[Lnc-business] Elections overhaul - request for input
Caryn Ann Harlos
caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Fri Jul 13 17:23:51 EDT 2018
Yes I would like to see it as I wasn't included in this before.
And I think you nailed the questions spot on though I am not sure what this
means: Additionally, I have a concern that unless feels represented at at
this table, it ain't happening.
And I really agree on limiting LNC to ex officio seats and limiting even
those to Chair, Secretary, previous Secretary, and one more.
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 3:13 PM, Joe Bishop-Henchman via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> 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
>
--
--
*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 --------------
Yes I would like to see it as I wasn't included in this before.
And I think you nailed the questions spot on though I am not sure what
this means: Additionally, I have a concern that unless feels
represented at at this table, it ain't happening.
And I really agree on limiting LNC to ex officio seats and limiting
even those to Chair, Secretary, previous Secretary, and one more.
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 3:13 PM, Joe Bishop-Henchman via Lnc-business
<[1]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
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
--
--
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
References
1. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
2. mailto:joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org
3. http://www.facebook.com/groups/189510455174837
4. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list