<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" /></head><body style='font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif'>
<p>Can the two or three people on this email thread please take it somewhere else? I just spent a long time skimming through the thread to see if there was any content that would increase liberty in our lifetimes and found it lacking.</p>
<p>Thanks,</p>
<div>---<br />
<div class="pre" style="margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace">Sam Goldstein<br /> Libertarian National Committee<br /> 317-850-0726 Cell</div>
</div>
<p><br /></p>
<p>On 2018-01-15 03:28, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0"><!-- html ignored --><!-- head ignored --><!-- meta ignored -->
<div dir="ltr">I do prefer the current system BUT I think clear responsibilities of regionals need to be fleshed out so that states know if they are being served competently.
<div> </div>
<div>In short, I don't think a structural change helps, I do think a cultural and policy one does. Also I think a different formula (similar to the one we use for delegate allocation) might be be better than just national membership numbers. Poorer areas are not going to have as much paid memberships, but may vote heavily Libertarian.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br />
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 1:13 AM, <span><<a href="mailto:david.demarest@lp.org">david.demarest@lp.org</a>></span> wrote:<br />
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0 0 0 .8ex; border-left: 1px #ccc solid; padding-left: 1ex;">Is that fair to larger states? You can bet your bippy that larger states will howl, and rightly so. The present system is fair to both small and larger states, within the limits of the delegate formula. Actually, I think the designers of the present system did a remarkable job of developing a merit-based and fair representation system that logistically works reasonably well. They obviously put a lot of thought into it. Can that be said of the current expansion proposal? Elizabeth, to your credit, the first thing you did was to propose a possible logistical suggestion right from the get-go. Commendable!<br /> <br /> Could the present system be improved? Probably, but only if the same level of due diligence is invested in the enhancements to match the care taken to create the present system. Has vigorous logistical due diligence been accomplish with the current proposal? Sadly, no, and in fact, for the most part they approving majority refuses to discuss their due diligence in objective terms.<br /> <br /> so, what's the next step? Attempt to slam the faulty proposal through or go back to the drawing board and get it right with appropriate logistical due diligence? Wishful thinking about better state representation without appropriate logistical due diligence is not going to cut the mustard. Fortunately, the largely unvetted proposal will likely be rejected by convention delegates, particularly if the minority has something to say about it in a minority report before the convention delegate vote.<br /> <br /> Of course, as an economist, I always look at motive. Not just what people do but why and how they choose to do it. That is the essence of Praxeology, the science of human action and decision making, the broader definition of economics coined by Ludwig von Mises. What was the thinking process by the proposal approval committee majority? That begs the question: What was the motive that blinded those favoring the current LNC expansion proposal in its current form that led to the conspicuous absence of logistical due diligence?<br /> <br /> Historically, the failure to question motive has led to countless atrocities that might have been prevented. The same is true down to our level of decision making. I always try clearly state my motives. Those that do not clearly state their motives raise a huge red flag to me. Performance of due diligence goes a long way toward demonstrating the veracity of declared motives. If you want to be trusted, perform the due diligence necessary to justify and demonstrate the veracity of your declared motives. To those who say "Judge not that you be judged" I rephrase that to say "Judge and be prepared to be judged", and especially motives<br /> <br /> Technical? Yes. Practical? Yes. Can we pull it off? Yes. Does the government practice it? No. Government is the perfect example of how not to perform the due diligence necessary to justify and demonstrate the veracity of declared motives. That led to the recent statement by the Cato Institute: "Those who take government-sponsored scientific studies seriously need to have their heads examined". Difficult to accomplish? Hell yes! As Arvin might tell you, it is indeed hard work and often risky to take the lead and tackle cutting-edge controversial issues in the face of pile-on bandwagon lynch-mob "When did you stop beating your spouse?" allegations. Copernicus was unjustly ostracized and persecuted for the sin of his heliocentric theory. We Libertarians and members of the Bylaws Committee can do better, starting with the LNC expansion proposal.<br /> <br /> Thoughts?<br /> <br /> ~David Pratt Demarest
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5"><br /> <br /> On 2018-01-15 00:47, Elizabeth Van Horn wrote:<br />
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0 0 0 .8ex; border-left: 1px #ccc solid; padding-left: 1ex;">Well, they say that the communication understanding falls on the<br /> writer, so I'll take the blame for your misunderstanding. (Although,<br /> I think Caryn Ann understood.)<br /> <br /> I wasn't talking about delegates. I was talking about an LNC body. A<br /> rep per state. 50 states = 50 people.<br /> <br /> (I only mentioned "delegates" to point out that currently smaller<br /> states have fewer delegates, and that a small state has less vote<br /> impact at convention. So, the smaller states may welcome an<br /> opportunity to have equal footing to larger states in a different<br /> area. If they each had one representative on the LNC, a larger state<br /> like California wouldn't be able to over-power a small state in<br /> decision making. I'm not suggesting changing how delegates are done.)<br /> <br /> <br /> ---<br /> Elizabeth Van Horn<br /> <br /> <br /> On 2018-01-15 01:31, <a href="mailto:david.demarest@lp.org">david.demarest@lp.org</a> wrote:<br />
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0 0 0 .8ex; border-left: 1px #ccc solid; padding-left: 1ex;">Your state? LOL. Seriously, the proposed rule is 1 state rep per every<br /> 10 state convention delegates with a minimum of 1 per state. You could<br /> say that this formula would statistically slightly favor the smaller<br /> states but in practice smaller states would be overwhelmed by larger<br /> states. The current system is population proportional with an<br /> acceptable level of accuracy within the limits of the state delegates<br /> formula.<br /> <br /> The delegate formula is a combination of relative national memberships<br /> by state and relative presidential vote totals by state from the most<br /> recent election. It is not perfect but fairly representative and<br /> participation based although concerns have been expressed about the<br /> national membership portion of the formula.<br /> <br /> On 2018-01-14 23:39, Elizabeth Van Horn wrote:<br />
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0 0 0 .8ex; border-left: 1px #ccc solid; padding-left: 1ex;">*laughing out loud!* I meant 50 one per state. See? It's even<br /> better!<br /> <br /> ---<br /> Elizabeth Van Horn<br /> <br /> On 2018-01-15 00:37, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:<br /> <br />
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0 0 0 .8ex; border-left: 1px #ccc solid; padding-left: 1ex;">How is one per state = 100?<br /> <br /> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 10:25 PM, Elizabeth Van Horn<br /> <<a href="mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn@lp.org">elizabeth.vanhorn@lp.org</a>> wrote:<br /> I think expanding to one representative per state, for a total of<br /> 100 members, would be a plus. (I know that's not what the bylaws<br /> people want.)<br /> <br /> Because, it would be easier to get feedback from the members. The<br /> actual people we represent.<br /> <br /> Then some posting rules could be in place, such as no burdening the<br /> rest of the LNC with personal rambles and dreams.<br /> <br /> ---<br /> Elizabeth Van Horn<br /> <br /> On 2018-01-15 00:17, <a href="mailto:david.demarest@lp.org">david.demarest@lp.org</a> wrote:<br /> <br /> Can you imagine the length of this bruhaha email chain if the bylaws<br /> committee proposal to expand the the LNC to 134 members was already<br /> in<br /> place. It boggles the imagination.<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/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business">http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailm<wbr />an/listinfo/lnc-business</a> [1]<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/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business">http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailm<wbr />an/listinfo/lnc-business</a> [1]</blockquote>
<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/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business">http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailm<wbr />an/listinfo/lnc-business</a><br /> <br /> Links:<br /> ------<br /> [1] <a href="http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business">http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailm<wbr />an/listinfo/lnc-business</a><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/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business">http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailm<wbr />an/listinfo/lnc-business</a></blockquote>
<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/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business">http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailm<wbr />an/listinfo/lnc-business</a></blockquote>
______________________________<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/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business">http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailm<wbr />an/listinfo/lnc-business</a></blockquote>
<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/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business">http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailm<wbr />an/listinfo/lnc-business</a></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<br />
<div class="pre" style="margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace">_______________________________________________<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/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business">http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business</a></div>
</blockquote>
</body></html>