[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-12: INDEPENDENT AUDIT OF AT-LARGE VOTE RESULTS

[Richard Longstreth]

Region 1 votes yes and urges others to do the same.
===
I am disappointed to read that there is a vote against this based primarily
on how one member feels they were treated by the rest of the LNC. That is
not how we should vote. No further explanation should be needed. Be good to
each other but don't let personal conflicts interfere with your duty to the
membership.

To Mr. Bishop-Henchman's other points, I believe that while this ballot
only does this for this one ballot, it is the beginning of a change in the
LNC. I fully support this and ALL measures to independently audit ALL
ballots. To vote no on this one because it doesn't go far enough seems
short-sighted. As libertarians, we need to take wins for transparency where
we can get them. This is one of those times.

Second, I have seen the tally sheets, not the ballots, provided by Ms
Matteson. An independent audit is not moot. Even if all ballots are emailed
out, I still think it imperative that someone be assigned to audit and
report to the LNC the results. It is not enough to say that information is
out there, therefore there is no point in verifying or doing more. Imagine
if that's how we treated campaigns - we wouldn't support candidates because
all the information they need is out there on the internet, ergo they don't
need anything from the LNC/LP. Ridiculous logic albeit illustrated by
fallacy. If this were a local election against one of our LP candidates and
circumstances were similar, we would all be pushing like mad to have an
audit done. This is absolutely no different.

RTL

On Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 05:49 Joe Bishop-Henchman via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

>    My vote is no, for three independent reasons.
>    First, while I would support an audit of all results as a matter of
>    regular practice, that's not what this motion does. It singles out one
>    race, this one time. It therefore sends the message that we think the
>    problem with our elections is *inaccurate tabulation* in one race,
>    rather than systemic problems, choice of voting system, scheduling and
>    labor usage, and avoidance of technological solutions. While this
>    motion does not foreclose those discussions, it distracts from them.
>    Doing elections the way we do them, plus an audit, solves nothing.
>    Second, this motion is moot. Ms. Mattson has already shown her work,
>    perhaps because she would have anyway or perhaps because this motion
>    was coming. But if Ms. Mattson rigged the election, this audit ain't
>    gonna find it. (She  also should have rigged it to give herself more
>    than a 1-vote margin.) In retrospect, Ms. Mattson and Mr. Starr
>    probably should have recused themselves from counting the Secretary's
>    race, although my sense is that the army of tellers double checking
>    everything limited the ability to rig the results. More information on
>    our procedures there would be helpful but this motion doesn't do that.
>    The At-Large race is harder, since our voting method makes it very
>    labor intensive to count and very few people in the room are totally
>    disinterested in the race to be considered independent to be able to
>    count it above reproach. I think it would be fruitful to have those
>    discussions and adopt recusal standards for the future, but again, this
>    motion doesn't do that.
>    Third, this motion does nothing to grow our Party, nothing to allow us
>    to move forward to focus on goals and plans, nothing to elect and
>    re-elect Libertarians. I won't co-sponsor anything that doesn't do one
>    of those or more of those things. This doesn't even do any of those
>    things indirectly or tangentially: it's backward looking, pending
>    because we must refute some rumor on Facebook or from one or two
>    regions. We can easily spend all our time doing that, spending
>    attention and resources trying to refute every conspiracy theory we may
>    hear. Or we can act to grow and plan and elect, and be judged on the
>    quality and the results. I also don't appreciate Ms. Harlos's repeated
>    haranguing about why I'm a monster for not immediately co-sponsoring
>    this proposal, or Ms. Adams' yesterday description of my proposal as
>    "bullshit," "unacceptable," "gross," "vile," and "sickening" that I
>    have yet to hear any sponsor of this condemn despite repeated
>    discussions of tone and decorum, or the email exchange of accusations
>    and counter-accusations last night that I find childish and
>    embarrassing. Those tactics lose my vote, and the only way for that to
>    be clear for the future is if I vote no now.
>    JBH
>
-- 
Richard Longstreth
Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, KS, MT, NM, OR, HI, UT, WA, WY)
Libertarian National Committee
richard.longstreth at lp.org
931.538.9300
-------------- next part --------------
   Region 1 votes yes and urges others to do the same.

   ===

   I am disappointed to read that there is a vote against this based
   primarily on how one member feels they were treated by the rest of the
   LNC. That is not how we should vote. No further explanation should be
   needed. Be good to each other but don't let personal conflicts
   interfere with your duty to the membership.

   To Mr. Bishop-Henchman's other points, I believe that while this ballot
   only does this for this one ballot, it is the beginning of a change in
   the LNC. I fully support this and ALL measures to independently audit
   ALL ballots. To vote no on this one because it doesn't go far enough
   seems short-sighted. As libertarians, we need to take wins for
   transparency where we can get them. This is one of those times.

   Second, I have seen the tally sheets, not the ballots, provided by Ms
   Matteson. An independent audit is not moot. Even if all ballots are
   emailed out, I still think it imperative that someone be assigned to
   audit and report to the LNC the results. It is not enough to say that
   information is out there, therefore there is no point in verifying or
   doing more. Imagine if that's how we treated campaigns - we wouldn't
   support candidates because all the information they need is out there
   on the internet, ergo they don't need anything from the LNC/LP.
   Ridiculous logic albeit illustrated by fallacy. If this were a local
   election against one of our LP candidates and circumstances were
   similar, we would all be pushing like mad to have an audit done. This
   is absolutely no different.

   RTL

   On Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 05:49 Joe Bishop-Henchman via Lnc-business
   <[1]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

        My vote is no, for three independent reasons.
        First, while I would support an audit of all results as a matter
     of
        regular practice, that's not what this motion does. It singles
     out one
        race, this one time. It therefore sends the message that we think
     the
        problem with our elections is *inaccurate tabulation* in one
     race,
        rather than systemic problems, choice of voting system,
     scheduling and
        labor usage, and avoidance of technological solutions. While this
        motion does not foreclose those discussions, it distracts from
     them.
        Doing elections the way we do them, plus an audit, solves
     nothing.
        Second, this motion is moot. Ms. Mattson has already shown her
     work,
        perhaps because she would have anyway or perhaps because this
     motion
        was coming. But if Ms. Mattson rigged the election, this audit
     ain't
        gonna find it. (She  also should have rigged it to give herself
     more
        than a 1-vote margin.) In retrospect, Ms. Mattson and Mr. Starr
        probably should have recused themselves from counting the
     Secretary's
        race, although my sense is that the army of tellers double
     checking
        everything limited the ability to rig the results. More
     information on
        our procedures there would be helpful but this motion doesn't do
     that.
        The At-Large race is harder, since our voting method makes it
     very
        labor intensive to count and very few people in the room are
     totally
        disinterested in the race to be considered independent to be able
     to
        count it above reproach. I think it would be fruitful to have
     those
        discussions and adopt recusal standards for the future, but
     again, this
        motion doesn't do that.
        Third, this motion does nothing to grow our Party, nothing to
     allow us
        to move forward to focus on goals and plans, nothing to elect and
        re-elect Libertarians. I won't co-sponsor anything that doesn't
     do one
        of those or more of those things. This doesn't even do any of
     those
        things indirectly or tangentially: it's backward looking, pending
        because we must refute some rumor on Facebook or from one or two
        regions. We can easily spend all our time doing that, spending
        attention and resources trying to refute every conspiracy theory
     we may
        hear. Or we can act to grow and plan and elect, and be judged on
     the
        quality and the results. I also don't appreciate Ms. Harlos's
     repeated
        haranguing about why I'm a monster for not immediately
     co-sponsoring
        this proposal, or Ms. Adams' yesterday description of my proposal
     as
        "bullshit," "unacceptable," "gross," "vile," and "sickening" that
     I
        have yet to hear any sponsor of this condemn despite repeated
        discussions of tone and decorum, or the email exchange of
     accusations
        and counter-accusations last night that I find childish and
        embarrassing. Those tactics lose my vote, and the only way for
     that to
        be clear for the future is if I vote no now.
        JBH

   --

   Richard Longstreth
   Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, KS, MT, NM, OR, HI, UT, WA, WY)
   Libertarian National Committee
   [2]richard.longstreth at lp.org
   931.538.9300

References

   1. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
   2. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org