[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-12: INDEPENDENT AUDIT OF AT-LARGE VOTE RESULTS
Caryn Ann Harlos
caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Thu Jul 12 11:30:00 EDT 2018
I would be in favour of an audit of all races with the exception of
regionals since regionals are not the responsibility of the LNC and that
would be up to each region in its own regional agreements to make provision
for that. In Region 1 each of the candidates were given an opportunity to
audit and examine the results, then the ballots were discarded.
But it is not at all unusual that these two races are focused upon since
they were the ones done in a rush and the ones for which a state by state
tabulation was not flashed on the screen for the delegations to review.
And only one type of race (At Large) was within really really tight margins.
I think an independent audit should be standard for all or standard for
ones with certain determined margins. What margins? That would be
somewhat arbitrary but I think everyone would agree that a one-vote margin
would definitely be on the "yes audit" side.
As far as who are delegation chairs and possible conflicts that is an
excellent point for affiliates to address but that is outside of the LNC's
authority as well. The people in that delegation had an opportunity to see
the on-screen delegate totals in the officer races. They did not in the JC
and At-Large.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 9:13 AM, William Redpath via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> I vote No. Bill Redpath
>
>
> On 2018-07-12 11:09, Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business wrote:
>
>> I vote no.
>>
>> -----
>>
>> Reasons:
>>
>> 1) I might have been inclined to vote yes, until I looked at the
>> screenshots of the state tally sheets for At-Large. Some things
>> struck me as potential problems, and if they could be problems in the
>> At-Large votes, it could potentially be a problem on all the LNC
>> votes. Joe Bishop-Henchman was a delegation chair and signed off on
>> the tally sheet for his delegation. Joe Buchman was a delegation
>> chair, and signed off on his delegation tally sheet. And so on. Do I
>> think either of these men did anything wrong? No, but the possibly
>> exists. Now, if I extrapolate that possibility to all the
>> delegations, there's potential for plenty of problems, and not just in
>> the At-Large race. Mr. Harlos was a delegation chair, and his wife
>> was a candidate. Dan Reale was a delegation chair and was a candidate.
>> Drew Layda also was a delegation chair, and was a candidate. There may
>> be more that I missed. ALL of these *could* be potential problems.
>> ---------------
>> 2) The discussion of tallies, ballots, and votes has prompted a
>> discussion in the Region 3 group. A person who was a candidate for
>> the Region Alternate spot asked if anyone had the ballots from the
>> region's voting, as he was interested in seeing them. One state still
>> has theirs, two states indicated they'd disposed of the ballots, but
>> think they did everything correct. (We know that the rate of error
>> was fairly consistent with other ballots, so I suspect there're
>> probably some errors in the Region 3 ballots and tallies too.) The
>> fourth state in Region 3 hasn't responded to the question. Region 3
>> had three good candidates from 3 different states vying for the
>> Alternate spots. I'm fairly positive that the winner was Dustin Nanna
>> who's on this email list, and I don't think anyone is calling that
>> result into question. But, someone who was an alternate did ask about
>> seeing the ballots and he won't be able to, and that is problematic.
>> As we have no way to verify or audit the Region 3 votes. I'm thinking
>> other regions are similar, in that they too couldn't do a proper audit
>> now if asked.
>> -------------
>> 3 ) I'd probably vote for an audit that included ALL the LNC and the
>> Judicial Committee races. (Taking into consideration that the Regions
>> are probably ill-equipped to do so) As why should some leadership
>> races be given more focus and prominence than others? This seems to
>> be a trend, in that the regional votes were done in a haphazard
>> manner. Yet this body has spent considerable time focused on other
>> races. Region 3 did it's voting in a hallway, and we were given one
>> hour to assemble all the delegates, do a role-call of sorts, which
>> wasn't ideal. Acoustics not good and delegates couldn't hear the
>> candidates, it was hot, and other people milling around, getting
>> mixed-up with Region 3 people. Having our own room/space would've been
>> preferable. (Hopefully, for 2020, regions can be given more
>> consideration. This is LP business, and we shouldn't be shunted into
>> halls and given short-shrift.)
>> -----------
>> 4) If the reason for doing an audit is principals, then there needs
>> to be an audit of *all* the LP LNC races, including Chair, Vice-Chair,
>> Secretary, and Treasurer, At-Large, and all the Regions too. Along
>> with the Judicial Committee. (Which I now see the JC has it's own
>> motion) I'd like to see ALL the races and candidates given the same
>> consideration. On the LNC a Region Rep has one vote, the same as an
>> At-Large or an Officer. Yet, there seems to be an undue level of
>> importance placed on some candidates/races over others. For the sake
>> of principals, I'd like to see more equity in treatment. I see no
>> valid reason why the At-Large race is more likely to be error-prone
>> than any of the races. If we want to be principled about the results,
>> we do an audit of all the races.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Elizabeth Van Horn
>> LNC Region 3 (IN, MI, OH, KY)
>> Secretary Libertarian Party of Madison Co, Indiana
>> Chair-LP Social Media Process Review Committee
>> Chair Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus
>> http://www.lpcaucus.org/
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2018-07-12 02:53, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
>>
>>> We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business
>>> list by July 19, 2018 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. Co-Sponsors: Bowden,
>>> Harlos, Longstreth, Mattson
>>> Motion: Move that the LNC would have an audit of the At Large ballots
>>> done by two independent auditors appointed by the Chair, ie someone
>>> not
>>> in the race. You can keep track of the Secretary's manual tally of
>>> votes here: [1]https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
>>> --
>>> --
>>> In Liberty,
>>> Caryn Ann Harlos
>>> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
>>> - [2]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. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
>>> 2. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at 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 would be in favour of an audit of all races with the exception of
regionals since regionals are not the responsibility of the LNC and
that would be up to each region in its own regional agreements to make
provision for that. In Region 1 each of the candidates were given an
opportunity to audit and examine the results, then the ballots were
discarded.
But it is not at all unusual that these two races are focused upon
since they were the ones done in a rush and the ones for which a state
by state tabulation was not flashed on the screen for the delegations
to review. And only one type of race (At Large) was within really
really tight margins.
I think an independent audit should be standard for all or standard for
ones with certain determined margins. What margins? That would be
somewhat arbitrary but I think everyone would agree that a one-vote
margin would definitely be on the "yes audit" side.
As far as who are delegation chairs and possible conflicts that is an
excellent point for affiliates to address but that is outside of the
LNC's authority as well. The people in that delegation had an
opportunity to see the on-screen delegate totals in the officer races.
They did not in the JC and At-Large.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 9:13 AM, William Redpath via Lnc-business
<[1]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
I vote No. Bill Redpath
On 2018-07-12 11:09, Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business wrote:
I vote no.
-----
Reasons:
1) I might have been inclined to vote yes, until I looked at the
screenshots of the state tally sheets for At-Large. Some things
struck me as potential problems, and if they could be problems in
the
At-Large votes, it could potentially be a problem on all the LNC
votes. Joe Bishop-Henchman was a delegation chair and signed off on
the tally sheet for his delegation. Joe Buchman was a delegation
chair, and signed off on his delegation tally sheet. And so on. Do
I
think either of these men did anything wrong? No, but the possibly
exists. Now, if I extrapolate that possibility to all the
delegations, there's potential for plenty of problems, and not just
in
the At-Large race. Mr. Harlos was a delegation chair, and his wife
was a candidate. Dan Reale was a delegation chair and was a
candidate.
Drew Layda also was a delegation chair, and was a candidate. There
may
be more that I missed. ALL of these *could* be potential problems.
---------------
2) The discussion of tallies, ballots, and votes has prompted a
discussion in the Region 3 group. A person who was a candidate for
the Region Alternate spot asked if anyone had the ballots from the
region's voting, as he was interested in seeing them. One state
still
has theirs, two states indicated they'd disposed of the ballots, but
think they did everything correct. (We know that the rate of error
was fairly consistent with other ballots, so I suspect there're
probably some errors in the Region 3 ballots and tallies too.) The
fourth state in Region 3 hasn't responded to the question. Region 3
had three good candidates from 3 different states vying for the
Alternate spots. I'm fairly positive that the winner was Dustin
Nanna
who's on this email list, and I don't think anyone is calling that
result into question. But, someone who was an alternate did ask
about
seeing the ballots and he won't be able to, and that is problematic.
As we have no way to verify or audit the Region 3 votes. I'm
thinking
other regions are similar, in that they too couldn't do a proper
audit
now if asked.
-------------
3 ) I'd probably vote for an audit that included ALL the LNC and
the
Judicial Committee races. (Taking into consideration that the
Regions
are probably ill-equipped to do so) As why should some leadership
races be given more focus and prominence than others? This seems to
be a trend, in that the regional votes were done in a haphazard
manner. Yet this body has spent considerable time focused on other
races. Region 3 did it's voting in a hallway, and we were given one
hour to assemble all the delegates, do a role-call of sorts, which
wasn't ideal. Acoustics not good and delegates couldn't hear the
candidates, it was hot, and other people milling around, getting
mixed-up with Region 3 people. Having our own room/space would've
been
preferable. (Hopefully, for 2020, regions can be given more
consideration. This is LP business, and we shouldn't be shunted into
halls and given short-shrift.)
-----------
4) If the reason for doing an audit is principals, then there
needs
to be an audit of *all* the LP LNC races, including Chair,
Vice-Chair,
Secretary, and Treasurer, At-Large, and all the Regions too. Along
with the Judicial Committee. (Which I now see the JC has it's own
motion) I'd like to see ALL the races and candidates given the same
consideration. On the LNC a Region Rep has one vote, the same as an
At-Large or an Officer. Yet, there seems to be an undue level of
importance placed on some candidates/races over others. For the sake
of principals, I'd like to see more equity in treatment. I see no
valid reason why the At-Large race is more likely to be error-prone
than any of the races. If we want to be principled about the
results,
we do an audit of all the races.
---
Elizabeth Van Horn
LNC Region 3 (IN, MI, OH, KY)
Secretary Libertarian Party of Madison Co, Indiana
Chair-LP Social Media Process Review Committee
Chair Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus
[2]http://www.lpcaucus.org/
On 2018-07-12 02:53, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business
list by July 19, 2018 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. Co-Sponsors:
Bowden,
Harlos, Longstreth, Mattson
Motion: Move that the LNC would have an audit of the At Large
ballots
done by two independent auditors appointed by the Chair, ie
someone not
in the race. You can keep track of the Secretary's manual tally
of
votes here: [1][3]https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
- [2]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. [4]https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
2. mailto:[5]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.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:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
2. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
3. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
4. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
5. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
6. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list