[Lnc-business] At-Large Elections
kenneth.olsen at lp.org
kenneth.olsen at lp.org
Wed Jul 11 12:35:21 EDT 2018
Ditto. Ranked Choice Voting would be a good method. As for Regional
Reps, I think they are an important part of the LNC. I must say,
though, as an alternative to RCV, I support changing to plurality voting
for At-Large and JC as opposed to approval voting. We do that in the
California LP and it works well. We have a very functional Executive
Committee and JC using that system.
In Liberty,
K. Brent Olsen, Psy.D.
Alternate, Region 4
559-960-3613
On 2018-07-11 05:01, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
> 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