Deleting the JC would remedy the problem most efficiently and effectively. You make a hammer and people look for nails to hit. Most organizations don't have a standing judicial committee and those that do don't have the broad sweeping power that ours has. Let's practice what we preach..let's cut our own government. Most of the drama for the last 3 cycles has come from around the JC. In 2010 we didn't even have one selected. The world didn't end. Delete the JC. Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 7, 2016, at 8:26 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
Joshua has the right of it IMHO and perfectly summed up the issues I observed
On Tuesday, June 7, 2016, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote: I'm going to largely agree with Caryn here. First, I can say from first-hand experience that our current system is nerve-wracking. A verifiable electronic system would be far better.
Second, we need an agenda that matches times better. I personally would suggest (although I know it risks restarting the explosion of convention committees) having a Program Committee separate from our COC.
Next, we need to find ways to speed up business. An important step would be having a quorum more of the time. That can happen if we modify the order of business. As suggested by RONR, hold party elections early on, and have things like Presidential nominations last. Even if we continue to have delegates only showing up for the nomination, they would credential in late and not interfere with quorum. We also need - and this is harder to get - a higher percentage of delegates who actually are on the floor for party business. We can encourage affiliates to consider this in seating delegates, and we can incline our messaging and marketing in that way. There are costs to doing so, however. At present, we do a lot to aid people in finding out-of-state seats. This uses staff time prior to the convention, produced at least one less than desirable outcome, and makes it harder to attain quorum, particularly if those people turn out to be "nomination and done" delegates.
We could, possibly, start earlier, and instead of punishing our donors, have a donor dinner instead. I don't know if that is feasible, and I am sure that the COC did what they thought best, so I don't want to seem like I'm Monday morning quarterbacking. I do very much appreciate that we didn't interrupt business with main floor speakers.
As to approval voting, I think the question to ask about a voting method is the outcomes it produces and which fairness criteria it fails, not how long it takes. Personally, I find something awkward about multi-round approval voting, particularly if write-ins are allowed, and would prefer disapproval voting, but I don't find it terrible. I like the fairness pattern of approval voting for the context in which we use it - multi-seat elections for internal party office. I agree that approval voting is not "liable" for us not electing a full group - that falls back to limited time. After all, if the same election were conducted under the system we previously used, the only result would have been less total votes cast, and hence less people over the line.
It is also true that, convention after convention, we find ourselves cutting the time for our party elections. Populating our board, and the group permitted to overturn decisions of our board, is very important, in my opinion, and requires due consideration. We seldom give it the time it deserves, and we end up with delegates voting without knowing the candidates well, if at all. Now, candidates can combat this, and many did, by campaigning ahead of time, but it still, in my opinion, sends a bad message when delegates see all the rush-rush-rush-hurry-up-get-it-done about this decision.
Luckily, though, we have committees we can thrust these decisions onto.
I don't really understand what is being proposed regarding the JC, but my initial inclination is that, unless someone can articulate a reason why the JC is different in this way, I prefer not to modify our unit voting rules for one election and leave them intact for everything else. I would be inclined to change my mind if presented with a reason why the JC, in particular, would profit from election by states and/or regions. Otherwise, I say change it for everything or nothing. I did see an argument from Ken that it would mean different constituencies being represented, but I can't tell from that why it should be this way and not the other way around.
Joshua A. Katz Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 7:18 PM, Sam Goldstein <goldsteinatlarge@gmail.com> wrote: Indeed and I will fully support your desire to serve on the 2018 Bylaws Committee when it come time to populate it!
Sam
Sam Goldstein Libertarian National Committee Member at Large 8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101 Indianapolis IN 46260 317-850-0726 Phone 317-582-1773 Fax
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 6:22 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote: Larger states would still have a greater share no matter what. It seems like based on the same way delegates are allocated would be fair with regions being able to combine those votes. States that do not join a region would have to individually.
I don't think this is the answer though. We need to be sure we plan enough time to do the party business and we need a more efficient way to do votes. I personally think Party business should come first. In election years the delegates will make sure it gets done because they want to get to the main event.
If party business takes a certain amount of time, we need that time.
The only Bylaws issues I see here are whether or not to keep approval voting. And the issue of what happens if the full number of JC is not elected at convention. And the problems with approval voting I do not think are problems with AV but with the outmoded time-consuming way we do it.
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Sam Goldstein <goldsteinatlarge@gmail.com> wrote: Correct in part, Caryn. Delegates are also assigned based on POTUS vote.
I'm just batting around ideas of how to avoid a fiasco like this year again, at this time I'm wide open to suggestions for the next Bylaws committee to consider.
Sam
Sam Goldstein Libertarian National Committee Member at Large 8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101 Indianapolis IN 46260 317-850-0726 Phone 317-582-1773 Fax
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote: Top states *already* get more weight by virture of having more delegate spots.
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Whitney Bilyeu <whitneycb76@gmail.com> wrote: > Isn't that the same as each region having 1 vote? I assume all 7 votes would be cast for the same candidate...? > >> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Sam Goldstein <goldsteinatlarge@gmail.com> wrote: >> No, that would give very heavy weight to the top states and smaller states would have no say >> in the matter. Perhaps voting by Region with each region getting 7 votes. >> >> >> Sam Goldstein >> Libertarian National Committee >> Member at Large >> 8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101 >> Indianapolis IN 46260 >> 317-850-0726 Phone >> 317-582-1773 Fax >> >>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote: >>> By national membership allocations? >>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Sam Goldstein <goldsteinatlarge@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Ken, >>>> >>>> How would you implement having state delegations elect JC members? One state one vote? >>>> >>>> One state seven votes? >>>> >>>> Sam >>>> >>>> Sam Goldstein >>>> Libertarian National Committee >>>> Member at Large >>>> 8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101 >>>> Indianapolis IN 46260 >>>> 317-850-0726 Phone >>>> 317-582-1773 Fax >>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> A bylaw change will be necessary, and I hope that the Bylaws Committee addresses this in 2018. We'll also need a motion to suspend the rules to make it take effect immediately rather than at the 2020 convention. My preferred solution is to dump Approval Voting. >>>>> >>>>> Further, I'd like to submit for consideration the idea of having the JC elected by state delegations rather than by individual delegates. This would create a scenario where different interests are being protected than those already protected by the popularly-elected LNC. I'm open to other ideas, but I make this suggestion because I am a strong believer in making sure that various levels are representing different interests. (Just like the Region Reps also represent different interests than the At-Large Reps). >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> Ken C. Moellman, Jr. >>>>> LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative >>>>> LPKY Judicial Committee >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On 2016-06-06 13:42, sfdreamer@earthlink.net wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Forwarding comments from a member on this issue... >>>>>> >>>>>> Love & Liberty, >>>>>> ((( starchild ))) >>>>>> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee >>>>>> RealReform@earthlink.net >>>>>> (415) 625-FREE >>>>>> >>>>>> P.S. - On an unrelated matter, another member tells me that he is having difficulty reading my emails to the LNC list, that they are coming through as strange attachments. Is anyone else subscribed on a read-only basis having this trouble with my emails or anyone else's? If you are, please let me know. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Forwarded Message----- >>>>>> From: "Carol Moore 4liberty@carolmoore.net [GrassrootsLibertarians]" >>>>>> Sent: Jun 3, 2016 3:27 PM >>>>>> To: GrassrootsLibertarians@yahoogroups.com >>>>>> Cc: lnc-business@hq.lp.org >>>>>> Subject: Re: [GrassrootsLibertarians] Re: [lpradicals] Re: [Lnc-votes] [Lnc-business] Fwd: Remaining Members of Judicial Committee Fill Vacancies >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Obviously the bylaws need changing. If there should be some important decision where the judiciary committee must make an important decision, any member might challenge it on the basis of its being vs. the bylaws. Including a person who might need a judiciary committee spanking. >>>>>> >>>>>> I feel like doing a straw poll of those names and seeing if there is someone most people actively disapprove of. I know I think one is great and another is questionable. So wonder what others would think. >>>>>> >>>>>> It might also help to encourage LNC to have a deadline for running for office. Not a deadline for being nominated, but a deadline for being listed in a handout sheet, preferably something that goes in the delegate package, with a short bio. This would make candidates think more seriously about running in advance and give delegates who chose to study the list a chance to look at qualifications. It wouldn't just be based on a chance meeting with a prospective member, a recommendation from a seat mate, or what name sounded coolest to you - or whatever. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/3/2016 2:37 PM, Letitia Pepper letitiapepper@yahoo.com [GrassrootsLibertarians] wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I support Starchild's analysis of this problem. All efforts must be made to prevent disenfranchising members. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jun 3, 2016, at 8:20 AM, sfdreamer@earthlink.net [lpradicals] <lpradicals@yahoogroups.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This approach of committees filling their own vacancies without regard to convention delegates' preferences on the grounds that only a minority of candidates for those vacancies received the affirmative approval of a majority of delegates seems ill-advised to me. Failing to receive such approval is clearly not the same thing as receiving the delegates' active disapproval. Nor is there any guarantee that subsequently appointed members of a committee would have received majority approval at convention. It is possible that one or more individuals appointed in this case would have received a lower approval percentage than the four next highest vote-getters at the convention had they chosen to actively run for seats on the Judicial Committee. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We seem to have a situation in which a majority of the candidates for office receiving the most votes at convention are routinely not meeting the 50% threshold required by "approval voting". Thus if the method employed by the remaining members of the Judicial Committee in proposing to fill the vacancies were to become standard practice, the result could be a significant disenfranchisement our membership. it raises the prospect that an individual could have a better chance of getting onto a committee by privately expressing his or her interest in serving to the existing committee members, than by actually running for the position and seeking the approval of convention delegates. I do not think LP members anticipated or desired such an outcome when they were convinced to adopt approval voting. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I therefore urge the members of the Judicial Committee to reconsider this decision, and appoint the next four highest vote-getters to the four seats in question, as the LNC did in filling the majority of its vacancies which were similarly unfilled as a result of m Indeed ost of the delegates' choices not receiving more than 50% of the vote. My recommendation is not based on any political favoritism toward those individuals – with whose identities I am in any case not acquainted – or any animus toward Michael Badnarik, John Buttrick, Bill Hall, and Rob Latham, all of whom strike me as sound and well-qualified choices. I write strictly from the point of view of upholding bottom-up, grassroots governance in the Libertarian Party. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Love & Liberty, >>>>>>>> ((( starchild ))) >>>>>>>> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee >>>>>>>> (415) 625-FREE >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: lnc-votes@hq.lp.org >>>>>>>> Sent: Jun 3, 2016 8:41 AM >>>>>>>> To: lnc-business@hq.lp.org >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Lnc-votes] [Lnc-business] Fwd: Remaining Members of Judicial Committee Fill Vacancies >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have been asked by a member in my region to inquire: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Can someone verify eligibility for the three elected and 4 appointed members? Specifically, can the " All Judicial Committee members shall have been Party members at least four years at the time of their selection." portion? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Brett C. Bittner >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> brett@brettbittner.com >>>>>>>> 404.492.6524 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." -- Thomas Jefferson >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 12:20 AM, Alicia Mattson <secretary@lp.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Forwarding a message by request. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -Alicia >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>>>> From: Gary Johnson <sedition@aol.com> >>>>>>>>> Date: Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 9:03 PM >>>>>>>>> Subject: Remaining Members of Judicial Committee Fill Vacancies >>>>>>>>> To: secretary@lp.org, AliciaDearn@bellatrixlaw.com, chuck@moulton.org, scholar@constitutionpreservation.org, jabuttrick@gmail.com, whall@wnj.com, rob@roblatham.pro >>>>>>>>> Cc: Rebecca Sink-Burris <rebecca.sinkburris@gmail.com>, Roger Roots <rogerroots@msn.com>, Michael Dixon <dixonconsultinginc@gmail.com>, M Carling <mcarling@gmail.com>, John Bowers <bojo3191@aol.com>, Michael Kielsky <Michael@krazlaw.com>, mikeljane <mikeljane@gmail.com>, steven r Linnabary <linnabary51@gmail.com>, Robert Jim Fulner <jim.fulner@member.fsf.org>, "Christopher R. Maden" <crism@maden.org>, Jeffrey Mortenson <jwmort@yahoo.com>, Thomas Robert Stevens <drtomstevens@aol.com>, Tom Lippman <tnlippman@juno.com> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear Alicia Mattson, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please post this message online on the LNC Business list: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The Judicial Committee is supposed to have seven members. Only three received a majority in the approval voting process at the 2016 national convention. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The three members of the Judicial Committee elected by the delegates, Alicia Dearn, Gary Johnson of Texas, and Chuck Moulton, have communicated by email. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We have ruled unanimously that, as the "remaining members" of the committee, we have the authority to fill vacancies, although we are less than the quorum of five specified in the bylaws. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We have decided informally to reject, by 1 to 2, the idea of filling the vacancies with the next four vote getters. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We have decided unanimously to fill the vacancies with four individuals who were not nominated at the convention and therefore were not "disapproved" of by a majority of the delegates in the approval voting process. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We have voted unanimously by email ballot to fill the vacancies with Michael Badnarik, John Buttrick, Bill Hall, and Rob Latham. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Alicia Dearn >>>>>>>>> Gary Johnson >>>>>>>>> Chuck Moulton >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list >>>>>>>>> Lnc-business@hq.lp.org >>>>>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>>>> !--> >>>>>>> !--> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Carol Moore in DC >>>>>> http://carolmoore.net/ >>>>>> http://carolmoorereport.blogspot.com/ >>>>>> http://youtube.com/user/carolmoore >>>>>> http://youtube.com/user/carolmooresongs >>>>>> http://secession.net >>>>>> http://stopthewarnow.net >>>>>> http://whatwouldgandhido.net >>>>>> twitter - carolmoore1776 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> NOTICE: It is the right of the people >>>>>> to alter or abolish government. >>>>>> US Declaration of Independence, 1776 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> __._,_.___ >>>>>> >>>>>> Posted by: Carol Moore <4liberty@carolmoore.net> >>>>>> >>>>>> Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (3) >>>>>> <blocked.gif> >>>>>> Have you tried the highest rated email app? >>>>>> With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage. >>>>>> >>>>>> VISIT YOUR GROUP >>>>>> <blocked.gif>• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use >>>>>> !-->!-->!-->!-->!------->!---prettyhtmlstart--->!---prettyhtmlendt---> >>>>>> >>>>>> !-->!--> >>>>>> . >>>>>> !-->!-->!-->!--> >>>>>> <blocked.gif> >>>>>> <blocked.gif> >>>>>> __,_._,___ >>>>>> !---prettyhtmlend--->!---prettyhtmlstartt---> !---prettyhtmlend--->!---prettyhtmlstart---> !--> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list >>>>>> Lnc-business@hq.lp.org >>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Lnc-business mailing list >>>>> Lnc-business@hq.lp.org >>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Lnc-business mailing list >>>> Lnc-business@hq.lp.org >>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> In Liberty, >>> Caryn Ann Harlos >>> Region 1 Representative >>> (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Lnc-business mailing list >>> Lnc-business@hq.lp.org >>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lnc-business mailing list >> Lnc-business@hq.lp.org >> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Lnc-business mailing list > Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >
-- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington)
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington)
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington)
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org