bad place.
>>
>> All that said, I don't want to just be angry and complain. As far as
>> actions that can be taken, this resolution is the most reasonable. Other
>> possibilities - revotes or mail votes of all Party members or us filling
>> the JC seats or setting multiple JCs in motion - are even more violative of
>> the Bylaws and Rules.
>>
>> I do not dispute that one can reasonably argue that every JC candidate
>> was disapproved and that it should sit empty until 2022. The contrary view
>> admittedly rests on a thread of legality: the delegates expressed their
>> wish to take the top at-large candidates and the Bylaws say the same
>> applies for the JC. There's also no doubt in my mind that had they been
>> asked they would have done the same for the JC. A room of several hundred
>> Libertarians were not coerced into doing that - they went with what Nick
>> suggested because that's what they wanted to do. He just told them how.
>> They didn't want the LNC fighting over who would fill the seats if they
>> were left vacant.
>>
>> I doubt I'm going to convince you but I did want to write this to
>> emphasize that at least I am not sanguine or sweeping anything blithely
>> under the rug. I expect rethinking how we do elections will be a big
>> priority for many of us.
>>
>> JBH
>>
>> On 2018-07-09 16:46, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
>>
>>> Suspension of the rules has to be specific and there is no way around
>>> the fact that we used the number 5 over and over.
>>>
>>> This is taking things to an even deeper level of improper. I object
>>> to
>>> the whole at-Large process- I don’t think the delegates made an
>>> independent choice and now to just infer this upon that is two bridges
>>> too far.
>>>
>>> This is a big screwup and I won’t be part of sweeping it under the
>>> rug.
>>>
>>> It alarms me to no end how blithely the whole situation is being
>>> taken.
>>>
>>> There are people looking at us and seeing nothing different than the
>>> government we wish to reform.
>>>
>>> There was a controversial election and at least one state chair and
>>> candidate has been asking for the state by state rallies with no time
>>> frame given him.
>>>
>>> The whole thing was an affront to people expecting an entirely
>>> different thing when they ran. I will not be sanguine about it.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 2:20 PM Whitney Bilyeu
>>> <[1]whitney.bilyeu at lp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> This point did come up immediately after adjournment, while Nick was
>>> still at the mic. I don't recall who brought it up, but the statement
>>> was made that it would follow the same procedure as At-Large at that
>>> point, since we were no longer in session.
>>> No one raised the question prior to that.
>>> Whitney Bilyeu
>>> Region 7 Representative
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 3:07 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business
>>> <[2]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Joshua they were not given a choice on this. The JC never came
>>> up.
>>> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 11:47 AM <[1][3]joshua.smith at lp.org>
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>> I vote yes. Given that the delegates were given the choice at
>>> convention
>>> just a few short days ago, I believe we should respect that
>>> decision.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Joshua D. Smith
>>> On 2018-07-07 22:23, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
>>> > We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the
>>> LNC-Business
>>> > list by July 14, 2018 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.
>>> Co-Sponsors:
>>> > Bishop-Henchman, Goldstein, Hagan, Merced, Van Horn
>>> Motion:
>>> Move
>>> > that
>>> > the Libertarian National Committee acknowledge the
>>> election of
>>> the
>>> > following to the Judicial Committee for a four-year term:
>>> D.
>>> Frank
>>> > Robinson, Chuck Moulton, Darryl Perry, Ruth Bennett, Geoff
>>> Neale,
>>> > Jim
>>> > Turney, and Tricia Sprankle. You can keep track of the
>>> Secretary's
>>>
>>> > manual tally of votes here:
>>> [1][2][4]https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
>>>
>>> > --
>>> > --
>>> > 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. [3][5]https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
>>> > 2. mailto:[4]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>>> > 3. [5][6]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>>>
>>> --
>>> --
>>> In Liberty,
>>> Caryn Ann Harlos
>>> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
>>>
>>> - [6]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or Secretary at LP.org.
>>>
>>> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
>>>
>>> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>>> We defend your rights
>>> And oppose the use of force
>>> Taxation is theft
>>>
>>> References
>>> 1. mailto:[7]joshua.smith at lp.org
>>> 2. [8]https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
>>> 3. [9]https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
>>> 4. mailto:[10]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>>> 5. [11]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>>> 6. mailto:[12]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> --
>>> In Liberty,
>>> Caryn Ann Harlos
>>> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
>>> - [13]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or Secretary at LP.org.
>>> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
>>> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>>> We defend your rights
>>> And oppose the use of force
>>> Taxation is theft
>>>
>>> References
>>>
>>> 1. mailto:whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
>>> 2. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> 3. mailto:joshua.smith at lp.org
>>> 4. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
>>> 5. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
>>> 6. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>>> 7. mailto:joshua.smith at lp.org
>>> 8. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
>>> 9. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
>>> 10. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>>> 11. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>>> 12. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>>> 13. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>>>
>>
>> --
>> JBH
>>
>> ------------
>> Joe Bishop-Henchman
>> LNC Member (At-Large)
>> joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org
>> www.facebook.com/groups/189510455174837
>>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> *In Liberty,*
> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary - Caryn.Ann.
> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org> or Secretary at LP.org.
> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
>
> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
> *We defend your rights*
> *And oppose the use of force*
> *Taxation is theft*
>
--
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary - Caryn.Ann.
Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org> or Secretary at LP.org.
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
-------------- next part --------------
PS: Before this vote ends, I am going to put something together to try
to convince you that this is actually one of the worst ways to solve.
My first issue - that of steering the delegates down that road with
at-large is unsolvable- at least unsolvable in any way that we would
ever do. If it were up to me, I would punt it all back to the
delegates.
The second issue - of how to handle this situation with the JC - well
we are trying to solve it now and I think we are solving it wrong both
ethically and procedurally.
And a remaining issue - is one where me and RONR come into conflict.
Rules are tools. Just because a rule allows something doesn't mean it
is right, and this is probably why the first issue is sticking in my
craw so badly. It is fundamentally NOT RIGHT to change the rules of an
election mid-way. There is a huge difference between majority and
plurality and our candidates deserve to know as it effects the way they
campaign. We treated them and their efforts as pawns, and it isn't
right.
I know some of you are thinking, just shut up about this already.
Well, I am a hard-nose on some things, and this is one of them. Just
like it was with the eternal secrecy clause last term.
The only way we are going to learn as an organization is if this is a
bit painful. And in so doing we will model over-the-top integrity to
our members rather than political expediency.
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 3:36 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<[1]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
==I get the anger. I'm angry. When we ultimately do get the
state-by-state tallies, I'm sure we'll find that hundreds of delegates
didn't even vote in the two races because we put them off so long. In
the 2016 convention, whole states didn't cast votes in the At-Large and
JC races. Them's the rules - elections are won by those who stay and
vote - but oh my did we make it hard. The combination of voting
methodology, tabulation method, and scheduling left us in a bad
place.===
You mean we ran in front of a racing car and now are surprised we got
ran over?
But it is more than that. The delegates were led to make a decision in
a certain direction. There WERE other options. Whether or not one
agrees with the voting methodology, it is the methodology and its
intent was to use approval voting to show approval and we turned it on
its head. Why weren't the delegates given other options?
==All that said, I don't want to just be angry and complain. As far as
actions that can be taken, this resolution is the most reasonable.
Other possibilities - revotes or mail votes of all Party members or us
filling the JC seats or setting multiple JCs in motion - are even more
violative of the Bylaws and Rules.==
Are they all? I don't think so. And I do think my very real complaint
of how the delegates were steered in a certain direction is being
ignored at best (or maligned at worst).
==The contrary view admittedly rests on a thread of legality: the
delegates expressed their wish to take the top at-large candidates and
the Bylaws say the same applies for the JC. There's also no doubt in my
mind that had they been asked they would have done the same for the JC.
A room of several hundred Libertarians were not coerced into doing that
- they went with what Nick suggested because that's what they wanted to
do. He just told them how.===
And that is where the dispute is. Most of the people there trusted us
(I use us as Nick was acting as the spokesperson of the LNC and this
isn't about Nick ultimately) not to tell them what they wanted. They
were presented with two choices in which they were led down a
particular path. You are an attorney Joe, you know exactly what I am
getting at here.
Do you really think that if they were offered a majority rising vote on
the spot to choose between options they would not have taken that? It
never ocurred to most of them that there WERE any other options. It
didn't immediately occur to me and I am well-versed in this stuff. It
stinks. If a government acted this way we would be all lathered up.
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Joe Bishop-Henchman
<[2]joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org> wrote:
I get the anger. I'm angry. When we ultimately do get the
state-by-state tallies, I'm sure we'll find that hundreds of
delegates didn't even vote in the two races because we put them off
so long. In the 2016 convention, whole states didn't cast votes in
the At-Large and JC races. Them's the rules - elections are won by
those who stay and vote - but oh my did we make it hard. The
combination of voting methodology, tabulation method, and scheduling
left us in a bad place.
All that said, I don't want to just be angry and complain. As far as
actions that can be taken, this resolution is the most reasonable.
Other possibilities - revotes or mail votes of all Party members or
us filling the JC seats or setting multiple JCs in motion - are even
more violative of the Bylaws and Rules.
I do not dispute that one can reasonably argue that every JC
candidate was disapproved and that it should sit empty until 2022.
The contrary view admittedly rests on a thread of legality: the
delegates expressed their wish to take the top at-large candidates
and the Bylaws say the same applies for the JC. There's also no
doubt in my mind that had they been asked they would have done the
same for the JC. A room of several hundred Libertarians were not
coerced into doing that - they went with what Nick suggested because
that's what they wanted to do. He just told them how. They didn't
want the LNC fighting over who would fill the seats if they were
left vacant.
I doubt I'm going to convince you but I did want to write this to
emphasize that at least I am not sanguine or sweeping anything
blithely under the rug. I expect rethinking how we do elections will
be a big priority for many of us.
JBH
On 2018-07-09 16:46, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
Suspension of the rules has to be specific and there is no way
around
the fact that we used the number 5 over and over.
This is taking things to an even deeper level of improper. I
object to
the whole at-Large process- I don’t think the delegates made an
independent choice and now to just infer this upon that is two
bridges
too far.
This is a big screwup and I won’t be part of sweeping it under
the rug.
It alarms me to no end how blithely the whole situation is being
taken.
There are people looking at us and seeing nothing different than
the
government we wish to reform.
There was a controversial election and at least one state chair
and
candidate has been asking for the state by state rallies with no
time
frame given him.
The whole thing was an affront to people expecting an entirely
different thing when they ran. I will not be sanguine about it.
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 2:20 PM Whitney Bilyeu
<[1][3]whitney.bilyeu at lp.org> wrote:
This point did come up immediately after adjournment, while Nick
was
still at the mic. I don't recall who brought it up, but the
statement
was made that it would follow the same procedure as At-Large at
that
point, since we were no longer in session.
No one raised the question prior to that.
Whitney Bilyeu
Region 7 Representative
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 3:07 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business
<[2][4]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
Joshua they were not given a choice on this. The JC never
came
up.
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 11:47 AM
<[1][3][5]joshua.smith at lp.org>
wrote:
I vote yes. Given that the delegates were given the choice at
convention
just a few short days ago, I believe we should respect that
decision.
Thanks,
Joshua D. Smith
On 2018-07-07 22:23, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
> We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the
LNC-Business
> list by July 14, 2018 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.
Co-Sponsors:
> Bishop-Henchman, Goldstein, Hagan, Merced, Van Horn
Motion:
Move
> that
> the Libertarian National Committee acknowledge the
election of
the
> following to the Judicial Committee for a four-year
term:
D.
Frank
> Robinson, Chuck Moulton, Darryl Perry, Ruth Bennett,
Geoff
Neale,
> Jim
> Turney, and Tricia Sprankle. You can keep track of the
Secretary's
> manual tally of votes here:
[1][2][4][6]https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
> --
> --
> 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. [3][5][7]https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
> 2. mailto:[4]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 3. [5][6][8]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee
Secretary
- [6]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or Secretary at LP.org.
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
We defend your rights
And oppose the use of force
Taxation is theft
References
1. mailto:[7][9]joshua.smith at lp.org
2. [8][10]https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
3. [9][11]https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
4. mailto:[10]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
5. [11][12]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
6. mailto:[12]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
- [13]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or Secretary at LP.org.
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
We defend your rights
And oppose the use of force
Taxation is theft
References
1. mailto:[13]whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
2. mailto:[14]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
3. mailto:[15]joshua.smith at lp.org
4. [16]https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
5. [17]https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
6. [18]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
7. mailto:[19]joshua.smith at lp.org
8. [20]https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
9. [21]https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
10. mailto:[22]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
11. [23]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
12. mailto:[24]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
13. mailto:[25]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
--
JBH
------------
Joe Bishop-Henchman
LNC Member (At-Large)
[26]joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org
[27]www.facebook.com/groups/189510455174837
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
- [28]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or Secretary at LP.org.
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
We defend your rights
And oppose the use of force
Taxation is theft
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
- [29]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or Secretary at LP.org.
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
We defend your rights
And oppose the use of force
Taxation is theft
References
1. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
2. mailto:joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org
3. mailto:whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
4. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
5. mailto:joshua.smith at lp.org
6. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
7. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
8. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
9. mailto:joshua.smith at lp.org
10. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
11. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
12. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
13. mailto:whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
14. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
15. mailto:joshua.smith at lp.org
16. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
17. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
18. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
19. mailto:joshua.smith at lp.org
20. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
21. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
22. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
23. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
24. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
25. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
26. mailto:joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org
27. http://www.facebook.com/groups/189510455174837
28. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
29. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list