[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-12: INDEPENDENT AUDIT OF AT-LARGE VOTE RESULTS

Caryn Ann Harlos caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Wed Jul 25 08:29:55 EDT 2018


Skimmed and skipped.

Not going to that dance Alicia.  Continue solo if you wish.

-Caryn Ann

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 5:20 AM, Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

>    Caryn Ann,
>    I see we have again reached the play-the-victim portion of the script.
>    How rude of me to defend my actual words when they are being
>    misrepresented.  Defense is now accused of being aggression and
>    hostility.
>    When I initially pointed out that it was unfair representation to say I
>    would be supervising the audit, your first reaction was the
>    not-me-and-I-didn't-want-to-do-it bit.  Later you expressed that you do
>    actually agree with the mischaracterization, even after I pointed out
>    it’s not what I said.  You projected your complaints about the first
>    tally onto a future audit by others.  You continued to re-characterize
>    my proposal that I, "sit in a corner and work on something else while
>    they do their task" as "being involved", which sounds like something
>    different.
>    I see Wayne Harlos' signature on the Colorado tally sheet in the
>    Secretary's race.  I see Dr. Buchman's signature on the Utah tally
>    sheet in this At-Large race in which he was a candidate.   After
>    telling everyone else that EVH noticed that they had also committed
>    lapses of judgment, you're now suggesting that I'm so toxic that I
>    cannot even sit in the corner of the room, lest my presence hypnotize
>    Nick's chosen independent auditors into failing to do their job, but
>    you would be happy to be present instead, as if you were some kind of
>    non-partisan here.
>    Don't forget that you were a nominator for Dr. Buchman. I presume him
>    to be the candidate about whom you have publicly described as having
>    been "screwed by this whole process", in the next breath calling it a
>    "suspect election".  You didn’t say all candidates were screwed by the
>    process, just one particular candidate, as though he was entitled to
>    win but he didn’t.  That told me you were unhappy with the result.
>    When I noted your call for recount wasn’t in both elections that I
>    tabulated in which I was a candidate, only the one where you had
>    already expressed displeasure with the result, out came the victim
>    card.  You said I was attacking you, and ridiculously accused me of
>    using a "shaming and silencing tactic", though 1 out of every 3 emails
>    to this list is from you.
>    While I was spending many hours assembling more-than-requested
>    information, and giving you updates on my progress, I was accused of
>    "ignoring" the situation.  When you singled out Aaron with no mention
>    of the others, we got the drama of, “I think the optic of this make
>    Arvin's comments look like the height of civility.”  Really?  Worse
>    than a guy saying school board shootings are a good idea?  Worse than
>    Arvin’s philosophies about 14-year-old girls?
>    You're not exactly a neutral party in this matter, and yet you think
>    it's fine for you to be present for the next audit, but somehow it’s a
>    “huge mis-step in judgment” for me to even sit in a corner and do
>    something else while others do the audit.
>    The comments you posted here about Aaron’s role also do not accurately
>    portray the situation.  I realize you haven’t had to actually do the
>    job yet, so you haven’t experienced that time pressure to get the data
>    assembled and announced.  It feels like installing a roof during a
>    hurricane.
>    I have manually tallied three conventions, including our two largest,
>    with an unusually large number of candidates this year.  The 2018
>    At-Large race had 604 delegates voting for a whopping 36 options.  (In
>    2016, only 418 delegates voted for 20 At-Large options.)
>    This year, while the tellers were still trying to double-check the
>    At-Large tally sheets, we had to pause and distribute and collect the
>    ballots on which 501 delegates voted for 22 Judicial Committee
>    candidates.  I was running out of At-Large data to enter because the
>    tellers were spread too thin by the overlapping elections.
>    To keep the process from completely stalling, and have a higher chance
>    of getting results before adjournment, I pulled Aaron in to assist,
>    plus a couple of more tellers.  Aaron is a former auditor, and his
>    brain is wired to find anomalies in a system.  I knew he would do the
>    job well, cleanly, and help train the other newcomers so we could keep
>    the At-Large process moving.  And he did.
>    Aaron worked with a partner.  When they checked California’s
>    submission, right off the bat they realized that the number of votes
>    written on the ballots was one more than the total on the tally sheet.
>    When they realized the discrepancy impacted my vote total, Aaron
>    stepped back and asked two other tellers to verify it and have them –
>    not him – make the change to the tally sheet and sign it.  Aaron also
>    insisted that several others present witness a recount of the
>    California ballots that had my name on it.
>    At that point NOBODY knew how close the race was going to ultimately
>    be.  I was only partially through data entry.  Perhaps people imagine
>    that I’m up there looking at the totals every few seconds so that I
>    constantly know where it stands, but the push to get the job done ASAP
>    means that all I can afford to think about is keeping the data entry
>    moving and watching for any anomalies.  Another teller was beside me
>    for the duration of the data entry.
>    Regarding the “rumor” as you called it, I suspect someone just wasn't
>    precise in their choice of words.  It would require a time machine for
>    the situation to have been, “…the vote for the last seat was a tie
>    until Mr. Starr found an additional vote for Ms. Mattson in CA.”  That
>    phrasing could give the reader the impression that all the data entry
>    was done, we knew it was a tie, and we went searching for a way to
>    break the tie.  That didn’t happen.  Many people were standing around
>    waiting for the data entry to be complete, and snapshots of my screen
>    were taken within a few seconds of data entry being completed and
>    sorted into a ranking order to see just how close it was.
>    Had Aaron and his fellow teller not noticed that the California ballots
>    contained one more vote than was on the tally sheet, when the data
>    entry was LATER completed, the initially-reported results would have
>    mistakenly been reported as a tie, and it would have been REALLY
>    awkward had this fact gone unnoticed until post-convention.  Instead,
>    it was noticed in the presence of, and was verified and corrected by,
>    other tellers before the initially-reported results.
>    For most of a decade, I have been saying that we should move to
>    electronic voting.  The delegates have previously rejected it, leaving
>    me with no choice but to do my best to try to catch and fix the errors
>    before the initial results.  I have been pointing out how
>    error-susceptible our human-tallying elections are.  I have been
>    educating about how difficult it is to get exact results with the time
>    pressures, multi-tasking, noise levels, disruption levels, etc. that
>    are experienced during the convention.  I have argued against the
>    convention conducting other business during the votes because it makes
>    it harder to get the really important tallying job done.
>    I wrote the proposal which became Convention Rule 10, adopted by
>    delegates to require tellers to double-check the state tallies, and to
>    require the on-screen review of the tally spreadsheet (previously that
>    step was often skipped just to save time).  Though it still doesn’t fix
>    everything, those things do increase the number of errors we catch
>    onsite before the results are displayed.
>    For me to now be portrayed with such inflammatory rhetoric as someone
>    who ran a “suspect election”, as someone making the party look worse
>    than Arvin Vohra did, and now to have you taint the perception of the
>    future audit with misrepresentations of my words…well, that’s just a
>    special experience.  I do not deserve that.
>    -Alicia
>    On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 4:05 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
>    <[1]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>
>    Alicia, I am not going to engage the aggression here.  Your comment is
>    completely out of bounds on multiple levels and I ask that you stop the
>    personal hostility.  But you are free to make it, and I shall decline
>    to engage further.  All those allegedly are a smooth way to try to call
>    me a liar.
>    I do respect you for all the reason I said in the past (intelligence,
>    skill-set, competence).  I do think being involved in this count at all
>    both past and present is a huge mis-step in judgment. And I also think
>    - and communicated to the persons that EVH pointed out - that
>    delegation chairs similarly situated demonstrated a mis-step in
>    judgment as well.  And I do think you should step out of this entire
>    process entirely.
>    PS: I don't think the member was entirely incorrect so I would not say
>    that to them.  The reason I was reluctant to share it is precisely
>    because of this.  It seems you want to keep making things personal
>    between you and me.  They are not.  A political race is not personal.
>    I never got personal with you or about you in my campaign, and I don't
>    intend to start now.
>    -Caryn Ann
>
>    On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 4:35 PM, Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business
>    <[2]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
>         Caryn Ann,
>         When you received this feedback from the anonymous member, you
>      had the
>         opportunity to tell them, "That's not what she said.  Go back and
>      read
>         her post again."  Instead you repeated the misrepresentation,
>      with all
>         its implications, here on a public list to give it a broad
>      audience.
>         For someone who allegedly is not attacking me, and allegedly has
>         respect for me, and allegedly "did not even want to pass along",
>      ya
>         just flopped it right out there...  Don't pretend that you had an
>         obligation to do it.  You're not fooling anyone with this game.
>         -Alicia
>         On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 3:59 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
>         <[1][3]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>         Alicia I am passing along directly what the member said.  That
>      member
>         reads the list and can decide if they think they were being
>      unfair.  I
>         did not solicit this feedback and did not even want to pass along
>      but
>         it is member feedback.
>         -Caryn Ann
>         On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 12:35 AM, Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business
>         <[2][4]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>              CAH> A concerned member (no permission to share name) wrote
>      me
>           and
>              inquired if any audit should be supervised by a candidate.
>              Seriously?  Do you think that's a fair way to portray what I
>           proposed?
>              What I actually said was, "I can sit in a corner and work on
>           something
>              else while they do their task, but if at some point their
>      number
>              doesn't match mine, we can all take a look at it right then
>           without
>              going back and forth via email."
>              I also said to Nick, "Phoenix is within that zone, and you
>      could
>              personally supervise if you wish."
>              I suggested that I sit in a corner, and I invited Nick to
>           supervise.
>              -Alicia
>              On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 2:26 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
>              <[1][3][5]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>              A concerned member (no permission to share name) wrote me
>      and
>           inquired
>              if any audit should be supervised by a candidate.
>              Since I agree with Alicia that the actual ballots are a
>      better
>              solution, if the Chair wishes it, I can make myself
>      available as
>           the
>              current Secretary to be personally present at any audit.
>              I can then confer with Alicia about any issues found.
>              -Caryn Ann
>              On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 2:59 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
>              <[2][4][6]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>              I will make those two changes thank you Alicia.
>              On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 5:51 PM Alicia Mattson via
>      Lnc-business
>
>          <[3][5][7]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>               Sorry for needing to send one more email on this subject,
>            however, it
>               has occurred to me that if the start/end dates in the
>       Secretary's
>               report are listed as 07/12/18 to 07/19/18, then the footnote
>       that
>            I
>               wrote will make me sound like a person who can't subtract 12
>       from
>            19.
>               I should have written the footnote to be more specific as
>            follows:
>               * Since the published vote period of 11:53 p.m. Pacific on
>            07/11/18 to
>               11:59:59 p.m. Pacific on 07/19/18 resulted in a voting
>    period
>            which
>               exceeded 8 days, Ms. Mattson had expressed a belief that the
>       end
>            date
>               should be changed from 7/19/18 to 7/18/18.  During this
>    final
>       day
>            of
>               voting which is disputed, Mr. Redpath changed his vote from
>       "no"
>            to
>               "yes".  These reported results reflect the changed vote
>    during
>            the
>               disputed time period, but the outcome of the vote is not
>       impacted
>            by
>               the question of how to report this one vote.
>               -Alicia
>               On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 1:55 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
>
>                   <[1][4][6][8]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>                   I added that note to the tally sheet and will include
>      that
>           in my
>                   Secretary's Report.
>                   -Caryn Ann
>                   On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 2:44 PM, Alicia Mattson via
>           Lnc-business
>
>               <[2][5][7][9]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>                    Since these results include a vote change during the
>    final
>            day, I
>                 do
>                    think these results need to be footnoted as follows:
>                    * Since the published ending time of the ballot
>    resulted
>       in
>            a
>                 voting
>                    period which exceeded 8 days, Ms. Mattson had expressed
>    a
>            belief
>                 that
>                    the end date should be changed from 7/19/18 to 7/18/18.
>            During
>                 this
>                    final day of voting which is disputed, Mr. Redpath
>    changed
>            his
>                 vote
>                    from "no" to "yes".  These reported results reflect the
>            changed
>                 vote
>                    during the disputed time period, but the outcome of the
>       vote
>            is
>                 not
>                    impacted by the question of how to report this one
>    vote.
>                    If they're footnoted, given that it doesn't impact the
>            result, I
>                 won't
>                    feel a need to raise a point of order about the
>    reported
>            results
>                 and
>                    ask the LNC to make a decision on how to report that
>    vote
>            change.
>                    -Alicia
>                    On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 12:18 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via
>                 Lnc-business
>
>                        <[1][3][6][8][10]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>                             Voting has ENDED for the email ballot TITLE
>      Voting
>                "aye":
>                     Bilyeu,
>                             Hagan, Harlos, Hewitt, Longstreth, Lyons,
>      Mattson,
>                Merced,
>                          Phillips,
>                             Redpath, Smith Voting "nay": Bishop-Henchman,
>                Goldstein, Van
>                     Horn
>                             Express Abstention: Lark, Nekhaila With a
>      final
>           vote
>                tally
>                     of
>                          11-3-2,
>                             the motion PASSES. Note: Sarwark did not
>      vote. You
>           can
>                keep
>                     track
>                          of
>                             the Secretary's manual tally of votes here:
>                             [1][2][4][7][9][11]https://tinyur
>      l.com/lncvoting
>                             On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 7:30 AM, William
>      Redpath
>           via
>                     Lnc-business
>                             <[2][3][5][8][10][12]lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
>      wrote:
>                               I will change my vote on an LNC At-Large
>      voting
>           audit
>                to
>                     Yes.
>                          Bill
>                               Redpath
>                             On 2018-07-19 02:11, Alicia Mattson via
>           Lnc-business
>                wrote:
>                               I vote yes.
>                                  -Alicia
>                                  On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 11:53 PM, Caryn
>      Ann
>           Harlos
>                via
>                               Lnc-business
>                                <[1][3][4][6][9][11][13]lnc-busine
>      ss at hq.lp.org>
>
>       wrote:
>                                   We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes
>       are
>            due
>                 to the
>                                LNC-Business
>                                   list by July 19, 2018 at 11:59:59pm
>    Pacific
>            time.
>                           Co-Sponsors:
>                                Bowden,
>                                   Harlos, Longstreth, Mattson
>                                   Motion: Move that the LNC would have an
>       audit
>            of
>                 the At
>                           Large
>                                ballots
>                                   done by two independent auditors
>    appointed
>       by
>            the
>                      Chair, ie
>                                someone not
>                                   in the race.  You can keep track of the
>                 Secretary's
>                      manual
>                           tally
>                                of
>                                   votes here:
>
>                [1][2][4][5][7][10][12][14]https://tinyurl.co
>                     m/lncvoting
>                                       --
>                                       --
>                                       In Liberty,
>                                       Caryn Ann Harlos
>                                       Libertarian Party and Libertarian
>           National
>                     Committee
>                               Secretary
>                                       - [2]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.
>      [3][5][6][8][11][13][15]https://tinyur
>           [16]l.co
>                m/lncvoting
>                                       2. mailto:[4]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.
>      org
>                               References
>                                  1. mailto:[6][7][9][12][14]lnc-busine
>           [17]ss at hq.lp.org
>                                  2. [7][8][10][13][15][18]https://tiny
>      url.
>           com/lncvoting
>                                  3. [8][9][11][14][16][19]https://tiny
>      url.
>           com/lncvoting
>                                  4. 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
>
>    --
>    --
>    In Liberty,
>    Caryn Ann Harlos
>    Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
>    - [20]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:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>    2. mailto:lnc-business at hq.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:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>   10. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>   11. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
>   12. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>   13. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>   14. https://tinyurl.co/
>   15. https://tinyur/
>   16. http://l.co/
>   17. mailto:ss at hq.lp.org
>   18. https://tinyurl/
>   19. https://tinyurl/
>   20. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>



-- 
-- 
*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 --------------
   Skimmed and skipped.
   Not going to that dance Alicia.  Continue solo if you wish.
   -Caryn Ann

   On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 5:20 AM, Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business
   <[1]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

        Caryn Ann,
        I see we have again reached the play-the-victim portion of the
     script.
        How rude of me to defend my actual words when they are being
        misrepresented.  Defense is now accused of being aggression and
        hostility.
        When I initially pointed out that it was unfair representation to
     say I
        would be supervising the audit, your first reaction was the
        not-me-and-I-didn't-want-to-do-it bit.  Later you expressed that
     you do
        actually agree with the mischaracterization, even after I pointed
     out
        it’s not what I said.  You projected your complaints about the
     first
        tally onto a future audit by others.  You continued to
     re-characterize
        my proposal that I, "sit in a corner and work on something else
     while
        they do their task" as "being involved", which sounds like
     something
        different.
        I see Wayne Harlos' signature on the Colorado tally sheet in the
        Secretary's race.  I see Dr. Buchman's signature on the Utah
     tally
        sheet in this At-Large race in which he was a candidate.   After
        telling everyone else that EVH noticed that they had also
     committed
        lapses of judgment, you're now suggesting that I'm so toxic that
     I
        cannot even sit in the corner of the room, lest my presence
     hypnotize
        Nick's chosen independent auditors into failing to do their job,
     but
        you would be happy to be present instead, as if you were some
     kind of
        non-partisan here.
        Don't forget that you were a nominator for Dr. Buchman. I presume
     him
        to be the candidate about whom you have publicly described as
     having
        been "screwed by this whole process", in the next breath calling
     it a
        "suspect election".  You didn’t say all candidates were screwed
     by the
        process, just one particular candidate, as though he was entitled
     to
        win but he didn’t.  That told me you were unhappy with the
     result.
        When I noted your call for recount wasn’t in both elections that
     I
        tabulated in which I was a candidate, only the one where you had
        already expressed displeasure with the result, out came the
     victim
        card.  You said I was attacking you, and ridiculously accused me
     of
        using a "shaming and silencing tactic", though 1 out of every 3
     emails
        to this list is from you.
        While I was spending many hours assembling more-than-requested
        information, and giving you updates on my progress, I was accused
     of
        "ignoring" the situation.  When you singled out Aaron with no
     mention
        of the others, we got the drama of, “I think the optic of this
     make
        Arvin's comments look like the height of civility.”  Really?
     Worse
        than a guy saying school board shootings are a good idea?  Worse
     than
        Arvin’s philosophies about 14-year-old girls?
        You're not exactly a neutral party in this matter, and yet you
     think
        it's fine for you to be present for the next audit, but somehow
     it’s a
        “huge mis-step in judgment” for me to even sit in a corner and do
        something else while others do the audit.
        The comments you posted here about Aaron’s role also do not
     accurately
        portray the situation.  I realize you haven’t had to actually do
     the
        job yet, so you haven’t experienced that time pressure to get the
     data
        assembled and announced.  It feels like installing a roof during
     a
        hurricane.
        I have manually tallied three conventions, including our two
     largest,
        with an unusually large number of candidates this year.  The 2018
        At-Large race had 604 delegates voting for a whopping 36
     options.  (In
        2016, only 418 delegates voted for 20 At-Large options.)
        This year, while the tellers were still trying to double-check
     the
        At-Large tally sheets, we had to pause and distribute and collect
     the
        ballots on which 501 delegates voted for 22 Judicial Committee
        candidates.  I was running out of At-Large data to enter because
     the
        tellers were spread too thin by the overlapping elections.
        To keep the process from completely stalling, and have a higher
     chance
        of getting results before adjournment, I pulled Aaron in to
     assist,
        plus a couple of more tellers.  Aaron is a former auditor, and
     his
        brain is wired to find anomalies in a system.  I knew he would do
     the
        job well, cleanly, and help train the other newcomers so we could
     keep
        the At-Large process moving.  And he did.
        Aaron worked with a partner.  When they checked California’s
        submission, right off the bat they realized that the number of
     votes
        written on the ballots was one more than the total on the tally
     sheet.
        When they realized the discrepancy impacted my vote total, Aaron
        stepped back and asked two other tellers to verify it and have
     them –
        not him – make the change to the tally sheet and sign it.  Aaron
     also
        insisted that several others present witness a recount of the
        California ballots that had my name on it.
        At that point NOBODY knew how close the race was going to
     ultimately
        be.  I was only partially through data entry.  Perhaps people
     imagine
        that I’m up there looking at the totals every few seconds so that
     I
        constantly know where it stands, but the push to get the job done
     ASAP
        means that all I can afford to think about is keeping the data
     entry
        moving and watching for any anomalies.  Another teller was beside
     me
        for the duration of the data entry.
        Regarding the “rumor” as you called it, I suspect someone just
     wasn't
        precise in their choice of words.  It would require a time
     machine for
        the situation to have been, “…the vote for the last seat was a
     tie
        until Mr. Starr found an additional vote for Ms. Mattson in CA.”
     That
        phrasing could give the reader the impression that all the data
     entry
        was done, we knew it was a tie, and we went searching for a way
     to
        break the tie.  That didn’t happen.  Many people were standing
     around
        waiting for the data entry to be complete, and snapshots of my
     screen
        were taken within a few seconds of data entry being completed and
        sorted into a ranking order to see just how close it was.
        Had Aaron and his fellow teller not noticed that the California
     ballots
        contained one more vote than was on the tally sheet, when the
     data
        entry was LATER completed, the initially-reported results would
     have
        mistakenly been reported as a tie, and it would have been REALLY
        awkward had this fact gone unnoticed until post-convention.
     Instead,
        it was noticed in the presence of, and was verified and corrected
     by,
        other tellers before the initially-reported results.
        For most of a decade, I have been saying that we should move to
        electronic voting.  The delegates have previously rejected it,
     leaving
        me with no choice but to do my best to try to catch and fix the
     errors
        before the initial results.  I have been pointing out how
        error-susceptible our human-tallying elections are.  I have been
        educating about how difficult it is to get exact results with the
     time
        pressures, multi-tasking, noise levels, disruption levels, etc.
     that
        are experienced during the convention.  I have argued against the
        convention conducting other business during the votes because it
     makes
        it harder to get the really important tallying job done.
        I wrote the proposal which became Convention Rule 10, adopted by
        delegates to require tellers to double-check the state tallies,
     and to
        require the on-screen review of the tally spreadsheet (previously
     that
        step was often skipped just to save time).  Though it still
     doesn’t fix
        everything, those things do increase the number of errors we
     catch
        onsite before the results are displayed.
        For me to now be portrayed with such inflammatory rhetoric as
     someone
        who ran a “suspect election”, as someone making the party look
     worse
        than Arvin Vohra did, and now to have you taint the perception of
     the
        future audit with misrepresentations of my words…well, that’s
     just a
        special experience.  I do not deserve that.
        -Alicia
        On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 4:05 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
        <[1][2]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
        Alicia, I am not going to engage the aggression here.  Your
     comment is
        completely out of bounds on multiple levels and I ask that you
     stop the
        personal hostility.  But you are free to make it, and I shall
     decline
        to engage further.  All those allegedly are a smooth way to try
     to call
        me a liar.
        I do respect you for all the reason I said in the past
     (intelligence,
        skill-set, competence).  I do think being involved in this count
     at all
        both past and present is a huge mis-step in judgment. And I also
     think
        - and communicated to the persons that EVH pointed out - that
        delegation chairs similarly situated demonstrated a mis-step in
        judgment as well.  And I do think you should step out of this
     entire
        process entirely.
        PS: I don't think the member was entirely incorrect so I would
     not say
        that to them.  The reason I was reluctant to share it is
     precisely
        because of this.  It seems you want to keep making things
     personal
        between you and me.  They are not.  A political race is not
     personal.
        I never got personal with you or about you in my campaign, and I
     don't
        intend to start now.
        -Caryn Ann
        On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 4:35 PM, Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business
        <[2][3]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
             Caryn Ann,
             When you received this feedback from the anonymous member,
     you
          had the
             opportunity to tell them, "That's not what she said.  Go
     back and
          read
             her post again."  Instead you repeated the
     misrepresentation,
          with all
             its implications, here on a public list to give it a broad
          audience.
             For someone who allegedly is not attacking me, and allegedly
     has
             respect for me, and allegedly "did not even want to pass
     along",
          ya
             just flopped it right out there...  Don't pretend that you
     had an
             obligation to do it.  You're not fooling anyone with this
     game.
             -Alicia
             On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 3:59 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
             <[1][3][4]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
             Alicia I am passing along directly what the member said.
     That
          member
             reads the list and can decide if they think they were being
          unfair.  I
             did not solicit this feedback and did not even want to pass
     along
          but
             it is member feedback.
             -Caryn Ann
             On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 12:35 AM, Alicia Mattson via
     Lnc-business
             <[2][4][5]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
                  CAH> A concerned member (no permission to share name)
     wrote
          me
               and
                  inquired if any audit should be supervised by a
     candidate.
                  Seriously?  Do you think that's a fair way to portray
     what I
               proposed?
                  What I actually said was, "I can sit in a corner and
     work on
               something
                  else while they do their task, but if at some point
     their
          number
                  doesn't match mine, we can all take a look at it right
     then
               without
                  going back and forth via email."
                  I also said to Nick, "Phoenix is within that zone, and
     you
          could
                  personally supervise if you wish."
                  I suggested that I sit in a corner, and I invited Nick
     to
               supervise.
                  -Alicia
                  On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 2:26 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
                  <[1][3][5][6]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
                  A concerned member (no permission to share name) wrote
     me
          and
               inquired
                  if any audit should be supervised by a candidate.
                  Since I agree with Alicia that the actual ballots are a
          better
                  solution, if the Chair wishes it, I can make myself
          available as
               the
                  current Secretary to be personally present at any
     audit.
                  I can then confer with Alicia about any issues found.
                  -Caryn Ann
                  On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 2:59 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
                  <[2][4][6][7]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
                  I will make those two changes thank you Alicia.
                  On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 5:51 PM Alicia Mattson via
          Lnc-business

            <[3][5][7][8]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
                 Sorry for needing to send one more email on this subject,
              however, it
                 has occurred to me that if the start/end dates in the
         Secretary's
                 report are listed as 07/12/18 to 07/19/18, then the
   footnote
         that
              I
                 wrote will make me sound like a person who can't subtract
   12
         from
              19.
                 I should have written the footnote to be more specific as
              follows:
                 * Since the published vote period of 11:53 p.m. Pacific
   on
              07/11/18 to
                 11:59:59 p.m. Pacific on 07/19/18 resulted in a voting
      period
              which
                 exceeded 8 days, Ms. Mattson had expressed a belief that
   the
         end
              date
                 should be changed from 7/19/18 to 7/18/18.  During this
      final
         day
              of
                 voting which is disputed, Mr. Redpath changed his vote
   from
         "no"
              to
                 "yes".  These reported results reflect the changed vote
      during
              the
                 disputed time period, but the outcome of the vote is not
         impacted
              by
                 the question of how to report this one vote.
                 -Alicia
                 On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 1:55 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos

                       <[1][4][6][8][9]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
                       I added that note to the tally sheet and will
     include
          that
               in my
                       Secretary's Report.
                       -Caryn Ann
                       On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 2:44 PM, Alicia Mattson
     via
               Lnc-business

                 <[2][5][7][9][10]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
                      Since these results include a vote change during the
      final
              day, I
                   do
                      think these results need to be footnoted as follows:
                      * Since the published ending time of the ballot
      resulted
         in
              a
                   voting
                      period which exceeded 8 days, Ms. Mattson had
   expressed
      a
              belief
                   that
                      the end date should be changed from 7/19/18 to
   7/18/18.
              During
                   this
                      final day of voting which is disputed, Mr. Redpath
      changed
              his
                   vote
                      from "no" to "yes".  These reported results reflect
   the
              changed
                   vote
                      during the disputed time period, but the outcome of
   the
         vote
              is
                   not
                      impacted by the question of how to report this one
      vote.
                      If they're footnoted, given that it doesn't impact
   the
              result, I
                   won't
                      feel a need to raise a point of order about the
      reported
              results
                   and
                      ask the LNC to make a decision on how to report that
      vote
              change.
                      -Alicia
                      On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 12:18 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
   via
                   Lnc-business

                          <[1][3][6][8][10][11]lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
   wrote:
                               Voting has ENDED for the email ballot TITLE
        Voting
                  "aye":
                       Bilyeu,
                               Hagan, Harlos, Hewitt, Longstreth, Lyons,
        Mattson,
                  Merced,
                            Phillips,
                               Redpath, Smith Voting "nay":
   Bishop-Henchman,
                  Goldstein, Van
                       Horn
                               Express Abstention: Lark, Nekhaila With a
        final
             vote
                  tally
                       of
                            11-3-2,
                               the motion PASSES. Note: Sarwark did not
        vote. You
             can
                  keep
                       track
                            of
                               the Secretary's manual tally of votes here:

                                 [1][2][4][7][9][11][12]https://tinyur
          [13]l.com/lncvoting
                                 On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 7:30 AM, William
          Redpath
               via
                         Lnc-business
                                 <[2][3][5][8][10][12][14]lnc-
     business at hq.lp.org>
          wrote:
                                   I will change my vote on an LNC
     At-Large
          voting
               audit
                    to
                         Yes.
                              Bill
                                   Redpath
                                 On 2018-07-19 02:11, Alicia Mattson via
               Lnc-business
                    wrote:
                                   I vote yes.
                                      -Alicia
                                      On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 11:53 PM,
     Caryn
          Ann
               Harlos
                    via
                                   Lnc-business
                                    <[1][3][4][6][9][11][13]lnc-busine

        [15]ss at hq.lp.org>
         wrote:
                                     We have an electronic mail ballot.
   Votes
         are
              due
                   to the
                                  LNC-Business
                                     list by July 19, 2018 at 11:59:59pm
      Pacific
              time.
                             Co-Sponsors:
                                  Bowden,
                                     Harlos, Longstreth, Mattson
                                     Motion: Move that the LNC would have
   an
         audit
              of
                   the At
                             Large
                                  ballots
                                     done by two independent auditors
      appointed
         by
              the
                        Chair, ie
                                  someone not
                                     in the race.  You can keep track of
   the
                   Secretary's
                        manual
                             tally
                                  of
                                     votes here:

                    [1][2][4][5][7][10][12][14][16]https://tinyurl.co
                         m/lncvoting
                                           --
                                           --
                                           In Liberty,
                                           Caryn Ann Harlos
                                           Libertarian Party and
     Libertarian
               National
                         Committee
                                   Secretary
                                           - [2]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.
          [3][5][6][8][11][13][15][17]https://tinyur
               [16][18]l.co
                    m/lncvoting
                                           2.
     mailto:[4]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.
          org
                                   References
                                      1. mailto:[6][7][9][12][14]lnc-
     busine
               [17][19]ss at hq.lp.org
                                      2.
     [7][8][10][13][15][18][20]https://tiny
          url.
               com/lncvoting
                                      3.
     [8][9][11][14][16][19][21]https://tiny
          url.
               com/lncvoting
                                      4. 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
        --
        --
        In Liberty,
        Caryn Ann Harlos
        Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
        - [20]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:[22]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
        2. mailto:[23]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
        3. mailto:[24]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
        4. mailto:[25]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
        5. mailto:[26]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
        6. mailto:[27]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
        7. mailto:[28]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
        8. mailto:[29]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
        9. mailto:[30]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
       10. mailto:[31]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
       11. [32]https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
       12. mailto:[33]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
       13. mailto:[34]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
       14. [35]https://tinyurl.co/
       15. [36]https://tinyur/
       16. [37]http://l.co/
       17. mailto:[38]ss at hq.lp.org
       18. [39]https://tinyurl/
       19. [40]https://tinyurl/
       20. mailto:[41]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org

   --
   --
   In Liberty,
   Caryn Ann Harlos
   Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
   - [42]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:lnc-business at hq.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:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  10. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  11. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  12. https://tinyur/
  13. http://l.com/lncvoting
  14. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  15. mailto:ss at hq.lp.org
  16. https://tinyurl.co/
  17. https://tinyur/
  18. http://l.co/
  19. mailto:ss at hq.lp.org
  20. https://tiny/
  21. https://tiny/
  22. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  23. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  24. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  25. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  26. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  27. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  28. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  29. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  30. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  31. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  32. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
  33. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  34. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  35. https://tinyurl.co/
  36. https://tinyur/
  37. http://l.co/
  38. mailto:ss at hq.lp.org
  39. https://tinyurl/
  40. https://tinyurl/
  41. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
  42. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list