[Lnc-business] At-Large Elections
Caryn Ann Harlos
caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Wed Jul 11 08:01:46 EDT 2018
I am totally in favour of RCV. Totally opposed to getting rid of regions -
when done properly they serve a direct purpose to keep the states connected
and served.
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 1:14 PM, William Redpath via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> I would like to see Single Transferable Vote (a/k/a Choice Voting or
> Ranked Choice Voting) to elect the LNC At-Large positions.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote
>
> but we would need better technology to effect that.
>
> I would support Approval Voting over Plurality Voting, however.
>
> I would support all non-officer LNC reps to be elected at-large, with
> regions ended.
>
> Bill Redpath
>
>
>
> On 2018-07-08 20:27, steven.nekhaila--- via Lnc-business wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>
--
--
*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 --------------
I am totally in favour of RCV. Totally opposed to getting rid of
regions - when done properly they serve a direct purpose to keep the
states connected and served.
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 1:14 PM, William Redpath via Lnc-business
<[1]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
I would like to see Single Transferable Vote (a/k/a Choice Voting or
Ranked Choice Voting) to elect the LNC At-Large positions.
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote
but we would need better technology to effect that.
I would support Approval Voting over Plurality Voting, however.
I would support all non-officer LNC reps to be elected at-large,
with regions ended.
Bill Redpath
On 2018-07-08 20:27, steven.nekhaila--- via Lnc-business wrote:
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][3]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:[4]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
- [5]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:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote
3. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
4. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
5. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list