[Lnc-business] more JudComm data

[Richard Longstreth]

Then you Alicia. Your efforts are very much appreciated.

RTL

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 17:05 Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

> Thank you Alicia!
>
> ---
> Elizabeth Van Horn
>
>
> On 2018-07-16 19:54, Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business wrote:
> > Attached is the state-by-state breakdown of the Judicial Committee
> >    results which were announced late at night on July 3.
> >    I imagined that since I am not a candidate in this race, I could
> > wait a
> >    bit longer until I had time to do an audit of this data, as I did
> > with
> >    the At-Large data, before publishing it.  That way any numbers
> > recorded
> >    here which do not match a state chair's recollection of what they
> >    turned in could be explained before the question even needed to be
> >    asked.
> >    As always, the convention secretary has a long to-do list following
> > the
> >    convention.  There were pending deadlines that I wanted to make on
> >    other subjects, so after I published more detailed At-Large info, I
> >    didn't take up the JudComm audit yet.  The At-Large project took me
> >    large portions of three days to complete, and I couldn't put off
> >    certain other projects that long to do JudComm right then.
> >    The LNC was already undertaking an email ballot to "recognize" the
> >    top-7 finishers anyway.  Now we know that motion did not pass,
> > mostly
> >    due to concerns that it would be a rule violation, but now it seems
> >    that the top-7 finishers are just declaring themselves to be the
> >    Judicial Committee, though they did not meet the thresholds to be
> >    elected.
> >    The LNC now has an email ballot for an independent audit of the
> >    Judicial Committee results.
> >    I dunno.  I'm just going to go ahead and put this out, even though I
> >    haven't had time to audit it yet.
> >    The JudComm tally happened without the intense time pressures under
> >    which the At-Large tally happened.  I am HOPING that means fewer
> > errors
> >    were made in the tally, but we shall see.  We were all very tired by
> >    that point, so that could prove to have been as big a challenge as
> > the
> >    time pressures were.  None of the participants in the tally were
> >    JudComm candidates.
> >    I intend to conduct an audit of this data anyway, regardless of
> > whether
> >    the LNC motion for an audit passes.  I am not one of the candidates
> > for
> >    Judicial Committee.  I still have other things that should be done
> >    first, but I think I can probably get to it within the next two
> > weeks.
> >    Just know that if questions arise, the answers will have to wait
> > until
> >    I can audit this.
> >    There's just so much activity about this subject that I'll go ahead
> > and
> >    put this out, for what it's worth.
> >    -Alicia
>
-- 
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 --------------
   Then you Alicia. Your efforts are very much appreciated.

   RTL
   On Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 17:05 Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business
   <[1]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

     Thank you Alicia!
     ---
     Elizabeth Van Horn
     On 2018-07-16 19:54, Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business wrote:
     > Attached is the state-by-state breakdown of the Judicial Committee
     >    results which were announced late at night on July 3.
     >    I imagined that since I am not a candidate in this race, I
     could
     > wait a
     >    bit longer until I had time to do an audit of this data, as I
     did
     > with
     >    the At-Large data, before publishing it.  That way any numbers
     > recorded
     >    here which do not match a state chair's recollection of what
     they
     >    turned in could be explained before the question even needed to
     be
     >    asked.
     >    As always, the convention secretary has a long to-do list
     following
     > the
     >    convention.  There were pending deadlines that I wanted to make
     on
     >    other subjects, so after I published more detailed At-Large
     info, I
     >    didn't take up the JudComm audit yet.  The At-Large project
     took me
     >    large portions of three days to complete, and I couldn't put
     off
     >    certain other projects that long to do JudComm right then.
     >    The LNC was already undertaking an email ballot to "recognize"
     the
     >    top-7 finishers anyway.  Now we know that motion did not pass,
     > mostly
     >    due to concerns that it would be a rule violation, but now it
     seems
     >    that the top-7 finishers are just declaring themselves to be
     the
     >    Judicial Committee, though they did not meet the thresholds to
     be
     >    elected.
     >    The LNC now has an email ballot for an independent audit of the
     >    Judicial Committee results.
     >    I dunno.  I'm just going to go ahead and put this out, even
     though I
     >    haven't had time to audit it yet.
     >    The JudComm tally happened without the intense time pressures
     under
     >    which the At-Large tally happened.  I am HOPING that means
     fewer
     > errors
     >    were made in the tally, but we shall see.  We were all very
     tired by
     >    that point, so that could prove to have been as big a challenge
     as
     > the
     >    time pressures were.  None of the participants in the tally
     were
     >    JudComm candidates.
     >    I intend to conduct an audit of this data anyway, regardless of
     > whether
     >    the LNC motion for an audit passes.  I am not one of the
     candidates
     > for
     >    Judicial Committee.  I still have other things that should be
     done
     >    first, but I think I can probably get to it within the next two
     > weeks.
     >    Just know that if questions arise, the answers will have to
     wait
     > until
     >    I can audit this.
     >    There's just so much activity about this subject that I'll go
     ahead
     > and
     >    put this out, for what it's worth.
     >    -Alicia

   --

   Richard Longstreth
   Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, KS, MT, NM, OR, HI, UT, WA, WY)
   Libertarian National Committee
   [2]richard.longstreth at lp.org
   931.538.9300

References

   1. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
   2. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org