<div dir="ltr">I, for one, had to leave the convention before that vote. Therefore, I didn't get to vote originally.<div><br></div><div>I want to be able to consider those who ran at convention, for sure. If we decide to open it to others (in addition), it would be up to each of us individually whether we consider that those folks didn't take the initiative before/at convention. </div><div><br></div><div>Whitney Bilyeu</div><div>Region 7 Representative</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 6:57 PM, Alicia Mattson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:agmattson@gmail.com" target="_blank">agmattson@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div><CAH> Thank you for your well-reasoned response. And yes, you voted no, and
are being consistent with your prior position. And my argument is for
everyone else to be consistent with theirs. </CAH><br><br></div>I don't agree that everyone else who participated in that vote in Orlando should be dubbed as "inconsistent" if they vote for someone other than the next-place-finisher this time. Not being mind readers, you and I don't know the reasons for their decision at the time. It could have been that the next three are who they would have voted for anyway. It could have been motivated by something other than the reasoning you used. Perhaps they disagree that the circumstances now are the same as they were then. Perhaps a point has now been made that they didn't consider before, and people are allowed to change their minds and do something different the next time.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br><br></font></span></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">-Alicia<br><br><div><br><br></div></font></span></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:carynannharlos@gmail.com" target="_blank">carynannharlos@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size:12.8px"><div><div><div>Alicia,</div><div><br></div><div>Thank you for your well-reasoned response. And yes, you voted no, and are being consistent with your prior position. And my argument is for everyone else to be consistent with theirs. A few short comments so as not to keep rehashing.</div><div><br></div><div>Re: Robert's: Robert's is correct as far as it goes. But I am not suggesting this "less than majority" is a rule but rather a method we already employed for several good reasons, which reasons still exist presently. <span style="font-size:12.8px">Of course voting until the majority is the way it was intended, but it is not the candidates' or the delegates' fault that they were denied that opportunity. We cannot know how things might have turned out differently because party elections got the short shrift. And we should be in an agony to ensure that never happens again.</span></div><div><br></div><div>Re: Large field of candidates: Yes. Those people chose to run. About six weeks ago. If people are considered outside of that pool, why didn't they care to run and be subject to delegate approval?</div></div><div><br></div><div>Re: 418 out of 1018 delegates at high point: I find those numbers irrelevant. The other 600 chose to leave or not participate.</div><div><br></div><div>Re: Bennett resignation: A resignation nearly a year later, after multiple meetings, and not after an election in which the delegates were denied the full opportunity to vote is not comparable.</div><div><br></div><div>Re: the JC: They chose differently, and while that was their right, I would have chosen differently. And there is a big difference between the JC, who had no control over planning the convention, using this method rather than the LNC who *could* (again not saying that happened here, we are talking about possibilities and appearances) just ensure there is no time for elections and thus choose a good portion of their own number rather the delegates.</div><div><br></div><div>Re: Chair talking points: I would submit that was a normative statement that doesn't overrule the situation here, but the Chair certainly should keep his promises if he believes that is applicable here. I do not think this was the kind of situation envisioned.</div></div><div><br></div><div>I think there is one good argument against using the "next in line" here, and I gave it in my last message.</div></div><span>-- <br><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><font color="#666666" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><b>In Liberty,</b></font></div><div><font color="#666666" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><b>Caryn Ann Harlos</b></font></div><div><font size="1">Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee </font><span style="font-size:x-small">(Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - <a href="mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org" target="_blank">Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Communications Director, <a href="http://www.lpcolorado.org/" target="_blank">Libertarian Party of Colorado</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Colorado State Coordinator, <a href="http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/" target="_blank">Libertarian Party Radical Caucus</a></span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Alicia Mattson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:agmattson@gmail.com" target="_blank">agmattson@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div><div><div>Regarding filling the at-large vacancy, you may recall that even in the post-convention LNC meeting I disagreed that we were somehow obligated to seat the next three for the vacancies. We were in a rush, and I was tired, so I didn't elaborate much, but I will now.<br><br></div>The authorship team of Robert's Rules doesn't have a stake in our internal politics. They study organizational design and write rules for what things they have found to be optimal for governance of a generic organization. Robert's has strong cautions against plurality elections. Spanning pages 404-405 you will find:<br><br><div style="margin-left:40px">"A plurality vote is the largest number of votes to be given any candidate or proposition when three or more choices are [page 405] possible; the candidate or proposition receiving the largest number of votes has a plurality. 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. A rule that a plurality shall elect is unlikely to be in the best interests of the average organization."<br></div><br></div>If the LNC members use plurality-ranking logic to decide who to vote for, the same caution would apply. The most recommended option in RONR is multiple rounds of voting until someone receives a majority. Multiple rounds of voting allow delegates to adjust due to changing circumstances, particularly when there is such a large field of candidates.<br><br></div>In real life, I have seen many, many situations in which the two next-ranking-shy-of-majority candidates were either tied or very close to each other, but when a direct runoff was held between those two, a VERY clear preference was found for one of the candidates over the other.<br><br></div>The at-large results have a tight field in the next-ranked list. I don't find that 30-ish% of the 418 ballots cast from a pool of 1018 delegates seated at some point should be equated with having received a majority vote. Had a runoff been possible, it might very well have given us a different ranking.<br><br></div><div>Seat-the-next-ranked wasn't the philosophy used by the LNC (some of those members are on again this term) to fill the LNC Secretary vacancy when Ruth Bennett resigned in early 2013. (See the email ballots documented in the Secretary's report in the March 2013 minutes.) It wasn't the approach used by the Judicial Committee this year, either.<br></div><div><br></div><div>If LNC members feel the next-ranking also happens to be the one they think is best suited for the job, they can vote for that person. A convention runoff might have gotten that person to a majority, or it might not have.<br></div><div><br></div>If I'm not mistaken, when our Chair first ran for the position in 2014, one of the campaign talking points under the banner of transparency was that no vacancies would be filled without advertising the position to solicit applicants. That recollection is the reason for my message saying I assumed that would be the process here.<span><font color="#888888"><br><br></font></span></div><span><font color="#888888">-Alicia<br><br><div><div><div><div><div><div><br><br><br><div><br><br><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></font></span></div><div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 5:40 AM, Sam Goldstein <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:goldsteinatlarge@gmail.com" target="_blank">goldsteinatlarge@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Thanks, Alicia. I know the Chair is planning to place the At Large opening on the agenda for the next LNC meeting. Since I will be <div>unable to attend, I'd prefer to address this matter in an e-mail ballot following discussion and nominations.</div><div><br></div><div>Our precedent is to look to the At Large voting at the convention and to take the delegate's stated preferences to heart when filling</div><div>vacancies of this nature.</div><div><br></div><div>Live Free,</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><span><br clear="all"><div><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Sam Goldstein<div>Libertarian National Committee</div><div>Member at Large</div><div>8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101</div><div>Indianapolis IN 46260</div><div><a href="tel:317-850-0726" value="+13178500726" target="_blank">317-850-0726</a> Phone</div><div><a href="tel:317-582-1773" value="+13175821773" target="_blank">317-582-1773</a> Fax</div></div></div></div>
<br></span><div><div><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 4:23 AM, Alicia Mattson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:agmattson@gmail.com" target="_blank">agmattson@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Will we be publishing something to advertise the vacancy and invite applicants?<span><font color="#888888"><br><br></font></span></div><span><font color="#888888">-Alicia<br><br></font></span></div><div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 7:49 AM, Nicholas Sarwark <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:chair@lp.org" target="_blank">chair@lp.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Dear All,<br>
<br>
I'm putting together a proposed agenda for the July 17 meeting in Las<br>
Vegas. I am already planning to include time for discussion of<br>
filling the At-Large vacancy created by Dr. Feldman's death,<br>
population of the Audit Committee, and discussion of creating a<br>
national reregistration week (at the request of Mr. Somes).<br>
<br>
If you have other items that you would like to add to the proposed<br>
agenda, please email me with a description and the amount of time you<br>
would like on the agenda. As a reminder, we will only be having a<br>
one-day meeting in Las Vegas, so we will need to be efficient with our<br>
time. To that end, we will have a working lunch brought in so as to<br>
avoid losing committee members for that time.<br>
<br>
Yours in liberty,<br>
Nick<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Lnc-business mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Lnc-business mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Lnc-business mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Lnc-business mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div></div></div><span>-- <br><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><font color="#666666" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><b>In Liberty,</b></font></div><div><font color="#666666" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><b>Caryn Ann Harlos</b></font></div><div><font size="1">Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee </font><span style="font-size:x-small">(Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - <a href="mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org" target="_blank">Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Communications Director, <a href="http://www.lpcolorado.org" target="_blank">Libertarian Party of Colorado</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Colorado State Coordinator, <a href="http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org" target="_blank">Libertarian Party Radical Caucus</a></span></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small"><br></span></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</span></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Lnc-business mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Lnc-business mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>