[Lnc-business] Elections overhaul - request for input

[john.phillips at lp.org]

Simple answer.  Form the election committee to look at them all, then the election committee can make recommendations to the LNC and appropriate committees.  Bylaws wont do anything for a year any way.  By then we can have suggestions for them and IT.  Thr convention committee may have to be a bit adaptable, but even that will be mostly small details that flesh out the framework.
John Phillips
Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
Cell 217-412-5973
------ Original message------From: Joe Bishop-Henchman via Lnc-businessDate: Fri, Jul 13, 2018 4:13 PMTo: LNC-Business List;Cc: Joe Bishop-Henchman;Subject:[Lnc-business] Elections overhaul - request for input
I've continued to stare at the puzzle of our Convention elections 
problem and have listened to quite a few (but hardly a dent in all) 
opinions shared with me on what we should about it. I'm sure you are all 
too. Something that's jumping out to me is that it's almost three 
problems in one: a voting system problem (majority vs plurality, 
approval vs ranked choice, etc.), a speed problem (balloting, 
tabulation, and verification) that may need a technological solution, 
and a bylaws/rules problem (as they may need to be updated and this 
Committee is not under the LNC). But it's hard to solve any one of those 
separately from the other two.

We will also have a too many chefs problem. The Convention Oversight 
Committee will think it's their job because its their budget and 
schedule. The IT Committee will think it's their job since part of the 
solution will probably be technological in nature. The Bylaws Committee 
will think it's their job because it will involve rethinking our 
election method and rewriting our election procedures. The LNC Chair and 
the Secretary will think it's their job because they have to staff it 
and run it. The LNC as a whole will think its their job because we 
always think it's our job. The state chairs will think it's their job 
because the states are the ones who count the votes and because they 
don't trust the LNC will get the job done. Individual party members will 
think it's their job because they have actual answers for what broke and 
how to fix it. And so forth. Additionally, I have a concern that unless 
feels represented at at this table, it ain't happening.

They're all correct. Do we let them all do their thing and see what 
emerges? Or do we need to develop some kind of structure? How do we move 
forward?

A week or so ago I sent around a skeleton of a proposal to set up a 
small LNC committee to essentially come up with an answer and report 
back. I got a lot of good feedback, suggesting that if it happen it 
should be larger, separate from the LNC, have seats named by the state 
chairs, limit LNC folks to ex-officio seats, have set deadlines for 
incremental steps, and rely heavily on the expertise of many of our 
members and state parties. And of course, there's a desire to audit the 
past results to get a better understanding of what went wrong. (Ms. 
Mattson did such a write-up of the 2016 Convention balloting, and I'll 
reaffirm I am open to seeing something similar for the 2018 balloting 
but for all the races.)

I'm continuing to toy around with my proposal - draft I have now is a 
15-person special committee that would take about a year to complete its 
work in five phases. Happy to share it if anyone is interested, but 
especially interested in your thoughts about some of the questions I'm 
wrestling with.

Have a good weekend everyone!

-- 
JBH

------------
Joe Bishop-Henchman
LNC Member (At-Large)
joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org
www.facebook.com/groups/189510455174837
-------------- next part --------------
   Simple answer.  Form the election committee to look at them all, then
   the election committee can make recommendations to the LNC and
   appropriate committees.  Bylaws wont do anything for a year any way.
   By then we can have suggestions for them and IT.  Thr convention
   committee may have to be a bit adaptable, but even that will be mostly
   small details that flesh out the framework.
   John Phillips
   Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
   Cell [1]217-412-5973

   ------ Original message------
   From: Joe Bishop-Henchman via Lnc-business
   Date: Fri, Jul 13, 2018 4:13 PM
   To: LNC-Business List;
   Cc: Joe Bishop-Henchman;
   Subject:[Lnc-business] Elections overhaul - request for input
I've continued to stare at the puzzle of our Convention elections
problem and have listened to quite a few (but hardly a dent in all)
opinions shared with me on what we should about it. I'm sure you are all
too. Something that's jumping out to me is that it's almost three
problems in one: a voting system problem (majority vs plurality,
approval vs ranked choice, etc.), a speed problem (balloting,
tabulation, and verification) that may need a technological solution,
and a bylaws/rules problem (as they may need to be updated and this
Committee is not under the LNC). But it's hard to solve any one of those
separately from the other two.

We will also have a too many chefs problem. The Convention Oversight
Committee will think it's their job because its their budget and
schedule. The IT Committee will think it's their job since part of the
solution will probably be technological in nature. The Bylaws Committee
will think it's their job because it will involve rethinking our
election method and rewriting our election procedures. The LNC Chair and
the Secretary will think it's their job because they have to staff it
and run it. The LNC as a whole will think its their job because we
always think it's our job. The state chairs will think it's their job
because the states are the ones who count the votes and because they
don't trust the LNC will get the job done. Individual party members will
think it's their job because they have actual answers for what broke and
how to fix it. And so forth. Additionally, I have a concern that unless
feels represented at at this table, it ain't happening.

They're all correct. Do we let them all do their thing and see what
emerges? Or do we need to develop some kind of structure? How do we move
forward?

A week or so ago I sent around a skeleton of a proposal to set up a
small LNC committee to essentially come up with an answer and report
back. I got a lot of good feedback, suggesting that if it happen it
should be larger, separate from the LNC, have seats named by the state
chairs, limit LNC folks to ex-officio seats, have set deadlines for
incremental steps, and rely heavily on the expertise of many of our
members and state parties. And of course, there's a desire to audit the
past results to get a better understanding of what went wrong. (Ms.
Mattson did such a write-up of the 2016 Convention balloting, and I'll
reaffirm I am open to seeing something similar for the 2018 balloting
but for all the races.)

I'm continuing to toy around with my proposal - draft I have now is a
15-person special committee that would take about a year to complete its
work in five phases. Happy to share it if anyone is interested, but
especially interested in your thoughts about some of the questions I'm
wrestling with.

Have a good weekend everyone!

--
JBH

------------
Joe Bishop-Henchman
LNC Member (At-Large)[2]
joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org
[3]www.facebook.com/groups/189510455174837

References

   1. tel:217-412-5973
   2. mailto:
joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org
   3. http://www.facebook.com/groups/189510455174837