[Lnc-business] voting method for current elections

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

And in this:

==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.==

I could not agree more.  And it bothers me that this is still going on with
the wink wink in the appeal process.  I think this body has adopted the
same cavalier attitude towards our rules and it is troubling.

On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 4:54 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:

> 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/>*
> =========================================================================
>


-- 

*  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/>*
=========================================================================