[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-12: INDEPENDENT AUDIT OF AT-LARGE VOTE RESULTS
john.phillips at lp.org
john.phillips at lp.org
Thu Jul 12 12:10:38 EDT 2018
Just FYI region 6 did a show of hands, not written ballots, so there would be no way to audit ours.
I think however that your objections might be taking it a bit far. The other races were run according to normal procedure, including majorities, and some checking done on the spot. At Large and JC were not, which is to my mind suggests an audit, if only to set minds more at ease with an already turbulent event.
To address the other concern. Mr Longstreth's motion to also audit the JC race is well taken. My concern is one passing and the other not. The 2 motions might be acceptable ... I'll need to think on that.
In short, I do support doing the audit. Again not because of any issues with people and their work, but to help set the party members minds at ease in an already difficult situation. I would prefer it in one motion, but I might find 2 acceptable. I ll get back to you on it,
John Phillips
Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
Cell 217-412-5973
------ Original message------From: Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-businessDate: Thu, Jul 12, 2018 10:09 AMTo: lnc-business at hq.lp.org;Cc: Elizabeth Van Horn;Subject:Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-12: INDEPENDENT AUDIT OF AT-LARGE VOTE RESULTS
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
-------------- next part --------------
Just FYI region 6 did a show of hands, not written ballots, so there
would be no way to audit ours.
I think however that your objections might be taking it a bit far. The
other races were run according to normal procedure, including
majorities, and some checking done on the spot. At Large and JC were
not, which is to my mind suggests an audit, if only to set minds more
at ease with an already turbulent event.
To address the other concern. Mr Longstreth's motion to also audit the
JC race is well taken. My concern is one passing and the other not.
The 2 motions might be acceptable ... I'll need to think on that.
In short, I do support doing the audit. Again not because of any issues
with people and their work, but to help set the party members minds at
ease in an already difficult situation. I would prefer it in one
motion, but I might find 2 acceptable. I ll get back to you on it,
John Phillips
Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
Cell [1]217-412-5973
------ Original message------
From: Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business
Date: Thu, Jul 12, 2018 10:09 AM
To: [2]lnc-business at hq.lp.org;
Cc: Elizabeth Van Horn;
Subject:Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-12: INDEPENDENT AUDIT OF
AT-LARGE VOTE RESULTS
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
[3]http://www.lpcaucus.org/
On [4]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][5]https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
> --
> --
> In Liberty,
> Caryn Ann Harlos
> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
> - [2][6]Caryn.Ann.[7] Harlos at LP.org or[8] Secretary at LP.org.
> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee -[9] 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. [10]https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
> 2. mailto[11]:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
References
1. tel:217-412-5973
2. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
3. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
4. tel:2018-07-12 02
5. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
6. http://Caryn.An/
7. mailto: Harlos at LP.org
8. mailto: Secretary at LP.org.
9. mailto: LPedia at LP.org
10. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
11. mailto::Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list