[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-12: INDEPENDENT AUDIT OF AT-LARGE VOTE RESULTS
Alicia Mattson
alicia.mattson at lp.org
Sat Jul 14 02:03:20 EDT 2018
CAH> On a related note, I have done a very limited audit of the 2006
Platform votes. Some of the margins were less than 1%. I have found
errors that could have changed the results. They were never audited. I
don't think there was any funny business.
I don't think you should call your 2006 project an "audit", as you do not
have the ballots. You have a tally sheet for how individual votes were
recorded, but you have nothing to compare that to. You have said some
people have told you they didn't vote in the way the tally sheet reflects.
However in at least one instance I know of, a person has told you that he
did not vote to delete planks and thus the tally sheet recording his vote
to delete is wrong...but a witness remembers seeing that person's ballot
and says the delegate did vote to delete planks. The witness remembers it
because he was pretty surprised the delegate would vote that way. One of
the reasons that RONR so strongly supports voting by ballot is that so
people can vote their conscience rather than according to peer pressure.
Having a person tell you how they voted (which is subject to the peer
pressure effect) is not the same as having their actual ballot showing how
they really voted.
-Alicia
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 6:46 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> I waited a few moments for a response. Joe, I never intended to
> insinuate you or anyone (but particularly you) were a "monster" for not
> immediately supporting. Please don't mistake passion for insult. This
> seems (to me) to be a very classic case of what we would immediately
> pounce on in others. There is something in religious circles (past LNC
> members know that I just can't help myself from religious references)
> called "witness." I think the LP loses its witness to the world if we
> don't hold ourselves to the same audit standards we hold others.
> Imagine if Trump won some state by one vote and the Trump team audited
> it. What would we think? It isn't a matter of trusting Alicia - truth
> be told, I trust Alicia as much as I trust myself but we have a duty
> to not dismiss our members.
> As far as growing the Party, we are about to lose a multi-decade
> activist and candidate over this. Part of growing the Party is
> retaining activists and candidates. We can't afford to lose people
> over things that I think they really have a point with. We should
> never give anyone an excuse to say "what Party are we in?"
> I would support a separate motion to audit JC. Supporting thing one
> does not preclude that. This is the one with the very narrow margins
> but all votes should be independently audited.
> On a related note, I have done a very limited audit of the 2006
> Platform votes. Some of the margins were less than 1%. I have found
> errors that could have changed the results. They were never audited.
> I don't think there was any funny business. But when I finish that
> project I bet there are people who will. We need to be above reproach.
> All of us discharge our duties in different ways. I am, and will
> remain, ferocious for member rights. Never can the discussions be
> taken personally. That would be an abrogation of our duties... in my
> opinion. I do think what is being done is an abject overreach.
> -Caryn Ann
>
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 7:34 AM, Richard Longstreth via Lnc-business
> <[1]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
> Region 1 votes yes and urges others to do the same.
> ===
> I am disappointed to read that there is a vote against this based
> primarily on how one member feels they were treated by the rest
> of the
> LNC. That is not how we should vote. No further explanation
> should be
> needed. Be good to each other but don't let personal conflicts
> interfere with your duty to the membership.
> To Mr. Bishop-Henchman's other points, I believe that while this
> ballot
> only does this for this one ballot, it is the beginning of a
> change in
> the LNC. I fully support this and ALL measures to independently
> audit
> ALL ballots. To vote no on this one because it doesn't go far
> enough
> seems short-sighted. As libertarians, we need to take wins for
> transparency where we can get them. This is one of those times.
> Second, I have seen the tally sheets, not the ballots, provided
> by Ms
> Matteson. An independent audit is not moot. Even if all ballots
> are
> emailed out, I still think it imperative that someone be assigned
> to
> audit and report to the LNC the results. It is not enough to say
> that
> information is out there, therefore there is no point in
> verifying or
> doing more. Imagine if that's how we treated campaigns - we
> wouldn't
> support candidates because all the information they need is out
> there
> on the internet, ergo they don't need anything from the LNC/LP.
> Ridiculous logic albeit illustrated by fallacy. If this were a
> local
> election against one of our LP candidates and circumstances were
> similar, we would all be pushing like mad to have an audit done.
> This
> is absolutely no different.
> RTL
>
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 05:49 Joe Bishop-Henchman via Lnc-business
> <[1][2]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> My vote is no, for three independent reasons.
> First, while I would support an audit of all results as a
> matter
> of
> regular practice, that's not what this motion does. It singles
> out one
> race, this one time. It therefore sends the message that we
> think
> the
> problem with our elections is *inaccurate tabulation* in one
> race,
> rather than systemic problems, choice of voting system,
> scheduling and
> labor usage, and avoidance of technological solutions. While
> this
> motion does not foreclose those discussions, it distracts from
> them.
> Doing elections the way we do them, plus an audit, solves
> nothing.
> Second, this motion is moot. Ms. Mattson has already shown her
> work,
> perhaps because she would have anyway or perhaps because this
> motion
> was coming. But if Ms. Mattson rigged the election, this audit
> ain't
> gonna find it. (She also should have rigged it to give herself
> more
> than a 1-vote margin.) In retrospect, Ms. Mattson and Mr. Starr
> probably should have recused themselves from counting the
> Secretary's
> race, although my sense is that the army of tellers double
> checking
> everything limited the ability to rig the results. More
> information on
> our procedures there would be helpful but this motion doesn't
> do
> that.
> The At-Large race is harder, since our voting method makes it
> very
> labor intensive to count and very few people in the room are
> totally
> disinterested in the race to be considered independent to be
> able
> to
> count it above reproach. I think it would be fruitful to have
> those
> discussions and adopt recusal standards for the future, but
> again, this
> motion doesn't do that.
> Third, this motion does nothing to grow our Party, nothing to
> allow us
> to move forward to focus on goals and plans, nothing to elect
> and
> re-elect Libertarians. I won't co-sponsor anything that doesn't
> do one
> of those or more of those things. This doesn't even do any of
> those
> things indirectly or tangentially: it's backward looking,
> pending
> because we must refute some rumor on Facebook or from one or
> two
> regions. We can easily spend all our time doing that, spending
> attention and resources trying to refute every conspiracy
> theory
> we may
> hear. Or we can act to grow and plan and elect, and be judged
> on
> the
> quality and the results. I also don't appreciate Ms. Harlos's
> repeated
> haranguing about why I'm a monster for not immediately
> co-sponsoring
> this proposal, or Ms. Adams' yesterday description of my
> proposal
> as
> "bullshit," "unacceptable," "gross," "vile," and "sickening"
> that
> I
> have yet to hear any sponsor of this condemn despite repeated
> discussions of tone and decorum, or the email exchange of
> accusations
> and counter-accusations last night that I find childish and
> embarrassing. Those tactics lose my vote, and the only way for
> that to
> be clear for the future is if I vote no now.
> JBH
>
> --
> Richard Longstreth
> Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, KS, MT, NM, OR, HI, UT, WA,
> WY)
> Libertarian National Committee
> [2][3]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 931.538.9300
> References
> 1. mailto:[4]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 2. mailto:[5]richard.longstreth 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. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 3. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 4. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 5. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 6. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
CAH> On a related note, I have done a very limited audit of the 2006
Platform votes. Some of the margins were less than 1%. I have found
errors that could have changed the results. They were never audited.
I don't think there was any funny business.
I don't think you should call your 2006 project an "audit", as you do
not have the ballots. You have a tally sheet for how individual votes
were recorded, but you have nothing to compare that to. You have said
some people have told you they didn't vote in the way the tally sheet
reflects. However in at least one instance I know of, a person has
told you that he did not vote to delete planks and thus the tally sheet
recording his vote to delete is wrong...but a witness remembers seeing
that person's ballot and says the delegate did vote to delete planks.
The witness remembers it because he was pretty surprised the delegate
would vote that way. One of the reasons that RONR so strongly supports
voting by ballot is that so people can vote their conscience rather
than according to peer pressure. Having a person tell you how they
voted (which is subject to the peer pressure effect) is not the same as
having their actual ballot showing how they really voted.
-Alicia
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 6:46 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business
<[1]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
I waited a few moments for a response. Joe, I never intended to
insinuate you or anyone (but particularly you) were a "monster"
for not
immediately supporting. Please don't mistake passion for
insult. This
seems (to me) to be a very classic case of what we would
immediately
pounce on in others. There is something in religious circles
(past LNC
members know that I just can't help myself from religious
references)
called "witness." I think the LP loses its witness to the world
if we
don't hold ourselves to the same audit standards we hold others.
Imagine if Trump won some state by one vote and the Trump team
audited
it. What would we think? It isn't a matter of trusting Alicia -
truth
be told, I trust Alicia as much as I trust myself but we have a
duty
to not dismiss our members.
As far as growing the Party, we are about to lose a multi-decade
activist and candidate over this. Part of growing the Party is
retaining activists and candidates. We can't afford to lose
people
over things that I think they really have a point with. We
should
never give anyone an excuse to say "what Party are we in?"
I would support a separate motion to audit JC. Supporting thing
one
does not preclude that. This is the one with the very narrow
margins
but all votes should be independently audited.
On a related note, I have done a very limited audit of the 2006
Platform votes. Some of the margins were less than 1%. I have
found
errors that could have changed the results. They were never
audited.
I don't think there was any funny business. But when I finish
that
project I bet there are people who will. We need to be above
reproach.
All of us discharge our duties in different ways. I am, and will
remain, ferocious for member rights. Never can the discussions
be
taken personally. That would be an abrogation of our duties...
in my
opinion. I do think what is being done is an abject overreach.
-Caryn Ann
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 7:34 AM, Richard Longstreth via
Lnc-business
<[1][2]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
Region 1 votes yes and urges others to do the same.
===
I am disappointed to read that there is a vote against this
based
primarily on how one member feels they were treated by the rest
of the
LNC. That is not how we should vote. No further explanation
should be
needed. Be good to each other but don't let personal conflicts
interfere with your duty to the membership.
To Mr. Bishop-Henchman's other points, I believe that while
this
ballot
only does this for this one ballot, it is the beginning of a
change in
the LNC. I fully support this and ALL measures to independently
audit
ALL ballots. To vote no on this one because it doesn't go far
enough
seems short-sighted. As libertarians, we need to take wins for
transparency where we can get them. This is one of those times.
Second, I have seen the tally sheets, not the ballots, provided
by Ms
Matteson. An independent audit is not moot. Even if all ballots
are
emailed out, I still think it imperative that someone be
assigned
to
audit and report to the LNC the results. It is not enough to
say
that
information is out there, therefore there is no point in
verifying or
doing more. Imagine if that's how we treated campaigns - we
wouldn't
support candidates because all the information they need is out
there
on the internet, ergo they don't need anything from the LNC/LP.
Ridiculous logic albeit illustrated by fallacy. If this were a
local
election against one of our LP candidates and circumstances
were
similar, we would all be pushing like mad to have an audit
done.
This
is absolutely no different.
RTL
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 05:49 Joe Bishop-Henchman via Lnc-business
<[1][2][3]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
My vote is no, for three independent reasons.
First, while I would support an audit of all results as a
matter
of
regular practice, that's not what this motion does. It
singles
out one
race, this one time. It therefore sends the message that we
think
the
problem with our elections is *inaccurate tabulation* in one
race,
rather than systemic problems, choice of voting system,
scheduling and
labor usage, and avoidance of technological solutions. While
this
motion does not foreclose those discussions, it distracts
from
them.
Doing elections the way we do them, plus an audit, solves
nothing.
Second, this motion is moot. Ms. Mattson has already shown
her
work,
perhaps because she would have anyway or perhaps because
this
motion
was coming. But if Ms. Mattson rigged the election, this
audit
ain't
gonna find it. (She also should have rigged it to give
herself
more
than a 1-vote margin.) In retrospect, Ms. Mattson and Mr.
Starr
probably should have recused themselves from counting the
Secretary's
race, although my sense is that the army of tellers double
checking
everything limited the ability to rig the results. More
information on
our procedures there would be helpful but this motion
doesn't
do
that.
The At-Large race is harder, since our voting method makes
it
very
labor intensive to count and very few people in the room are
totally
disinterested in the race to be considered independent to be
able
to
count it above reproach. I think it would be fruitful to
have
those
discussions and adopt recusal standards for the future, but
again, this
motion doesn't do that.
Third, this motion does nothing to grow our Party, nothing
to
allow us
to move forward to focus on goals and plans, nothing to
elect
and
re-elect Libertarians. I won't co-sponsor anything that
doesn't
do one
of those or more of those things. This doesn't even do any
of
those
things indirectly or tangentially: it's backward looking,
pending
because we must refute some rumor on Facebook or from one or
two
regions. We can easily spend all our time doing that,
spending
attention and resources trying to refute every conspiracy
theory
we may
hear. Or we can act to grow and plan and elect, and be
judged
on
the
quality and the results. I also don't appreciate Ms.
Harlos's
repeated
haranguing about why I'm a monster for not immediately
co-sponsoring
this proposal, or Ms. Adams' yesterday description of my
proposal
as
"bullshit," "unacceptable," "gross," "vile," and "sickening"
that
I
have yet to hear any sponsor of this condemn despite
repeated
discussions of tone and decorum, or the email exchange of
accusations
and counter-accusations last night that I find childish and
embarrassing. Those tactics lose my vote, and the only way
for
that to
be clear for the future is if I vote no now.
JBH
--
Richard Longstreth
Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, KS, MT, NM, OR, HI, UT,
WA,
WY)
Libertarian National Committee
[2][3][4]richard.longstreth at lp.org
931.538.9300
References
1. mailto:[4][5]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
2. mailto:[5][6]richard.longstreth 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:[7]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
2. mailto:[8]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
3. mailto:[9]richard.longstreth at lp.org
4. mailto:[10]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
5. mailto:[11]richard.longstreth at lp.org
6. mailto:[12]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
References
1. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
2. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
3. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
4. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
5. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
6. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
7. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
8. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
9. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
10. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
11. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
12. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list