[Lnc-business] voting method for current elections

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Ahh I misunderstood part of your objection.  Let me review and get back
with you. The clarification is greatly appreciated.

On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 2:46 PM Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

> My colleagues may recall at the national convention that there was much
> discussion about how motions to elect with less than a majority are out of
> order.  From the adopted convention minutes (paragraphs combined here):
>
> "George Phillies (MA) moved to suspend the rules to change the requirement
> of a majority vote for election and instead establish that in the LNC
> At-Large race, the top-5 finishers who are eligible to serve would be
> elected.  Aaron Starr (CA) raised a point of order that Robert’s Rules,
> 11th ed., p. 405 disallows plurality elections without bylaw authorization.
> Mr. Sarwark read from RONR p. 405, “A plurality that is not a majority
> never chooses a proposition or elects anyone to office except by virtue of
> a special rule previously adopted. If such a rule is to apply to the
> election of officers, it must be prescribed in the bylaws.” After some
> informal discussion, Mr. Sarwark ruled the Phillies motion to be out of
> order.  Mr. Phillies appealed the ruling of the chair that his motion was
> out of order. Following debate, the motion to sustain the chair’s ruling
> failed on a voice vote, finding the Phillies motion to be in order."
>
> Then again at the end of the convention, there was this issue which was the
> subject of much discussion due to the "Here's what you're going to do"
> directive:
>
> "With the LNC At-Large ballot tabulation still underway, Mr. Sarwark moved
> to appoint the top-5 finishers in theLNC At-Large race regardless of
> whether they receive a majority vote. Mr. Sarwark ruled his own motion to
> be out of order, and requested that the delegates overturn his ruling."
>
> RONR only allows appeals of a chair's ruling when there is some ambiguity
> in the rule which is subject to interpretation.  There was none here.  The
> chair had no doubt, yet in the first instance he allowed an appeal, and in
> the second he directed the delegates to bulldoze the rule.
>
> The motion for STV rather than RCV was out of order for the same reasons
> that the motions at convention were out of order, and had I noticed the
> change during the December meeting, I could have raised a point of order at
> the time before we got into this situation.
>
> Now that I've mulled it a bit longer, it occurs to me that, at least with
> elections, even after a vote has taken place and the results have been
> announced, RONR permits motions to re-take the vote with a different
> method, so this is still something that the body can decide to do if it so
> chooses.  I would think that an assembly would only agree to such a thing
> in extenuating circumstances, and the LNC can decide whether this is one of
> those.
>
> I still need the chair to address the Coombs RCV / Scottish STV discrepancy
> in this email ballot so that we know how this ballot is actually going to
> be tabulated.
>
> -Alicia
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 11:44 AM Alicia Mattson <alicia.mattson at lp.org>
> wrote:
>
> > CAH>The information on all the methods was distributed at the September
> > meeting and at that meeting I explicitly stated it was in preparation
> for a
> > motion in December to test it in a few elections.
> >
> > Distributing info and even doing a demo on several methods doesn't really
> > address the issue of which particular method would be proposed for the
> > December meeting, which was my point of confusion.
> >
> > CAH> ...nothing in RCV means there is inherently a majority vote in
> > multi-seat races.
> >
> > Using the link you provided:
> > https://www.opavote.com/methods/ranked-choice-voting
> > It doesn't even really describe a particular set of rules there, but in
> > the first bullet point it says, "RCV elects a candidate supported by a
> > majority of the voters. When there are more than two candidates running,
> it
> > is possible that the winner receives less than a majority."
> >
> > I don't understand why the second sentence is there.  Having more than
> two
> > candidates running does not prevent the winner from receiving a majority.
> > The entire point is that you keep redistributing until someone does have
> a
> > majority.  Even at the end of that short article it says, "Ranked-choice
> > voting is also known under other names, such as majority preferential
> > voting, ..."  With ranked choice you can keep distributing until multiple
> > seats obtain a majority.  It may not be all the seats that you're trying
> to
> > elect, depending on how many the voters chose to rank.  That's why you
> need
> > precise rules on the method that will be used.
> >
> > CAH>  I appreciate your aggravation in not knowing the distinctions but
> as
> > you noted, advance notice was given, and even more advance notice than
> you
> > noted was given since I started this process back in September.
> >
> > That is misstating my position.  My aggravation is not a claim that
> > information was not available on the different voting types.  My
> > aggravation is that the first three versions of the Secretary's report
> said
> > RCV.  The switch to STV was in version 4 and at the meeting.  I didn't
> > notice the switch, and I think it should have been highlighted to make
> very
> > sure that we all noticed it because it's a significant difference.
> Sending
> > lots of links about lots of methods doesn't say which version is being
> > proposed.  It's the motion which does that.
> >
> > CAH> In light of this, it is my position for the Chair's consideration
> > that any point of order is untimely.
> >
> > My point of order is not about the switch from RCV to STV, nor have I
> > alleged that information was not available on the differences.  My point
> of
> > order is because the ballot was distributed saying we will be using the
> > Coombs Ranked Choice Voting method, which does not match the motion
> adopted
> > by the LNC.
> >
> > -Alicia
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 12:13 AM Caryn Ann Harlos <
> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> The information on all the methods was distributed at the September
> >> meeting and at that meeting I explicitly stated it was in preparation
> for a
> >> motion in December to test it in a few elections.
> >>
> >> *STV is a form of RCV* - in the information pamphlet handed out months
> >> earlier, and on the public OpaVote site (and in fact in the
> demonstration
> >> we did in September) - this has been the method used (in Sept there were
> >> several methods demo'd - each of them STV with different results on how
> >> ties are broken).  STV is an RCV method *used in multi-seat races and
> >> nothing in RCV means there is inherently a majority vote in multi-seat
> >> races.*  I invited anyone to review the method on the site, I
> >> demonstrated the method in September, and the characterization of how
> ties
> >> are broken is in fact accurate.
> >>
> >> We have always included NOTA on the ballots I have manually passed out
> as
> >> part of our custom.
> >>
> >> I appreciate your aggravation in not knowing the distinctions but as you
> >> noted, advance notice was given, and even more advance notice than you
> >> noted was given since I started this process back in September.
> >>
> >> with everyone's ballots, we can always run them through any other method
> >> if the body wishes to do so, but it is my position this was more than
> clear
> >> and if someone didn't avail themselves of the copious online information
> >> prior to voting that is unfortunate, but is not the fault of the LNC.  I
> >> delivered the written motion in advance.
> >>
> >> For the body's reference this is the information I previously
> distributed
> >> and that is easily available on the OpaVote site:
> >>
> >> https://www.opavote.com/methods/overview
> >> https://www.opavote.com/methods/ranked-choice-voting
> >> https://www.opavote.com/methods/single-transferable-vote
> >> https://www.opavote.com/methods/single-transferable-vote#scottish-stv
> >>
> >> *Further this motion was detailed in my written report in which the
> >> method was corrected identified as Scottish STV and further I provided
> this
> >> link way in advance for the committee to review:*
> >>
> >>
> >> *
> https://blog.opavote.com/2016/11/plain-english-explanation-of-scottish.html
> >> <
> https://blog.opavote.com/2016/11/plain-english-explanation-of-scottish.html
> >*
> >>
> >> In light of this, it is my position for the Chair's consideration that
> >> any point of order is untimely.
> >>
> >> -Caryn Ann
> >>
> >> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 11:45 PM Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business <
> >> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Am I the only one who is confused about this?
> >>>
> >>> As I am deciding how to vote on the two elections underway, I was
> looking
> >>> at the materials, and I've come to realize some details that I must
> point
> >>> out, and I need to raise a point of order.
> >>>
> >>> I was looking at the election method in the motion adopted in December,
> >>> my
> >>> brain was saying, "Did we really choose single transferable voting for
> >>> this?"  It doesn't require a majority for election.  That is a factor
> >>> that
> >>> I definitely would have wanted to comment about specifically at the
> >>> meeting, but I thought we had approved just a generic ranked choice
> >>> voting
> >>> which does actually require a majority for election, rather than an STV
> >>> variant which does not.
> >>>
> >>> The minutes say that we voted on "ranked-choice voting (Scottish
> STV3)".
> >>> Well, it doesn't use the words "single transferable vote", though it
> >>> includes an acronym for single transferable vote in the variant type.
> I
> >>> wondered how I didn't notice that detail.
> >>>
> >>> I believe the first time we saw this motion was in the Secretary's
> >>> report,
> >>> sent to us 6 days prior to the meeting, indicated an intent to move
> that
> >>> the LNC adopt the following:
> >>>
> >>> "Move to appoint the members of the Convention Voting Process Committee
> >>> and
> >>> the Membership Support Committee via ranked-choice voting (Scottish
> RCV)
> >>> using the Opa-Vote site with a voting period of seven (7) days or until
> >>> all
> >>> votes are cast, whichever comes first. Alternates will note their
> choices
> >>> manually which will be input by the Secretary if the corresponding
> >>> regional
> >>> representative does not vote or expressly abstain."
> >>>
> >>> It says ranked-choice voting, then parenthetically "Scottish RCV".
> Both
> >>> of
> >>> those tell me we would be voting on a more generic ranked choice voting
> >>> system, not a single transferable vote variant.  RCV, not STV.  I did
> >>> read
> >>> and ponder this motion in advance with that particular wording.  That's
> >>> what I was expecting at the meeting.
> >>>
> >>> At the time of the meeting, when the motion was made, I was opening a
> >>> copy
> >>> of the bylaws and did not aurally distinguish that the acronym which
> was
> >>> said by the mover was actually "STV" rather than the "RCV" we were
> given
> >>> in
> >>> writing.  It's a subtle distinction to the ear, and after reviewing the
> >>> recording of the meeting to confirm, it was not pointed out to us that
> >>> this
> >>> was something different than the written version of the motion we had
> >>> been
> >>> sent.  We were only told that the Scottish STV element had to do with
> how
> >>> ties are broken.
> >>>
> >>> I do think that this subtle change, which has huge implications, should
> >>> have been much more clearly pointed out to us at the time.  I
> definitely
> >>> would have added to my debate comments to speak more strongly against
> it.
> >>> But I didn't HEAR the difference, so I thought we were voting on a
> >>> different system, so I didn't say it.  All I commented on was that not
> >>> really knowing all the distinctions, I wasn't ready to choose a method
> >>> yet.
> >>>
> >>> The wording spoken at the time was "STV", but not "STV3" which is what
> >>> the
> >>> minutes say.  I have not found on the OpaVote site what the distinction
> >>> is
> >>> between those, though the draft minutes should be corrected to reflect
> >>> the
> >>> motion that was actually made without the "3".
> >>>
> >>> Then, when the notice of the email ballot was sent to us, we were told
> >>> that, "This is a ranked choice election using the Coombs Ranked Choice
> >>> Voting method."  The OpaVote site says the Coombs method is a variant
> of
> >>> IRV with a distinction about choosing which candidate is eliminated
> from
> >>> one round to the next, and that Scottish STV is something different.
> >>>
> >>> So besides being aggravated that we were not clearly warned that the
> tiny
> >>> change in the motion was a very different method than what was sent to
> us
> >>> in advance, I must raise a point of order to ask whether the method
> being
> >>> used is even the same as what the LNC voted for.
> >>>
> >>> Was I the only one who missed the change from RCV to STV?  What did we
> >>> think we were voting on, what did we actually agree to, and is this
> >>> OpaVote
> >>> configuration the same thing as that?
> >>>
> >>> Also, NOTA was not nominated by anyone, yet there it is on our ballot.
> >>> Though our bylaws allow for NOTA votes in elections at convention, and
> >>> spell out very clearly how it is handled, we have no existing rules for
> >>> how
> >>> NOTA is handled in an election for an LNC committee, and I suspect that
> >>> the
> >>> software has nothing particular to handle the NOTA concept and will
> just
> >>> treat it as the name of a human candidate.
> >>>
> >>> -Alicia
> >>>
> >>
>


-- 

*  In Liberty,*

*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
Call me at 561.523.2250 and follow my public figure page at
facebook.com/pinkflameofliberty/

=========================================================================
Peaceful Commerce With All Nations * Non-interventionism * Re-Legalize All
Drugs * End Government Intrusion In The Bedroom * Repeal All Gun Laws *
Abolish All Taxation * Sound, Free-market Money * Abolish The Fed * End
Corporate & Individual Welfare * Abolish The IRS and Repeal the Income Tax
* Privatize Transportation Infrastructure * Free-market Emergency Services
* Open Migration * Transfer Government Schools To The Private Sector *
Eliminate Regulation *

*VOTE LIBERTARIAN * 800-ELECT-US or http://www.LP.org <http://www.lp.org/>*
=========================================================================