[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-11: ACKNOWLEDGE ELECTION OF JC
Sam Goldstein
sam.goldstein at lp.org
Mon Jul 9 20:29:24 EDT 2018
Caryn Ann,
Just shut up about this already!
Respectfully,
---
Sam Goldstein
Libertarian National Committee
317-850-0726 Cell
On 2018-07-09 18:34, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
> 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