[Lnc-business] At-Large Elections

[erin.adams at lp.org]

I agree with Caryn Ann on this. This isnt the first time we have faced 
this issue and many of the delegates from my state felt "strong armed" 
into making a decision that they were not happy with. A survey of the 
delegates is NOT out of line here




On 2018-07-07 16:47, 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 this result.
> 
>    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
> 
>    --
> 
>    --
>    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. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>    2. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>    3. http://www.lpcolorado.org/