[Lnc-business] my audit of LNC At-Large election
Richard Longstreth
richard.longstreth at lp.org
Thu Jul 12 21:31:15 EDT 2018
For what it's worth, I introduced the motion, not CAH or AM, and I can
assure you that it isn't personal to either. Biyth of you co sponsored -
thank you. The move is about being a principled libertarian and treating
our internal elections as seriously as I would want our elections in the
trenches treated. That simple. I do see this narrative coming up over and
over and it bothers me because it distracts from the real intent of my
motion.
RTL
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 16:58 Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> Alicia,
> Here is where I think the issue keeps being lost. None of this is
> about you doing something wrong. None of this is about you at all but
> about our process. This keeps being personalized when it is not. In
> assisting with the JC counts, a lot of errors were found in
> transferring the ballots to the delegation sheets, so that is a
> critical part of the audit. In fact, to me, the most critical.
> We have to ask ourselves if the answers we give ourselves here would be
> satisfactory if this was one of our candidates. And I submit they are
> not.
> But absolutely understood that you are extraordinarily busy. The
> ballots could be sent to me and I could scan them. But it is all a
> moot point unless the motion passes.
> There is way too much defensiveness in a process that is not personal.
> When I brought up the issue that Elizabeth brought up of delegation
> chairs that were also candidates (or spouses of candidates) to some of
> those people the reaction was "Oh my goodness, she is right! That
> should not be done in the future!"
> This is not a battle between you and me and it seems like the narrative
> is being put into that box. It is not. It is about our process. The
> fact that you have gotten organized results out of this process for so
> long is a miracle and a testament to your data herding skills. As more
> people pay attention to what we actually do it is imperative that our
> internal processes are much cleaner. And on that point, I am
> immovable.
> -Caryn Ann
>
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 12:28 PM, Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business
> <[1]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
> Caryn Ann,
> The specifics of the write-in votes are right there on the
> delegation
> tally sheets.
> I'm not planning to spend even more time right now to scan 48
> more sets
> of individual ballots. Staff is coming up on an LP News
> deadline, and
> I'm going to move on to other subjects today, with the first
> being
> getting the Platform updated so they can highlight the changes
> for the
> membership. If the LNC wants a full independent audit and
> additional
> scanning is needed, that time investment can come later. I'm
> also
> quickly approaching a policy deadline for the first draft of the
> 6/30
> LNC minutes, so gotta do that, too.
> I meant to make this point in my original transmission message,
> but
> keep in mind what numbers I can or can't influence in this
> process.
> The numbers originally written on the delegation tally sheets do
> not
> come from me. They come from delegation chairs who believe those
> numbers to represent the vote within that affiliate. If I have
> accurately moved that number from the tally sheet into the
> spreadsheet,
> then there's little reasonable complaint to be made. For the
> instance
> in which the state's total for me needed a correction, I have
> provided
> the underlying individual ballots as backup evidence. I have
> done the
> same for the changes that impact those near me in the rankings.
> I knew
> as soon as I provided the state-by-state breakdowns that even
> further
> down the ranking list on smaller changes, questions would exist
> as to
> why something is different than the tally sheet which was
> submitted.
> I've provided detailed explanations for those, and there's no
> real
> motive for me to tweak the 15th-ranked person by 1 vote (or
> whatever)
> if the data doesn't support that. This should address most of
> the
> reasonable questions.
> And for what it's worth, as I said on the list over the past
> three
> days, I was already building this and was about 95% done with it
> before
> the motion for an independent audit even arose.
> -Alicia
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 12:50 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
> <[1][2]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
> I am doing a brief perusal, this is some fantastic data parsing.
> I am
> curious why the write-ins are not noted specifically?
> And as far as Zane Sarwark - minors can be sustaining members
> with
> their parents signing the pledge on their behalf, at least that
> is what
> I have been told and seen. Is Zane a sustaining member? If not,
> Nick
> needs to get on that. I do not think dead gorillas though can be
> sustaining members so Harambe would be ineligible. May he rest
> in
> peace.
> Will the individual ballots for the other states also be provided
> rather than just TX and CA?
> -Caryn Ann
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 1:38 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
> <[2][3]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
> Thank you. I will alert the people who have been asking for
> them.
> This also answers Sam's questions as to how the sheets could be
> transmitted - it is technologically trivial to scan them.
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 1:17 AM, Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business
>
> <[3][4]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> The At-Large tallies were made under the immense time pressures
> of the
> tail end of the convention, and as in past years, it is not
> surprising
> for a post-convention audit to find errors that were not caught
> onsite.
> For your reading pleasure, you can review the appendices of the
> minutes
> of the previous two conventions for my analyses of those human
> errors,
> which take place even though people are acting in good faith.
> None of the errors revealed by my audit of this year's At-Large
> race
> change the outcome. The top 5 people on July 3 remain the top 5
> post-audit.
> The largest single discrepancy was that the Colorado delegation
> tally
> sheet under-reported Joe Buchman by 5 votes. His relative
> ranking did
> not change, though.
> Attached is an Excel workbook with three sheets (or tabs):
> * The first contains the state-by-state breakdown that
> represents the
> tallies exactly as released onsite on July 3. You'll
> notice
> that
> some cells are color-coded, and that's an indicator for you
> to find
> the related note at the bottom of that first tab to answer
> a
> potential question about that number. Each color has its
> own
> section of notes, with a header that explains the color
> grouping.
> White, green and yellow cells include values that did not
> change in
> the audited results. The pink cells did change in the
> audited
> results for the reasons noted.
> * The second tab contains the audited results, updated to
> factor in
> the issues in the pink cells.
> * The third tab contains a comparison of the candidate
> rankings
> reported onsite on July 3 with the rankings for the audited
> results. The variances are minor and do not change the top
> 5
> finishers.
> Also attached are the delegation tally sheets for comparison
> with
> the
> details in the spreadsheet. There are 50 sheets, rather than
> 51. Not
> present is the Wyoming sheet. I don't know why that blank page
> didn't
> make it back into my collection, but Wyoming did not vote in
> any
> of the
> elections, and you can see from the attached spreadsheet that
> at
> the
> time of this vote they had 0 delegates credentialed.
> The Mattson/Scheetz/Hayes cluster of candidates seems to be
> attracting
> the most interest, and the colored cells for that cluster of
> candidates
> involve the CA and TX ballots. These are the two largest
> delegations,
> and they had the largest tallying task, which just gives more
> opportunities for human error. Immediately after sending this
> message,
> I'll follow up with another email which has the individual
> ballots from
> CA and TX attached for your tallying pleasure. The size of the
> scanned
> files warrants two separate emails, else I'd include them here.
> I
> scanned in full color at 300 dpi so you can see them in all
> their
> glory.
> -Alicia
> --
> --
> In Liberty,
> Caryn Ann Harlos
> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
>
> - [4]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
> --
> --
> 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:[5]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 2. mailto:[6]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 3. mailto:[7]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 4. mailto:[8]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 5. mailto:[9]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>
> --
> --
> In Liberty,
> Caryn Ann Harlos
> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
> - [10]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. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 3. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 4. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 5. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 6. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 7. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 8. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 9. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 10. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>
--
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 --------------
For what it's worth, I introduced the motion, not CAH or AM, and I can
assure you that it isn't personal to either. Biyth of you co sponsored
- thank you. The move is about being a principled libertarian and
treating our internal elections as seriously as I would want our
elections in the trenches treated. That simple. I do see this narrative
coming up over and over and it bothers me because it distracts from the
real intent of my motion.
RTL
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 16:58 Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business
<[1]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
Alicia,
Here is where I think the issue keeps being lost. None of this
is
about you doing something wrong. None of this is about you at all
but
about our process. This keeps being personalized when it is not.
In
assisting with the JC counts, a lot of errors were found in
transferring the ballots to the delegation sheets, so that is a
critical part of the audit. In fact, to me, the most critical.
We have to ask ourselves if the answers we give ourselves here
would be
satisfactory if this was one of our candidates. And I submit
they are
not.
But absolutely understood that you are extraordinarily busy. The
ballots could be sent to me and I could scan them. But it is all
a
moot point unless the motion passes.
There is way too much defensiveness in a process that is not
personal.
When I brought up the issue that Elizabeth brought up of
delegation
chairs that were also candidates (or spouses of candidates) to
some of
those people the reaction was "Oh my goodness, she is right!
That
should not be done in the future!"
This is not a battle between you and me and it seems like the
narrative
is being put into that box. It is not. It is about our
process. The
fact that you have gotten organized results out of this process
for so
long is a miracle and a testament to your data herding skills.
As more
people pay attention to what we actually do it is imperative that
our
internal processes are much cleaner. And on that point, I am
immovable.
-Caryn Ann
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 12:28 PM, Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business
<[1][2]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
Caryn Ann,
The specifics of the write-in votes are right there on the
delegation
tally sheets.
I'm not planning to spend even more time right now to scan
48
more sets
of individual ballots. Staff is coming up on an LP News
deadline, and
I'm going to move on to other subjects today, with the first
being
getting the Platform updated so they can highlight the
changes
for the
membership. If the LNC wants a full independent audit and
additional
scanning is needed, that time investment can come later.
I'm
also
quickly approaching a policy deadline for the first draft of
the
6/30
LNC minutes, so gotta do that, too.
I meant to make this point in my original transmission
message,
but
keep in mind what numbers I can or can't influence in this
process.
The numbers originally written on the delegation tally
sheets do
not
come from me. They come from delegation chairs who believe
those
numbers to represent the vote within that affiliate. If I
have
accurately moved that number from the tally sheet into the
spreadsheet,
then there's little reasonable complaint to be made. For
the
instance
in which the state's total for me needed a correction, I
have
provided
the underlying individual ballots as backup evidence. I
have
done the
same for the changes that impact those near me in the
rankings.
I knew
as soon as I provided the state-by-state breakdowns that
even
further
down the ranking list on smaller changes, questions would
exist
as to
why something is different than the tally sheet which was
submitted.
I've provided detailed explanations for those, and there's
no
real
motive for me to tweak the 15th-ranked person by 1 vote (or
whatever)
if the data doesn't support that. This should address most
of
the
reasonable questions.
And for what it's worth, as I said on the list over the past
three
days, I was already building this and was about 95% done
with it
before
the motion for an independent audit even arose.
-Alicia
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 12:50 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<[1][2][3]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
I am doing a brief perusal, this is some fantastic data
parsing.
I am
curious why the write-ins are not noted specifically?
And as far as Zane Sarwark - minors can be sustaining
members
with
their parents signing the pledge on their behalf, at least
that
is what
I have been told and seen. Is Zane a sustaining member? If
not,
Nick
needs to get on that. I do not think dead gorillas though
can be
sustaining members so Harambe would be ineligible. May he
rest
in
peace.
Will the individual ballots for the other states also be
provided
rather than just TX and CA?
-Caryn Ann
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 1:38 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<[2][3][4]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
Thank you. I will alert the people who have been asking for
them.
This also answers Sam's questions as to how the sheets could
be
transmitted - it is technologically trivial to scan them.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 1:17 AM, Alicia Mattson via
Lnc-business
<[3][4][5]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
The At-Large tallies were made under the immense time
pressures
of the
tail end of the convention, and as in past years, it is
not
surprising
for a post-convention audit to find errors that were not
caught
onsite.
For your reading pleasure, you can review the appendices
of the
minutes
of the previous two conventions for my analyses of those
human
errors,
which take place even though people are acting in good
faith.
None of the errors revealed by my audit of this year's
At-Large
race
change the outcome. The top 5 people on July 3 remain the
top 5
post-audit.
The largest single discrepancy was that the Colorado
delegation
tally
sheet under-reported Joe Buchman by 5 votes. His
relative
ranking did
not change, though.
Attached is an Excel workbook with three sheets (or
tabs):
* The first contains the state-by-state breakdown that
represents the
tallies exactly as released onsite on July 3. You'll
notice
that
some cells are color-coded, and that's an indicator
for you
to find
the related note at the bottom of that first tab to
answer
a
potential question about that number. Each color has
its
own
section of notes, with a header that explains the
color
grouping.
White, green and yellow cells include values that did
not
change in
the audited results. The pink cells did change in
the
audited
results for the reasons noted.
* The second tab contains the audited results, updated
to
factor in
the issues in the pink cells.
* The third tab contains a comparison of the candidate
rankings
reported onsite on July 3 with the rankings for the
audited
results. The variances are minor and do not change
the top
5
finishers.
Also attached are the delegation tally sheets for
comparison
with
the
details in the spreadsheet. There are 50 sheets, rather
than
51. Not
present is the Wyoming sheet. I don't know why that
blank page
didn't
make it back into my collection, but Wyoming did not vote
in
any
of the
elections, and you can see from the attached spreadsheet
that
at
the
time of this vote they had 0 delegates credentialed.
The Mattson/Scheetz/Hayes cluster of candidates seems to
be
attracting
the most interest, and the colored cells for that cluster
of
candidates
involve the CA and TX ballots. These are the two largest
delegations,
and they had the largest tallying task, which just gives
more
opportunities for human error. Immediately after sending
this
message,
I'll follow up with another email which has the
individual
ballots from
CA and TX attached for your tallying pleasure. The size
of the
scanned
files warrants two separate emails, else I'd include them
here.
I
scanned in full color at 300 dpi so you can see them in
all
their
glory.
-Alicia
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
- [4]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
--
--
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:[5][6]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
2. mailto:[6][7]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
3. mailto:[7][8]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
4. mailto:[8]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
5. mailto:[9]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
- [10]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:[9]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
2. mailto:[10]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
3. mailto:[11]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
4. mailto:[12]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
5. mailto:[13]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
6. mailto:[14]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
7. mailto:[15]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
8. mailto:[16]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
9. mailto:[17]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
10. mailto:[18]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
--
Richard Longstreth
Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, KS, MT, NM, OR, HI, UT, WA, WY)
Libertarian National Committee
[19]richard.longstreth at lp.org
931.538.9300
References
1. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
2. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
3. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
4. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
5. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
6. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
7. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
8. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
9. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
10. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
11. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
12. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
13. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
14. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
15. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
16. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
17. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
18. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
19. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list