<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>I, Daniel Hayes, ABSTAIN on the Maine Question 5 vote.</div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br></div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br></div><div id="AppleMailSignature">Our first past the post system creates numerous challenges for a smaller party to break through. I am uncertain that different mechanisms for voting are the solution. As Joshua Katz mentioned a lot of people seem to think that this is a silver bullet for many of our woes at the polls. Like Joshua I am not sure that is the case. While it seems like this motion is going to pass I am always reserved about these "new" voting schemes. While I would like to see it succeed, since it is a motion up in an affiliate's realm, I am reticent to get involved. It is with that in mind that I abstained on this motion.</div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br></div><div id="AppleMailSignature">Daniel Hayes</div><div id="AppleMailSignature">LNC At Large Member<br><br>Sent from my iPhone</div><div><br>On Oct 8, 2016, at 2:05 PM, Patrick McKnight <<a href="mailto:patrick.joseph.mcknight@gmail.com">patrick.joseph.mcknight@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><p dir="ltr">Yes.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Patrick McKnight<br>
Region 8 Rep</p>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Oct 8, 2016 1:48 PM, "Joshua Katz" <<a href="mailto:planning4liberty@gmail.com">planning4liberty@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>I vote yes. </div><div><br></div>I would like to speak for this motion, but cautiously. IRV is better than FPTP; so is roughly everything in the world. I favor things that move in the right direction, so I'm supporting this motion. I'm coming across Libertarians, though, who think IRV would be a magic bullet for smaller parties. I respectfully disagree. IRV is just as supportive of a two-party system as FPTP. The difference is that, while it maintains two party control over the outcome, it allows more votes to be cast outside of the two leading parties, on one condition - once a smaller party grows to the point of being a challenge to the existing two, the wasted vote syndrome kicks right back in. It lets anyone climb the mountain, but kicks you if you try to get to the top.<div><br></div><div>By contrast, FPTP tries valiantly to keep smaller parties at the bottom of the mountain. That's clearly worse. IRV would at least make clear to the public something we know very well - there is only one third party. There is only one party, other than the tired, collapsing parties, that has been around for 40 years, that is a permanent fixture in DC, that has a Presidential candidate polling in the double digits (and upset that it's not higher), and whose chair is a regular guest on a variety of media outlets. Just yesterday, I heard an interview with Gary Johnson where the interviewer pointed to recent exchanges without other journalists, both on the part of Johnson and Sarwark. Gone are the days when an interview would begin with "who are you?" It would not let us win consistently, but it would show the world that there are 3 major parties, except that one is held down by inertia, fear, and corruption. It would make the case for deeper electoral reforms that much more palpable and palatable - people would see that such reforms wouldn't open the door for Neo-Nazis (unlike one of the old, tired parties) but rather for sensible people speaking an undeniable truth - men and women want, and deserve, to be free. <br></div><div><br></div><div>As we all know, there is no way to aggregate social preferences in a welfare-maximizing fashion. Every attempt to do so creates paradoxes, and IRV is no exception. We need deep reform, in my view, that goes beyond the means of aggregating preferences. The most obvious to me is multi-member districts for state legislatures, together with a return to selection of Senators by the state legislature. Modifications to voting methods, though, can help that process. There is, of course, a uniquely bad approach to aggregating preferences, which happens to be our current method. </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="m_8054711436367289822gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Joshua A. Katz<div>Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)</div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Ken Moellman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ken.moellman@lpky.org" target="_blank">ken.moellman@lpky.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif">
<p> </p>
<div>Region 3 Alternate votes Aye.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>---<br>
<p>Ken C. Moellman, Jr.<br>LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative<br>LPKY Judicial Committee</p>
</div><div><div class="m_8054711436367289822h5">
<p> </p>
<p>On 2016-10-05 01:55, Alicia Mattson wrote:</p>
</div></div><blockquote type="cite" style="padding:0 0.4em;border-left:#1010ff 2px solid;margin:0"><div><div class="m_8054711436367289822h5">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>We have an electronic mail <span class="m_8054711436367289822m_-421466716764028915gmail-il">ballot</span>.</div>
<br><strong><u>Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 14, <span class="m_8054711436367289822m_-421466716764028915gmail-il">2016</span> at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.<br></u></strong> <br><u>Co-Sponsors:</u> Redpath, Harlos, Demarest, McKnight, Katz, Bilyeu<br> <br><u>Motion:</u> The Libertarian National Committee supports Question 5 in Maine on the ballot on November 8, 2016.<br><br><br></div>
-Alicia<br><br></div>
<br>
</div></div><span><div class="m_8054711436367289822m_-421466716764028915pre" style="margin:0;padding:0;font-family:monospace">______________________________<wbr>_________________<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" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listi<wbr>nfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a></div>
</span></blockquote>
</div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<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/listi<wbr>nfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<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/<wbr>listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.<wbr>org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div></div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Lnc-business mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a></span><br><span><a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>