[Lnc-business] voting method for current elections

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Ms. Mattson - Now that I fully understand your objection, I hope I can
clear something up.

While this ballot here said Coombs, everything else said Scottish STV and
the actual OpaVote ballot is Scottish STV.  I have been doing a LOT of
testing of this and with the Radical Caucus they kept testing Coombes and
Scottish and that was simply a scrivener's error on my part.  The ballot
was approved to be done via Scottish STV and that is what is being done.

Please let me know if that cures your objection or if I need to alert Nick
to this as the ballot ends today.  But as you say, I can always run it
through another method, though honestly I would like to avoid that as there
is a cost involved.  I am donating the cost to the Party so it costs the
Party nothing, and if it is decided due to my inadvertance use of the word
"Coombes" here and only here that I need to run through another method, I
will donate that additional cost if necessary.  It was $30 per election
since it was done ala carte.  If we ever used this regularly, a much better
rate would be negotiated.  I am sure I could probably get a re-run  for
free since Opa Vote is excited we are using but I wouldn't bother since I
think it is a worthy cause as alternative voting methods is a particular
passion of mine, and I don't mind supporting Opa Vote.

On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 4:56 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:

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


-- 

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