April 2018 - Lnc-business - Moellman Enterprises Email

proposed changes to membership program
by Lauren Daugherty 12 Apr '18

12 Apr '18

Hi everyone, At the last LNC meeting you directed me to review our current membership program, particularly the names of two giving levels (Minuteman and Patriot), and recommend changes at the next meeting. I've talked with different staff about this and sought their input, on multiple occasions, over the past few months and even previous to that. If I could wave a magic wand and make changes easily and instantly, there would be more changes that I'd want to make. But none of us have magic wands. We have to be practical about how changes would be made...how much time that would take away from other things, whether the changes would have enough impact to justify the costs (dollars and hours) of the change, etc. I'm recommending these changes to you because I think they 1) improve our membership program and will make it more effective, and 2) are simpler than other options. In summary, I recommend: - changing the names on the 5 bottom categories, both to remove the names "Minuteman" and "Patriot" and to provide more of an obvious ladder that will hopefully encourage people to upgrade; - giving staff discretion on where and when to use which categories in-print, online, or elsewhere; obviously our goal is to maximize the effectiveness of our fundraising materials and what is practical and optimal on one item may not be on another; - giving staff until the end of 2018 to implement the changes in giving level names; - simplifying the benefits for the top 5 categories as outlined in the policy manual. CURRENT GIVING LEVELS: * Chairman’s Circle*$25,000 annually or $2500 monthly in dues or contributions * Select Benefactor*$15,000 annually or $1500 monthly in dues or contributions * Beacon of Liberty*$5,000 annually or $500 monthly in dues or contributions * Pioneer of Freedom*$2,500 annually or $250 monthly in dues or contributions * Lifetime Founder*$1,500 annually or $150 monthly in dues or contributions * Patriot $500 annually or $50 monthly * Minuteman$250 annually or $25 monthly * Advocate$150 annually or $15 monthly * Supporter$50 annually * Foundation Member$25 annually SUGGESTED REVISION: * Chairman’s Circle*$25,000 annually or $2500 monthly in dues or contributions * Select Benefactor*$15,000 annually or $1500 monthly in dues or contributions * Beacon of Liberty*$5,000 annually or $500 monthly in dues or contributions * Pioneer of Freedom*$2,500 annually or $250 monthly in dues or contributions * Lifetime Founder*$1,500 annually or $150 monthly in dues or contributions * Platinum$500 annually or $50 monthly * Gold $250 annually or $25 monthly * Silver $150 annually or $15 monthly * Bronze $50 annually * Basic $25 annually The logic here is that when people hear "silver" they automatically expect and know that gold comes after that, and it makes them more likely to "upgrade" later. (Upgrades are very important in fundraising.) When people hear "advocate" there is no giving ladder that comes to mind, they way there is with the bronze, silver, gold, platinum system. Additional recommendations for changes to the membership section of the policy manual: - Adding: "Staff shall have discretion as to when to list any or all membership levels and/or benefits online, in print, or elsewhere, based on practical considerations such as layout, and with their priority being to maximize both membership and donations." - In benefits for Torch Club, remove from all: * Mention and photo in LP News, with the permission of contributor * Mention and photo on LP Website, with the permission of contributor - Also remove: Those maintaining Torch Club status shall also be entitled to the following benefits: * Special mailings * Invitation to the Torch Club event at the convention - On upper level Torch Club, keep the VIP seating at banquet but remove specific designations as to whom they'd be seated with. - On Chairman's Circle, remove: * Naming of an event** * Direct contact with National Chair, POTUS nominee, or significant LP candidate during campaign season** Some of these requirements are just impractical, especially as our donor base grows. Staff would of course continue to make sure donors are appreciated. In my opinion, these changes would help us do our job better. Please email or call me if you have any questions. Lauren -- Lauren Daugherty Head of Development Libertarian National Committee Hi everyone, At the last LNC meeting you directed me to review our current membership program, particularly the names of two giving levels (Minuteman and Patriot), and recommend changes at the next meeting. I've talked with different staff about this and sought their input, on multiple occasions, over the past few months and even previous to that. If I could wave a magic wand and make changes easily and instantly, there would be more changes that I'd want to make. But none of us have magic wands. We have to be practical about how changes would be made...how much time that would take away from other things, whether the changes would have enough impact to justify the costs (dollars and hours) of the change, etc. I'm recommending these changes to you because I think they 1) improve our membership program and will make it more effective, and 2) are simpler than other options. In summary, I recommend: - changing the names on the 5 bottom categories, both to remove the names "Minuteman" and "Patriot" and to provide more of an obvious ladder that will hopefully encourage people to upgrade; - giving staff discretion on where and when to use which categories in-print, online, or elsewhere; obviously our goal is to maximize the effectiveness of our fundraising materials and what is practical and optimal on one item may not be on another; - giving staff until the end of 2018 to implement the changes in giving level names; - simplifying the benefits for the top 5 categories as outlined in the policy manual. CURRENT GIVING LEVELS: * Chairman’s Circle* $25,000 annually or $2500 monthly in dues or contributions * Select Benefactor* $15,000 annually or $1500 monthly in dues or contributions * Beacon of Liberty* $5,000 annually or $500 monthly in dues or contributions * Pioneer of Freedom* $2,500 annually or $250 monthly in dues or contributions * Lifetime Founder* $1,500 annually or $150 monthly in dues or contributions * Patriot $500 annually or $50 monthly * Minuteman $250 annually or $25 monthly * Advocate $150 annually or $15 monthly * Supporter $50 annually * Foundation Member$25 annually SUGGESTED REVISION: * Chairman’s Circle* $25,000 annually or $2500 monthly in dues or contributions * Select Benefactor* $15,000 annually or $1500 monthly in dues or contributions * Beacon of Liberty* $5,000 annually or $500 monthly in dues or contributions * Pioneer of Freedom* $2,500 annually or $250 monthly in dues or contributions * Lifetime Founder* $1,500 annually or $150 monthly in dues or contributions * Platinum $500 annually or $50 monthly * Gold $250 annually or $25 monthly * Silver $150 annually or $15 monthly * Bronze $50 annually * Basic $25 annually The logic here is that when people hear "silver" they automatically expect and know that gold comes after that, and it makes them more likely to "upgrade" later. (Upgrades are very important in fundraising.) When people hear "advocate" there is no giving ladder that comes to mind, they way there is with the bronze, silver, gold, platinum system. Additional recommendations for changes to the membership section of the policy manual: - Adding: "Staff shall have discretion as to when to list any or all membership levels and/or benefits online, in print, or elsewhere, based on practical considerations such as layout, and with their priority being to maximize both membership and donations." - In benefits for Torch Club, remove from all: * Mention and photo in LP News, with the permission of contributor * Mention and photo on LP Website, with the permission of contributor - Also remove: Those maintaining Torch Club status shall also be entitled to the following benefits: * Special mailings * Invitation to the Torch Club event at the convention - On upper level Torch Club, keep the VIP seating at banquet but remove specific designations as to whom they'd be seated with. - On Chairman's Circle, remove: * Naming of an event** * Direct contact with National Chair, POTUS nominee, or significant LP candidate during campaign season** Some of these requirements are just impractical, especially as our donor base grows. Staff would of course continue to make sure donors are appreciated. In my opinion, these changes would help us do our job better. Please email or call me if you have any questions. Lauren -- Lauren Daugherty Head of Development Libertarian National Committee

8 11

Fwd: Ohio petition too slow. Help! Get paid $2.50 each!
by Wes Benedict 12 Apr '18

12 Apr '18

Dear LNC, plus a few state leaders: Just fyi, the email below went to Ohio contacts today. It's also posted on the blog here: https://www.lp.org/ohio-petition-slow-help-get-paid-2-50/ It's too soon for Widespread Panic, but brace yourselves for possible similar messages in the near future related to Tennessee, Illinois, New York, and Virginia. The state-wide Alabama drive was cancelled over a month ago due to lack of matching resources by the state party, and that's even with Paul Frankel offering $25,000 and Michael Chastain offering another $20,000 to help what would have been the LP Alabama portion of the drive. The LPA was unable to raise the additional $15,000, which can be a tall order for a relatively small state. Kudos again to LP Arkansas for finishing its petition drive in 2017 early and under budget. Mega kudos to Bill Gelineau, candidate for Governor in Michigan <https://liberty4gov.org/>, for getting his 21,187 signature petition drive done with no help from the national LP. --Wes -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Ohio petition too slow. Help! Get paid $2.50 each! Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2018 15:00:41 -0400 From: Wes Benedict <wes.benedict(a)lp.org> Reply-To: wes.benedict(a)lp.org To: wes.benedict(a)lp.org <http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=59142716&msgid=616925&act=41BX&c=…> *Ohio petition too slow. Help! Get paid $2.50 each!* I'll pay you $2.50 per signature for each signature you collect for the LP Ohio petition drive, subject to the terms below. I need your help! See the graph below. We have to speed up right away! We had hoped to finish this petition drive in December 2017, but it just keeps dragging on and on. We need to finish this statewide petition drive so that candidates can finally get started on their own petition drives — and then start campaigning! We started the ballot access petition drive in Ohio in January 2017. Fifteen months later, we’ve collected about 85,000 signatures, but need more than 100,000 to be safe. The national LP expects to spend $140,000 total. The Ohio LP is spending more than $50,000 as well. The graph below represents the portion of the petition drive paid for by the national Libertarian Party (LP Ohio has additional signatures). LNC Paid Portion of LP Ohio Petition Drive - April 2018 <http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=59142716&msgid=616925&act=41BX&c=…> A lot of our paid petitioners have been lured away to other states, mostly for petition drives that aren't related to the Libertarian Party. I can't find enough people to hire. That's why I want to hire you. I'll hire almost anyone, from candidates for governor to candidates for city council, to board members of LP Ohio, to members of LP Ohio, to people interested in helping Libertarians whether living inside or outside Ohio, to non-registered voters, subject to the terms below (terms subject to change without notice). You must sign the contract I'll provide to you, which will constitute the entire agreement, and get that contract countersigned by me before starting and being eligible to collect signatures for pay. Additional terms likely to be in the contract: 1. You must collect at least 100 signatures per week. 2. You will get paid $2.50 per signature collected, subject to pay reductions for validity lower than 75 percent. 3. No expenses will be covered; for example, you will not be reimbursed for any lodging, travel, miles on your car, meals, gas, petition forms, supplies, etc. That's why we are specifically trying to hire Ohio residents. 4. You'll have to mail the signatures to me by FedEx, UPS, or USPS Priority Mail, at your own expense, on a weekly basis. Overnight shipping isn't necessary. You can use the cheapest option that includes tracking. Click here to find out more of the background <http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=59142716&msgid=616925&act=41BX&c=…> on the LPO petition drive, plus some of the rules and forms. Many LP Ohio members pledged to volunteer for the petition drive, and we still need lots of people to help as volunteers. Send me a note <mailto:wes.benedict@lp.org> if you want to volunteer. What I really really really want, though, is two or three hard workers to pay. Adding two or three hard workers who will work hard on this and get 500 signatures per week ($1,250 per week) would be ideal and would get the job done. Send a note to me at wes.benedict(a)lp.org <mailto:wes.benedict@lp.org> to get started, or call (202) 333-0008 x232 (and leave a message). Click here to donate for ballot access. <http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=59142716&msgid=616925&act=41BX&c=…> I need your help today! Sincerely, Wes Benedict Wes Benedict Executive Director Libertarian National Committee, Inc. (202) 333-0008 x232 wes.benedict(a)lp.org <mailto:wes.benedict@lp.org> ### */View this announcement at LP.org <http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=59142716&msgid=616925&act=41BX&c=…>/* <http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=59142716&msgid=616925&act=41BX&c=…> <http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=59142716&msgid=616925&act=41BX&c=…> <http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=59142716&msgid=616925&act=41BX&c=…> <http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=59142716&msgid=616925&act=41BX&c=…> <http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=59142716&msgid=616925&act=41BX&c=…> <http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=59142716&msgid=616925&act=41BX&c=…> <http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=59142716&msgid=616925&act=41BX&c=…> <http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=59142716&msgid=616925&act=41BX&c=…> *LIBERTARIAN* National Committee, Inc. (*LNC*) 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, Virginia 22314 Paid for by the *LIBERTARIAN* National Committee, Inc. Content not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Dear LNC, plus a few state leaders: Just fyi, the email below went to Ohio contacts today. It's also posted on the blog here: [1]https://www.lp.org/ohio-petition-slow-help-get-paid-2-50/ It's too soon for Widespread Panic, but brace yourselves for possible similar messages in the near future related to Tennessee, Illinois, New York, and Virginia. The state-wide Alabama drive was cancelled over a month ago due to lack of matching resources by the state party, and that's even with Paul Frankel offering $25,000 and Michael Chastain offering another $20,000 to help what would have been the LP Alabama portion of the drive. The LPA was unable to raise the additional $15,000, which can be a tall order for a relatively small state. Kudos again to LP Arkansas for finishing its petition drive in 2017 early and under budget. Mega kudos to [2]Bill Gelineau, candidate for Governor in Michigan, for getting his 21,187 signature petition drive done with no help from the national LP. --Wes -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Ohio petition too slow. Help! Get paid $2.50 each! Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2018 15:00:41 -0400 From: Wes Benedict [3]<wes.benedict(a)lp.org> Reply-To: [4]wes.benedict(a)lp.org To: [5]wes.benedict(a)lp.org Ohio petition too slow. Help! Get paid $2.50 each! I'll pay you $2.50 per signature for each signature you collect for the LP Ohio petition drive, subject to the terms below. I need your help! See the graph below. We have to speed up right away! We had hoped to finish this petition drive in December 2017, but it just keeps dragging on and on. We need to finish this statewide petition drive so that candidates can finally get started on their own petition drives — and then start campaigning! We started the ballot access petition drive in Ohio in January 2017. Fifteen months later, we’ve collected about 85,000 signatures, but need more than 100,000 to be safe. The national LP expects to spend $140,000 total. The Ohio LP is spending more than $50,000 as well. The graph below represents the portion of the petition drive paid for by the national Libertarian Party (LP Ohio has additional signatures). [6]LNC Paid Portion of LP Ohio Petition Drive - April 2018 A lot of our paid petitioners have been lured away to other states, mostly for petition drives that aren't related to the Libertarian Party. I can't find enough people to hire. That's why I want to hire you. I'll hire almost anyone, from candidates for governor to candidates for city council, to board members of LP Ohio, to members of LP Ohio, to people interested in helping Libertarians whether living inside or outside Ohio, to non-registered voters, subject to the terms below (terms subject to change without notice). You must sign the contract I'll provide to you, which will constitute the entire agreement, and get that contract countersigned by me before starting and being eligible to collect signatures for pay. Additional terms likely to be in the contract: 1. You must collect at least 100 signatures per week. 2. You will get paid $2.50 per signature collected, subject to pay reductions for validity lower than 75 percent. 3. No expenses will be covered; for example, you will not be reimbursed for any lodging, travel, miles on your car, meals, gas, petition forms, supplies, etc. That's why we are specifically trying to hire Ohio residents. 4. You'll have to mail the signatures to me by FedEx, UPS, or USPS Priority Mail, at your own expense, on a weekly basis. Overnight shipping isn't necessary. You can use the cheapest option that includes tracking. [7]Click here to find out more of the background on the LPO petition drive, plus some of the rules and forms. Many LP Ohio members pledged to volunteer for the petition drive, and we still need lots of people to help as volunteers. [8]Send me a note if you want to volunteer. What I really really really want, though, is two or three hard workers to pay. Adding two or three hard workers who will work hard on this and get 500 signatures per week ($1,250 per week) would be ideal and would get the job done. [9]Send a note to me at wes.benedict(a)lp.org to get started, or call (202) 333-0008 x232 (and leave a message). [10]Click here to donate for ballot access. I need your help today! Sincerely, Wes Benedict Wes Benedict Executive Director Libertarian National Committee, Inc. (202) 333-0008 x232 [11]wes.benedict(a)lp.org ### [12]View this announcement at LP.org [png] [13][png] [14][png] [15] [png] [16] [png] [17] [png] [18] [png] [19] [png] LIBERTARIAN National Committee, Inc. (LNC) 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, Virginia 22314 Paid for by the LIBERTARIAN National Committee, Inc. Content not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. [png] [track.php?msgid=616925&act=41BX&r=59142716&c=1115108] References Visible links 1. https://www.lp.org/ohio-petition-slow-help-get-paid-2-50/ 2. https://liberty4gov.org/ 3. mailto:wes.benedict@lp.org 4. mailto:wes.benedict@lp.org 5. mailto:wes.benedict@lp.org 6. http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=59142716&msgid=616925&act=41BX&c=… 7. http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=59142716&msgid=616925&act=41BX&c=… 8. mailto:wes.benedict@lp.org 9. mailto:wes.benedict@lp.org 10. http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=59142716&msgid=616925&act=41BX&c=… 11. mailto:wes.benedict@lp.org 12. http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=59142716&msgid=616925&act=41BX&c=… 13. http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=59142716&msgid=616925&act=41BX&c=… 14. http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=59142716&msgid=616925&act=41BX&c=… 15. http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=59142716&msgid=616925&act=41BX&c=… 16. http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=59142716&msgid=616925&act=41BX&c=… 17. http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=59142716&msgid=616925&act=41BX&c=… 18. http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=59142716&msgid=616925&act=41BX&c=… 19. http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=59142716&msgid=616925&act=41BX&c=… Hidden links: 21. http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=59142716&msgid=616925&act=41BX&c=… 22. http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=59142716&msgid=616925&act=41BX&c=…

10 27

Ebke Donation Request
by Daniel Hayes 11 Apr '18

11 Apr '18

Members, There is a request for a donation to the Ebke campaign from the LNC. I would strongly urge our members to not do this by email. It wont be expedited before the 10 days is up. That puts this email vote being completed on April 22nd at best. We have an in person meeting that weekend. This needs to be taken up then. I ask the Chairman to give this some agenda time. Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member Sent from my iPhone

3 3

Re: [Lnc-business] State Constitutional Amendment on Proportional Representation or Approval Voting
by Starchild 10 Apr '18

10 Apr '18

Thomas, Thank you for your input – while still more granular and less succinct than would be preferable in my view, this is more readable than some of the materials you've sent in the past. Trying to change the U.S. Constitution, or even state constitutions, is a high hurdle however. As previously noted, I do think electoral reforms like proportional representation (PR) are worthy of Libertarian support – I'm less enamored of approval voting – but given the immensity of the project, better pursued in conjunction with other alternative parties than as something we put a lot of resources into on our own. I base that conclusion partly on the fact that electoral reform is kind of a secondary freedom issue, in the sense that it is intended not to directly increase personal or economic freedom, or reduce State aggression, but rather to change the rules in the hope that a better set of electoral rules would produce better outcomes for freedom. Another consideration is that the countries currently using PR (Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Russia, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland – see https://www.britannica.com/topic/proportional-representation ) haven't become markedly libertarian. It is of course possible that they enjoy more freedom than they would have if they had not adopted PR, but this is not immediately obvious. I do continue to think PR is a fairer and better system than winner-take-all, and it could potentially do much good in the United States by breaking up the long-dominant 2-party cartel. But your long-time obsessive advocacy of this single issue makes me suspect that you may be seeing it as a kind of libertarian "silver bullet", and looking at the overall picture less than realistically. You suggest we start by attempting to change the state constitution in Nevada or Nebraska. How much do you think this would cost, and from where would you obtain the resources to accomplish it? I suspect it would cost millions of dollars just to get the hundreds of thousands of signatures needed to put such a measure on the ballot, aside from any moneys spent on an actual campaign to pass it, and our entire national LP budget is under $2 million a year. Have you lobbied the leadership of other alternative political parties or groups that might be interested in funding and participating in such a project? My best guess is that at present, ballot access efforts get the LP significantly more "bang for the buck" in terms of advancing freedom. However if there were a major coalition seeking to enact PR and we weren't carrying the bulk of the burden ourselves, the picture could look significantly different. Building a working coalition of alternative parties in this country strikes me as a potentially important and game-changing project, and electoral reform might be just about the only practical agenda behind which such an ideologically diverse coalition could unite without getting bogged down in squabbling over the details. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform(a)earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE @StarchildSF On Apr 9, 2018, at 12:37 PM, Thomas Jones wrote: > 18 States have voter petitions for State Const Amdts > 2016 Prez Votes - Low to High > > 1 ND 344,360 > 2 SD 370,093 > 3 MT 497,147 > 4 NE 844,227 > 5 NV 1,125,385 > 6 AR 1,130,635 > 7 MS 1,209,357 > 8 OK 1,452,992 > 9 OR 2,001,336 > 10 AZ 2,573,165 > 11 CO 2,780,247 > 12 MO 2,808,605 > 13 MA 3,325,046 > 14 MI 4,799,284 > 15 OH 5,496,487 > 16 IL 5,536,424 > 17 FL 9,420,039 > 18 CA 14,181,604 > > http://www.iandrinstitute.org/states.cfm > > Suggest NV or NE for starters. > All sorts of defective/fatal *reforms* being done by the statist leftwing usual suspects. > > ******* > SAVE DEMOCRACY ELECTION REFORMS 9 APR 2018 > > 1. ONE election day. NO primaries, caucuses and conventions. > 2. Proportional Representation (P.R) in all legislative body elections. > BOTH majority rule and minority representation = DEMOCRACY. > 3. NONPARTISAN nominations and elections of all elected executive officers and all judicial officers. > > [OPTION ITEMS IN BRACKETS] > > [The added or amended sections below shall apply to all elections, except if existing language applies.] > -------------- > Sec. 1. (1) Elections shall only be held on [date] of each year [(except for recall elections]. > (2) All elections shall only use mail paper secret ballots. > (3) The [state] shall pay the cost for the mail paper secret ballots to and from the Electors. > (4) All election laws shall be general and shall exist by [210] days before the election day along with all election districts. > (5) All elected officers shall be registered Electors [in the [state]] in addition to any other qualifications in this constitution. > (6) All incumbents and all other candidates shall respectively file a declaration of candidacy and any filing fees in (7) by [5 P.M.][203] and [196] days before the election day. > (7) The names of all candidates shall be put on the election ballots only by (a) nominating petition forms signed by Electors in the area involved equal to not more than [0.2] percent of the number of Electors who voted in the last regular election for [governor] in such area which shall be filed and verified respectively by [105] and [70] days before the election day, or (b) filing fees (signature number multiplied by a uniform money amount). > (8) Elector form- [9, 10 or 12] point type, [3.5 by 4.25 inches] > NOMINATING PETITION - [PARTISAN (for legislative offices)] [NONPARTISAN (for executive/judicial offices)] > I nominate (candidate’s name and address) (of the (one word party name - not more than [16] capital letters) Party) for (office) in (election area) at the (date) election. > Elector signature, printed name, address and date signed. > Return to- (address) > (9) No filing shall be withdrawn. > (10) Candidates shall have their party's name in (8) or NONPARTISAN [and may by law have a [0.4 inch by 0.4 inch] symbol] next to their names on the ballots. > > Sec. 2. (1) The Electors shall elect all members of each legislative body for [1] year terms who may meet any time in person, by written proxy or electronically. > (2) Each legislative body shall have an odd number of members (at least [5]) who are elected in at least 2 districts. > (3) As nearly as possible, each legislative body election district shall have 2 (rural) to 5 (urban) times the number of Electors who voted at the last regular election [for governor] divided by the total members in the body, be 1 or more [local governments] or a part of 1 [local government] and be contiguous and square. > (4) A qualified person may be a candidate in any district. > > Sec. 3. ((1) Each legislative body candidate shall receive a list of all other candidates with party names in all districts by [63] days before the election day. > (2) Each candidate shall rank such all other candidates (using 1 (highest), 2, etc.) and file such list by [5 P.M. 56] days before the election day. > (3) The lists shall be made public the next day. > (4) If a valid list is not filed, then the candidate’s name shall be removed from the ballots. > > Sec. 4. (1) Each Elector may vote for 1 candidate for each legislative body. > (2) The Ratio shall be the Total Votes for all candidates in all districts divided by the Total Members, dropping any fraction. > Ratio = TV/TM > (3) A candidate who gets the Ratio shall be elected. > (4) The largest surplus more than the Ratio shall be moved to 1 or more candidates in any district who do not have the Ratio and who are highest on the candidate's rank order list. > (5) Only the votes needed to get the Ratio shall be moved to any 1 candidate. > (6) Repeat steps (4) and (5) until all surplus votes are moved. > (7) If all members are not elected, then the candidate with the least votes shall lose. > (8) Such losing votes shall be moved to 1 or more remaining unelected candidates in any district who are highest on the candidate's rank order list subject to (5). > The moving order shall be original votes and then the earliest surplus or other loser votes. > (9) Steps (7) and (8) shall repeat until all members are elected. > (10) Each member shall have 1 vote in the legislative body. > (11) Example 100 Votes, Elect 5 > Ratio = 100/5 = 20 > --- > Surplus Moved > C1 25-20=5 Surplus > C2 19+1=20 > C3 14+4=18 > --- > Final > C1 20=20 Elected > C2 20=20 Elected > C3 18+2=20 Elected > C4 17+3=20 Elected > C5 15+5=20 Elected > Sum 90+10=100 > Losers 10 are moved to elected persons. > > [NOTE - slightly more exact/complex methods are possible] > > Sec. 5. (1) All legislative body candidates and members shall file 1 or more rank order lists of persons to replace (temporary or permanent) the candidate or member during an election time or term respectively. > (2) The qualified person who is highest on the list shall fill such vacancy. > (3) If the preceding does not happen, then the other members of his/her party (if any) or the legislative body shall fill such vacancy with a qualified person of the same party immediately at its next meeting. > > [NO more vacancy special elections for legislators.] > > Sec. 6. (1) The Electors shall elect all elected executive officers [(at least a chief executive, a clerk and a treasurer in each government)] for [1] year terms at nonpartisan elections. > (2) The Electors shall elect all judicial officers for the [1 to 6 year] terms provided by this constitution and law at nonpartisan elections. > (3) No law change shall reduce the term of any judicial officer. > (4) Each Elector may vote for 1 or more candidates for each executive or judicial office (including 1 write-in vote for each position). > (5) The candidate(s) getting the most votes shall be elected (for the longest terms respectively). > > [(4)-(5) is the Approval Voting method.] > > Sec. 7. (1) The terms of office involved shall start [at noon] [7] days after the election day. > (2) All legislation enacted from [35] days before an election day until the (1) starting time shall be temporary and shall expire not later than [35] days after such term starting time. > [Stop/reduce lame duck stuff] > > [Sec. 8. (1) A general law shall provide for a recall election of any legislative body or elected executive [or judicial] officer upon petition of Electors equal to [25] percent of the number of Electors who voted at the last regular election [for governor] in the election area of the body or officer involved. > (2) The reason(s) in any petition (in not more than [50] words) shall not be reviewed, except in a libel case against the recall sponsor. > (3) A filed petition shall be verified within [35] days if (4) applies. > (4) The recall election day shall happen [21 to 28] days thereafter during the term involved with the result on the same day. > (5) Any person recalled shall not hold any public office for [2] years after the recall election day.] Thomas, Thank you for your input – while still more granular and less succinct than would be preferable in my view, this is more readable than some of the materials you've sent in the past. Trying to change the U.S. Constitution, or even state constitutions, is a high hurdle however. As previously noted, I do think electoral reforms like proportional representation (PR) are worthy of Libertarian support – I'm less enamored of approval voting – but given the immensity of the project, better pursued in conjunction with other alternative parties than as something we put a lot of resources into on our own. I base that conclusion partly on the fact that electoral reform is kind of a secondary freedom issue, in the sense that it is intended not to directly increase personal or economic freedom, or reduce State aggression, but rather to change the rules in the hope that a better set of electoral rules would produce better outcomes for freedom. Another consideration is that the countries currently using PR (Belgium, Denmark, [1]Finland, Greece, Hungary, [2]Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, [3]Russia, Spain, [4]Sweden, and [5]Switzerland – see [6]https://www.britannica.com/topic/proportional-representation ) haven't become markedly libertarian. It is of course possible that they enjoy more freedom than they would have if they had not adopted PR, but this is not immediately obvious. I do continue to think PR is a fairer and better system than winner-take-all, and it could potentially do much good in the United States by breaking up the long-dominant 2-party cartel. But your long-time obsessive advocacy of this single issue makes me suspect that you may be seeing it as a kind of libertarian "silver bullet", and looking at the overall picture less than realistically. You suggest we start by attempting to change the state constitution in Nevada or Nebraska. How much do you think this would cost, and from where would you obtain the resources to accomplish it? I suspect it would cost millions of dollars just to get the hundreds of thousands of signatures needed to put such a measure on the ballot, aside from any moneys spent on an actual campaign to pass it, and our entire national LP budget is under $2 million a year. Have you lobbied the leadership of other alternative political parties or groups that might be interested in funding and participating in such a project? My best guess is that at present, ballot access efforts get the LP significantly more "bang for the buck" in terms of advancing freedom. However if there were a major coalition seeking to enact PR and we weren't carrying the bulk of the burden ourselves, the picture could look significantly different. Building a working coalition of alternative parties in this country strikes me as a potentially important and game-changing project, and electoral reform might be just about the only practical agenda behind which such an ideologically diverse coalition could unite without getting bogged down in squabbling over the details. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee [7]RealReform(a)earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE @StarchildSF On Apr 9, 2018, at 12:37 PM, Thomas Jones wrote: 18 States have voter petitions for State Const Amdts 2016 Prez Votes - Low to High 1 ND 344,360 2 SD 370,093 3 MT 497,147 4 NE 844,227 5 NV 1,125,385 6 AR 1,130,635 7 MS 1,209,357 8 OK 1,452,992 9 OR 2,001,336 10 AZ 2,573,165 11 CO 2,780,247 12 MO 2,808,605 13 MA 3,325,046 14 MI 4,799,284 15 OH 5,496,487 16 IL 5,536,424 17 FL 9,420,039 18 CA 14,181,604 [8]http://www.iandrinstitute.org/states.cfm Suggest NV or NE for starters. All sorts of defective/fatal *reforms* being done by the statist leftwing usual suspects. ******* SAVE DEMOCRACY ELECTION REFORMS 9 APR 2018 1. ONE election day. NO primaries, caucuses and conventions. 2. Proportional Representation (P.R) in all legislative body elections. BOTH majority rule and minority representation = DEMOCRACY. 3. NONPARTISAN nominations and elections of all elected executive officers and all judicial officers. [OPTION ITEMS IN BRACKETS] [The added or amended sections below shall apply to all elections, except if existing language applies.] -------------- Sec. 1. (1) Elections shall only be held on [date] of each year [(except for recall elections]. (2) All elections shall only use mail paper secret ballots. (3) The [state] shall pay the cost for the mail paper secret ballots to and from the Electors. (4) All election laws shall be general and shall exist by [210] days before the election day along with all election districts. (5) All elected officers shall be registered Electors [in the [state]] in addition to any other qualifications in this constitution. (6) All incumbents and all other candidates shall respectively file a declaration of candidacy and any filing fees in (7) by [5 P.M.][203] and [196] days before the election day. (7) The names of all candidates shall be put on the election ballots only by (a) nominating petition forms signed by Electors in the area involved equal to not more than [0.2] percent of the number of Electors who voted in the last regular election for [governor] in such area which shall be filed and verified respectively by [105] and [70] days before the election day, or (b) filing fees (signature number multiplied by a uniform money amount). (8) Elector form- [9, 10 or 12] point type, [3.5 by 4.25 inches] NOMINATING PETITION - [PARTISAN (for legislative offices)] [NONPARTISAN (for executive/judicial offices)] I nominate (candidate’s name and address) (of the (one word party name - not more than [16] capital letters) Party) for (office) in (election area) at the (date) election. Elector signature, printed name, address and date signed. Return to- (address) (9) No filing shall be withdrawn. (10) Candidates shall have their party's name in (8) or NONPARTISAN [and may by law have a [0.4 inch by 0.4 inch] symbol] next to their names on the ballots. Sec. 2. (1) The Electors shall elect all members of each legislative body for [1] year terms who may meet any time in person, by written proxy or electronically. (2) Each legislative body shall have an odd number of members (at least [5]) who are elected in at least 2 districts. (3) As nearly as possible, each legislative body election district shall have 2 (rural) to 5 (urban) times the number of Electors who voted at the last regular election [for governor] divided by the total members in the body, be 1 or more [local governments] or a part of 1 [local government] and be contiguous and square. (4) A qualified person may be a candidate in any district. Sec. 3. ((1) Each legislative body candidate shall receive a list of all other candidates with party names in all districts by [63] days before the election day. (2) Each candidate shall rank such all other candidates (using 1 (highest), 2, etc.) and file such list by [5 P.M. 56] days before the election day. (3) The lists shall be made public the next day. (4) If a valid list is not filed, then the candidate’s name shall be removed from the ballots. Sec. 4. (1) Each Elector may vote for 1 candidate for each legislative body. (2) The Ratio shall be the Total Votes for all candidates in all districts divided by the Total Members, dropping any fraction. Ratio = TV/TM (3) A candidate who gets the Ratio shall be elected. (4) The largest surplus more than the Ratio shall be moved to 1 or more candidates in any district who do not have the Ratio and who are highest on the candidate's rank order list. (5) Only the votes needed to get the Ratio shall be moved to any 1 candidate. (6) Repeat steps (4) and (5) until all surplus votes are moved. (7) If all members are not elected, then the candidate with the least votes shall lose. (8) Such losing votes shall be moved to 1 or more remaining unelected candidates in any district who are highest on the candidate's rank order list subject to (5). The moving order shall be original votes and then the earliest surplus or other loser votes. (9) Steps (7) and (8) shall repeat until all members are elected. (10) Each member shall have 1 vote in the legislative body. (11) Example 100 Votes, Elect 5 Ratio = 100/5 = 20 --- Surplus Moved C1 25-20=5 Surplus C2 19+1=20 C3 14+4=18 --- Final C1 20=20 Elected C2 20=20 Elected C3 18+2=20 Elected C4 17+3=20 Elected C5 15+5=20 Elected Sum 90+10=100 Losers 10 are moved to elected persons. [NOTE - slightly more exact/complex methods are possible] Sec. 5. (1) All legislative body candidates and members shall file 1 or more rank order lists of persons to replace (temporary or permanent) the candidate or member during an election time or term respectively. (2) The qualified person who is highest on the list shall fill such vacancy. (3) If the preceding does not happen, then the other members of his/her party (if any) or the legislative body shall fill such vacancy with a qualified person of the same party immediately at its next meeting. [NO more vacancy special elections for legislators.] Sec. 6. (1) The Electors shall elect all elected executive officers [(at least a chief executive, a clerk and a treasurer in each government)] for [1] year terms at nonpartisan elections. (2) The Electors shall elect all judicial officers for the [1 to 6 year] terms provided by this constitution and law at nonpartisan elections. (3) No law change shall reduce the term of any judicial officer. (4) Each Elector may vote for 1 or more candidates for each executive or judicial office (including 1 write-in vote for each position). (5) The candidate(s) getting the most votes shall be elected (for the longest terms respectively). [(4)-(5) is the Approval Voting method.] Sec. 7. (1) The terms of office involved shall start [at noon] [7] days after the election day. (2) All legislation enacted from [35] days before an election day until the (1) starting time shall be temporary and shall expire not later than [35] days after such term starting time. [Stop/reduce lame duck stuff] [Sec. 8. (1) A general law shall provide for a recall election of any legislative body or elected executive [or judicial] officer upon petition of Electors equal to [25] percent of the number of Electors who voted at the last regular election [for governor] in the election area of the body or officer involved. (2) The reason(s) in any petition (in not more than [50] words) shall not be reviewed, except in a libel case against the recall sponsor. (3) A filed petition shall be verified within [35] days if (4) applies. (4) The recall election day shall happen [21 to 28] days thereafter during the term involved with the result on the same day. (5) Any person recalled shall not hold any public office for [2] years after the recall election day.] References 1. https://www.britannica.com/place/Finland 2. https://www.britannica.com/place/Israel 3. https://www.britannica.com/place/Russia 4. https://www.britannica.com/place/Sweden 5. https://www.britannica.com/place/Switzerland 6. https://www.britannica.com/topic/proportional-representation 7. mailto:RealReform@earthlink.net 8. http://www.iandrinstitute.org/states.cfm

1 0

Re: [Lnc-business] Concerned member
by Starchild 07 Apr '18

07 Apr '18

Well put, both of you (Steven and Sam). Jason, I appreciate and share your concern. If James Wood wrote that stuff, I don't know what he thinks he's doing, but I don't appreciate it. The idea that Tim McVeigh was right to attack the federal government, but that he should have done proper reconnaissance so as to have been aware of the kids in the daycare center cynically believed to have been used by the Feds as deliberate human shields is not one I'm going to argue with on moral grounds. However I will point out that given how governments have often treated those they label as "terrorists" or their associates, anyone who expresses an affinity, especially an organizational affinity, with terrorists; openly calls for responding to government violence with civilian violence; or even engages in actual violence such as Peter Hendrickson did – the NY Times magazine article you link (https://mobile.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29taxes-t.html) is quite an interesting read – while actively associating themselves with the institutionally non-violent Libertarian Party and its followers, is in effect using US as their human shields. A simpler and clearer example of this would be attending a peaceful anti-police-abuse demonstration, and while marching, running up to nearby police lines yelling at and threatening to punch a cop, and then running back into the midst of the peaceful demonstrators and rejoining the march. It exposes people and organizations to collateral damage they did not sign up for, including risk of direct physical harm. If the Audacious Caucus is okay with this, I don't want to be associated with them. I don't want anybody using me as a human shield. Deciding to take up arms against tyranny or actively work with those who do, and assume all the risks attendant to that choice, is a very personal decision for each individual to make. If and when I ever make that choice, I want it to be my choice alone – and if I make it, it will be to join FREEDOM FIGHTERS, not terrorists, "domestic" or otherwise. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform(a)earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE @StarchildSF On Apr 6, 2018, at 10:55 AM, Sam Goldstein wrote: > Jason, > > I will also add to Mr. Nekhalia's comments below that Mr. Wood is not a current member of the national Libertarian Party. You might contact the MILP to discuss your concerns with them since they do have a history of taking action against rogue members. > > In Liberty, > > --- > Sam Goldstein > Libertarian National Committee > 317-850-0726 Cell > > On 2018-04-06 13:03, steven.nekhaila(a)lp.org wrote: >> Hello Jason, >> Thank you for bringing this to our attention, this is not something >> the Libertarian National Committee can specifically address other than >> coaching the Libertarian Party of Michigan if they seek to take action >> against this member. If this individual decides to make credible >> threats, I would trust those who observe such threats to make the >> proper the call on action, whether its reporting it to the Michigan >> Libertarian Party or appropriate bodies as they see fit, there is >> nothing we can do as National. I do not wish to be dismissive of your >> concerns, but being associated with the Libertarian Party is to be >> associated with hundreds of thousands of others who call themselves >> libertarians and Libertarian Party members. Republicans, Democrats, >> and Libertarians are all capable of being "audacious" and saying >> something outrageous, even acting out, one person is not, however, >> representative of the whole. Your association with the party is the >> water that dilutes the pollution, I do not see the pollution as the >> reason to leave. You will find there is pollution everywhere you go. >> As for a shadow rising of the LNC, I am not overly concerned, while >> these small groups may be loud, they have no power unless they are >> elected by the delegates. >> In Liberty, >> Steven Nekhaila >> Region 2 Representative Alternate >> On 2018-04-06 11:35 AM, Someone Else wrote: >>> Greetings, >>> I became a foundation member of the National Party on 6/19/2017 and I >>> registered with my State party shortly before the 2016 election. I am >>> currently a precinct committeeman. >>> As someone who is considering whether or not to step up my involvement >>> or to go back to being a non-voting Independent, I would like to >>> express a concern that I have regarding something I recently observed. >>> I hope this isn't simply dismissed as "Facebook Drama" or just the >>> Audacious Caucus doing their thing, because it goes beyond that. >>> I have attached a series of screenshots of comments made by Jeff Wood >>> of the Audacious Caucus and the Libertarian Party of Michigan in which >>> he cites the 1990 Scarborough Tax Day Mail Bombing as a source of >>> inspiration as well as defending the actions of Timothy McVeigh and >>> offers a "blanket invitation to domestic terrorists and violent drug >>> cartels" to join the Libertarian Party. He also boldly states "I >>> fully intend to shoot police and soldiers with automatic weapons at >>> some point in my lifetime". >>> I shouldn't have to explain why this is a concern. I realize the >>> whole Audacious thing is about being "so outrageous they can't be >>> ignored", but he is openly advocating for domestic terrorists to join >>> the party. Between this and certain other members of the danger >>> caucus who claim to be actively recruiting Antifa, I am considering >>> withdrawing any future support for this Party as I cannot in good >>> conscience be associated with such things. My wife is already >>> reluctant to join and needless to say this has not helped me convince >>> her. >>> I am not going to presume to suggest what, if anything, the LNC should >>> do about this matter, but I feel it is necessary to bring it to your >>> attention. I will say that if the so-called "Shadow LNC Rising" aka >>> Audacious Caucus and their affiliated groups ever gain a significant >>> foothold in the LP beyond their little echo chamber (which certainly >>> appears to be their goal) I will leave and never look back. >>> Thank you for your time. Please view and consider the attachments. >>> In Liberty, >>> Jason Gillam, MCLP PCM

5 7

Fwd: Concerned member
by Caryn Ann Harlos 07 Apr '18

07 Apr '18

Forwarded to the list at the request of the member ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Someone Else <jgillam5090(a)gmail.com> Date: Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 9:35 AM Subject: Concerned member To: <chair(a)lp.org>, <vicechair(a)lp.org>, <treasurer(a)lp.org>, < secretary(a)lp.org>, <william.redpath(a)lp.org>, <sam.goldstein(a)lp.org>, < starchild(a)lp.org>, <daniel.hayes(a)lp.org>, <joshua.katz(a)lp.org>, < caryn.ann.harlos(a)lp.org>, <steven.nielson(a)lp.org>, <ed.marsh(a)lp.org>, < steven.nekhaila(a)lp.org>, <elizabeth.vanhorn(a)lp.org>, <dustin.nanna(a)lp.org>, <jeffery.hewitt(a)lp.org>, <aaron.starr(a)lp.org>, <james.lark(a)lp.org>, < steve.scheetz(a)lp.org>, <david.demarest(a)lp.org>, <sean.otoole(a)lp.org>, < whitney.bilyeu(a)lp.org>, <erin.adams(a)lp.org>, <justin.odonnel(a)lp.org>, < alex.merced(a)lp.org> Greetings, I became a foundation member of the National Party on 6/19/2017 and I registered with my State party shortly before the 2016 election. I am currently a precinct committeeman. As someone who is considering whether or not to step up my involvement or to go back to being a non-voting Independent, I would like to express a concern that I have regarding something I recently observed. I hope this isn't simply dismissed as "Facebook Drama" or just the Audacious Caucus doing their thing, because it goes beyond that. I have attached a series of screenshots of comments made by Jeff Wood of the Audacious Caucus and the Libertarian Party of Michigan in which he cites the 1990 Scarborough Tax Day Mail Bombing as a source of inspiration as well as defending the actions of Timothy McVeigh and offers a "blanket invitation to domestic terrorists and violent drug cartels" to join the Libertarian Party. He also boldly states "I fully intend to shoot police and soldiers with automatic weapons at some point in my lifetime". I shouldn't have to explain why this is a concern. I realize the whole Audacious thing is about being "so outrageous they can't be ignored", but he is openly advocating for domestic terrorists to join the party. Between this and certain other members of the danger caucus who claim to be actively recruiting Antifa, I am considering withdrawing any future support for this Party as I cannot in good conscience be associated with such things. My wife is already reluctant to join and needless to say this has not helped me convince her. I am not going to presume to suggest what, if anything, the LNC should do about this matter, but I feel it is necessary to bring it to your attention. I will say that if the so-called "Shadow LNC Rising" aka Audacious Caucus and their affiliated groups ever gain a significant foothold in the LP beyond their little echo chamber (which certainly appears to be their goal) I will leave and never look back. Thank you for your time. Please view and consider the attachments. In Liberty, Jason Gillam, MCLP PCM -- -- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos(a)LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org/> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft* Forwarded to the list at the request of the member ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Someone Else <[1]jgillam5090(a)gmail.com> Date: Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 9:35 AM Subject: Concerned member To: <[2]chair(a)lp.org>, <[3]vicechair(a)lp.org>, <[4]treasurer(a)lp.org>, <[5]secretary(a)lp.org>, <[6]william.redpath(a)lp.org>, <[7]sam.goldstein(a)lp.org>, <[8]starchild(a)lp.org>, <[9]daniel.hayes(a)lp.org>, <[10]joshua.katz(a)lp.org>, <[11]caryn.ann.harlos(a)lp.org>, <[12]steven.nielson(a)lp.org>, <[13]ed.marsh(a)lp.org>, <[14]steven.nekhaila(a)lp.org>, <[15]elizabeth.vanhorn(a)lp.org>, <[16]dustin.nanna(a)lp.org>, <[17]jeffery.hewitt(a)lp.org>, <[18]aaron.starr(a)lp.org>, <[19]james.lark(a)lp.org>, <[20]steve.scheetz(a)lp.org>, <[21]david.demarest(a)lp.org>, <[22]sean.otoole(a)lp.org>, <[23]whitney.bilyeu(a)lp.org>, <[24]erin.adams(a)lp.org>, <[25]justin.odonnel(a)lp.org>, <[26]alex.merced(a)lp.org> Greetings, I became a foundation member of the National Party on 6/19/2017 and I registered with my State party shortly before the 2016 election. I am currently a precinct committeeman. As someone who is considering whether or not to step up my involvement or to go back to being a non-voting Independent, I would like to express a concern that I have regarding something I recently observed. I hope this isn't simply dismissed as "Facebook Drama" or just the Audacious Caucus doing their thing, because it goes beyond that. I have attached a series of screenshots of comments made by Jeff Wood of the Audacious Caucus and the Libertarian Party of Michigan in which he cites the 1990 Scarborough Tax Day Mail Bombing as a source of inspiration as well as defending the actions of Timothy McVeigh and offers a "blanket invitation to domestic terrorists and violent drug cartels" to join the Libertarian Party. He also boldly states "I fully intend to shoot police and soldiers with automatic weapons at some point in my lifetime". I shouldn't have to explain why this is a concern. I realize the whole Audacious thing is about being "so outrageous they can't be ignored", but he is openly advocating for domestic terrorists to join the party. Between this and certain other members of the danger caucus who claim to be actively recruiting Antifa, I am considering withdrawing any future support for this Party as I cannot in good conscience be associated with such things. My wife is already reluctant to join and needless to say this has not helped me convince her. I am not going to presume to suggest what, if anything, the LNC should do about this matter, but I feel it is necessary to bring it to your attention. I will say that if the so-called "Shadow LNC Rising" aka Audacious Caucus and their affiliated groups ever gain a significant foothold in the LP beyond their little echo chamber (which certainly appears to be their goal) I will leave and never look back. Thank you for your time. Please view and consider the attachments. In Liberty, Jason Gillam, MCLP PCM -- -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - [27]Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.org Communications Director, [28]Libertarian Party of Colorado Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee A haiku to the Statement of Principles: We defend your rights And oppose the use of force Taxation is theft References 1. mailto:jgillam5090@gmail.com 2. mailto:chair@lp.org 3. mailto:vicechair@lp.org 4. mailto:treasurer@lp.org 5. mailto:secretary@lp.org 6. mailto:william.redpath@lp.org 7. mailto:sam.goldstein@lp.org 8. mailto:starchild@lp.org 9. mailto:daniel.hayes@lp.org 10. mailto:joshua.katz@lp.org 11. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 12. mailto:steven.nielson@lp.org 13. mailto:ed.marsh@lp.org 14. mailto:steven.nekhaila@lp.org 15. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn@lp.org 16. mailto:dustin.nanna@lp.org 17. mailto:jeffery.hewitt@lp.org 18. mailto:aaron.starr@lp.org 19. mailto:james.lark@lp.org 20. mailto:steve.scheetz@lp.org 21. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 22. mailto:sean.otoole@lp.org 23. mailto:whitney.bilyeu@lp.org 24. mailto:erin.adams@lp.org 25. mailto:justin.odonnel@lp.org 26. mailto:alex.merced@lp.org 27. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org 28. http://www.lpcolorado.org/

5 4

Fwd: Region 1 alt resignation
by Caryn Ann Harlos 06 Apr '18

06 Apr '18

---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Steven Nielson <steven.m.nielson(a)gmail.com> Date: Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 10:06 AM Subject: Re: Region 1 alt To: Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos(a)gmail.com> CC: Unknown <lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org> Correct Caryn Ann. As of April 4th I have begun the process of resignation and dissafiliation. There are many issues I have identified which put me in conflict with the party over the last several months, none of which need to be aired, and it is not a decision I have come to lightly. However, at this time I am officially resigning my position and membership with the Libertarian Party. Good luck on your future ventures. from the phone of Steven M. Nielson 360.662.6362 On Fri, Apr 6, 2018, 4:05 AM Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Steve Nielson has publicly announced that he has cut his affiliation with > the LP which I am taking as a resignation. I have copied him here. I will > speak with the region 1 Chairs. > -- > *In Liberty,* > *Caryn Ann Harlos* > Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, > Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. > Harlos(a)LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos(a)LP.org> > Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado > <http://www.lpcolorado.org> > Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee > Chair, Libertarian National Party Platform Committee > > A haiku to the Statement of Principles: > *We defend your rights* > *And oppose the use of force* > *Taxation is theft* > > > > > -- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos(a)LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair, Libertarian National Party Platform Committee A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft* ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Steven Nielson <[1]steven.m.nielson(a)gmail.com> Date: Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 10:06 AM Subject: Re: Region 1 alt To: Caryn Ann Harlos <[2]carynannharlos(a)gmail.com> CC: Unknown <[3]lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org> Correct Caryn Ann. As of April 4th I have begun the process of resignation and dissafiliation. There are many issues I have identified which put me in conflict with the party over the last several months, none of which need to be aired, and it is not a decision I have come to lightly. However, at this time I am officially resigning my position and membership with the Libertarian Party. Good luck on your future ventures. from the phone of Steven M. Nielson 360.662.6362 On Fri, Apr 6, 2018, 4:05 AM Caryn Ann Harlos <[4]carynannharlos(a)gmail.com> wrote: Steve Nielson has publicly announced that he has cut his affiliation with the LP which I am taking as a resignation. I have copied him here. I will speak with the region 1 Chairs. -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - [5]Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.org Communications Director, [6]Libertarian Party of Colorado Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair, Libertarian National Party Platform Committee A haiku to the Statement of Principles: We defend your rights And oppose the use of force Taxation is theft -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - [7]Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.org Communications Director, [8]Libertarian Party of Colorado Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair, Libertarian National Party Platform Committee A haiku to the Statement of Principles: We defend your rights And oppose the use of force Taxation is theft References 1. mailto:steven.m.nielson@gmail.com 2. mailto:carynannharlos@gmail.com 3. mailto:lnc-business@hq.lp.org 4. mailto:carynannharlos@gmail.com 5. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org 6. http://www.lpcolorado.org/ 7. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org 8. http://www.lpcolorado.org/

2 1

approved 03/21/18 EC minutes
by Alicia Mattson 06 Apr '18

06 Apr '18

Attached are the now-approved minutes from the 03/21/18 Executive Committee meeting. Staff, please post to the website when you get a chance to do so. -Alicia Attached are the now-approved minutes from the 03/21/18 Executive Committee meeting. Staff, please post to the website when you get a chance to do so. [cleardot.gif] -Alicia

1 0

Region 1 alt
by Caryn Ann Harlos 06 Apr '18

06 Apr '18

Steve Nielson has publicly announced that he has cut his affiliation with the LP which I am taking as a resignation. I have copied him here. I will speak with the region 1 Chairs. -- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos(a)LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair, Libertarian National Party Platform Committee A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft* Steve Nielson has publicly announced that he has cut his affiliation with the LP which I am taking as a resignation. I have copied him here. I will speak with the region 1 Chairs. -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - [1]Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.org Communications Director, [2]Libertarian Party of Colorado Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair, Libertarian National Party Platform Committee A haiku to the Statement of Principles: We defend your rights And oppose the use of force Taxation is theft References 1. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org 2. http://www.lpcolorado.org/

3 2

Taking the discussion off the voting thread
by Arvin Vohra 06 Apr '18

06 Apr '18

Hi all, It seems quite surreal to be arguing that guns are specifically there to defend us against a tyrannical government. I probably have a far below average number of guns on the LNC (zero), and I follow a personal code of avoiding violence, even when it is morally justified or state sponsored. And yet, this is not about my views, but about the Libertarian views. It has been argued that the view that guns are there to oppose government tyranny is not a Libertarian view, is a violation of the NAP, etc. But this is not some far extreme opinion shared only by me. It is a common view among Libertarians and even conservatives - including those who have the ear of the mainstream that many of you so desperately crave. I've included a few here from minarchist and conservative sources, not the anarchist sources that tend to be more aggressive. If you don't believe that Libertarians view guns as weapons to be used in defense against tyranny, here's what a two minute google search turns up: According to the Libertarian Party of North Carolina: "The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution after overthrowing their own tyrannical government. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to insure that the fledgling government of these United States would not devolve into the totalitarianism they had just defeated. The Framers gave the people the ability to force the new government to abide by the Constitution." ( http://www.lpnc.org/gun-control) According to Rand Paul: "Some citizens are holding out hope that the upcoming elections will better things. We'll wait and see. Lots of us believe that maybe that's an unreliable considering that the Fabian progressive socialists have been chipping at our foundations for well over 100 years. Regardless, the founders made sure we had Plan B: the Second Amendment." ( https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/constitutional-myth-6-… ) Acording to the Future of Freedom Foundation: "In other words, the right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with shooting deer. It has everything to do with defending one’s self and others from people who are initiating force against innocent people, such as robbers, murderers, rapists, torturers, and tyrants (and their agents)." According to the Daily Wire, responding to Rolling Stone: " We Americans don’t want to keep our guns so we can overthrow the government; we want to keep our guns so we never have to." ( https://www.dailywire.com/news/22002/yes-government-tyranny-can-happen-and-… ) According to the National Review: " But a tyranny, an invader, or a pretender-government are more effectively resisted with guns. Sometimes people put Schermer’s argument more baldly. They ask something like this: “Do you really think Bubba in camo gear hiding in the forest is going to take on the U.S. military? The U.S. military has nuclear weapons!”" ( https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/10/second-amendment-armed-citizenry-vs-… ) According to the Libertarian Republic: "Therefore, if the government were to function as the sole executor of force, minority populations would be severely at risk. It is widely assumed that the United States is a democracy, for precisely this reasoning, we are not; we are a representative republic. Second, and of most pertinence, military might was restricted to the ruling party;" ( https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/libertarian-guns-2nd-amendment/) According to Ted Cruz: " “The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution isn’t for just protecting hunting rights, and it’s not only to safeguard your right to target practice. It is a Constitutional right to protect your children, your family, your home, our lives, and to serve as the ultimate check against governmental tyranny — for the protection of liberty,” ( https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/ted-cruz-second-amendment-government-tyran… ) And if this is about appealing to the mainstream, here's what Rasmussen had to say a few years ago: "The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 65% of American Adults think the purpose of the Second Amendment is to make sure that people are able to protect themselves from tyranny.... Not surprisingly, 72% of those with a gun in their family regard the Second Amendment as a protection against tyranny. However, even a majority (57%) of those without a gun in their home hold that view." I've argued that we are becoming, as a movement, culturally democrats. We insist that people can't stop themselves from having 9 kids on welfare, or that it is their natural right to do so, or that if it wasn't for government, all those people with no economic skill to speak of would be instant millionaires, so they would be able to afford to have 50 kids, so government owes them stolen money because they kept themselves to 9. From what I've seen in this discussion, we've lost touch with even the most basic principles of supporting the Second Amendment. I find it quite striking that I am, somehow, the only person on the LNC who believes that the Second Amendment, and the natural gun rights it expresses, is for resisting government tyranny. Respectfully, Arvin Vohra Vice Chair Libertarian Party -- Arvin Vohra www.VoteVohra.com VoteVohra(a)gmail.com (301) 320-3634 Hi all, It seems quite surreal to be arguing that guns are specifically there to defend us against a tyrannical government. I probably have a far below average number of guns on the LNC (zero), and I follow a personal code of avoiding violence, even when it is morally justified or state sponsored. And yet, this is not about my views, but about the Libertarian views. It has been argued that the view that guns are there to oppose government tyranny is not a Libertarian view, is a violation of the NAP, etc. But this is not some far extreme opinion shared only by me. It is a common view among Libertarians and even conservatives - including those who have the ear of the mainstream that many of you so desperately crave. I've included a few here from minarchist and conservative sources, not the anarchist sources that tend to be more aggressive. If you don't believe that Libertarians view guns as weapons to be used in defense against tyranny, here's what a two minute google search turns up: According to the Libertarian Party of North Carolina: "The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution after overthrowing their own tyrannical government. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to insure that the fledgling government of these United States would not devolve into the totalitarianism they had just defeated. The Framers gave the people the ability to force the new government to abide by the Constitution." ([1]http://www.lpnc.org/gun-control) According to Rand Paul: "Some citizens are holding out hope that the upcoming elections will better things. We'll wait and see. Lots of us believe that maybe that's an unreliable considering that the Fabian progressive socialists have been chipping at our foundations for well over 100 years. Regardless, the founders made sure we had Plan B: the Second Amendment." ([2]https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/constitutional -myth-6-the-second-amendment-allows-citizens-to-threaten-government/241 298/) Acording to the Future of Freedom Foundation: "In other words, the right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with shooting deer. It has everything to do with defending one’s self and others from people who are initiating force against innocent people, such as robbers, murderers, rapists, torturers, and tyrants (and their agents)." According to the Daily Wire, responding to Rolling Stone: " We Americans don’t want to keep our guns so we can overthrow the government; we want to keep our guns so we never have to." ([3]https://www.dailywire.com/news/22002/yes-government-tyranny-can-hap pen-and-yes-armed-tyler-dahnke) According to the National Review: " But a tyranny, an invader, or a pretender-government are more effectively resisted with guns. Sometimes people put Schermer’s argument more baldly. They ask something like this: “Do you really think Bubba in camo gear hiding in the forest is going to take on the U.S. military? The U.S. military has nuclear weapons!”" ([4]https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/10/second-amendment-armed-citiz enry-vs-government-force-history/) According to the Libertarian Republic: "Therefore, if the government were to function as the sole executor of force, minority populations would be severely at risk. It is widely assumed that the United States is a democracy, for precisely this reasoning, we are not; we are a representative republic. Second, and of most pertinence, military might was restricted to the ruling party;" ([5]https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/libertarian-guns-2nd-amendment/) According to Ted Cruz: " “The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution isn’t for just protecting hunting rights, and it’s not only to safeguard your right to target practice. It is a Constitutional right to protect your children, your family, your home, our lives, and to serve as the ultimate check against governmental tyranny — for the protection of liberty,” ([6]https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/ted-cruz-second-amendment-governme nt-tyranny) And if this is about appealing to the mainstream, here's what Rasmussen had to say a few years ago: "The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 65% of American Adults think the purpose of the Second Amendment is to make sure that people are able to protect themselves from tyranny.... Not surprisingly, 72% of those with a gun in their family regard the Second Amendment as a protection against tyranny. However, even a majority (57%) of those without a gun in their home hold that view." I've argued that we are becoming, as a movement, culturally democrats. We insist that people can't stop themselves from having 9 kids on welfare, or that it is their natural right to do so, or that if it wasn't for government, all those people with no economic skill to speak of would be instant millionaires, so they would be able to afford to have 50 kids, so government owes them stolen money because they kept themselves to 9. From what I've seen in this discussion, we've lost touch with even the most basic principles of supporting the Second Amendment. I find it quite striking that I am, somehow, the only person on the LNC who believes that the Second Amendment, and the natural gun rights it expresses, is for resisting government tyranny. Respectfully, Arvin Vohra Vice Chair Libertarian Party -- Arvin Vohra [7]www.VoteVohra.com [8]VoteVohra(a)gmail.com (301) 320-3634 References 1. http://www.lpnc.org/gun-control 2. https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/constitutional-myth-6-… 3. https://www.dailywire.com/news/22002/yes-government-tyranny-can-happen-and-… 4. https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/10/second-amendment-armed-citizenry-vs-… 5. https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/libertarian-guns-2nd-amendment/ 6. https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/ted-cruz-second-amendment-government-tyran… 7. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 8. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com

3 4