[Lnc-business] voting method for current elections

Thu Feb 21 15:50:17 EST 2019

With this clarification that the ballot will be tabulated with the
method approved at the meeting, I think the point of order is
resolved.

-Nick

On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 6:51 AM Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business
<lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
> 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/>*
> =========================================================================