I disagree with these comments. It is certainly true that we have no idea how the seated people would have fared at the convention. It is also true, though, that we do know how the other candidates fared - they didn't receive a majority in an approval voting context. I would agree with Starchild if we were using some system where the ability of a delegate to voice support for candidates is limited. However, in approval voting, I see only two meanings to failing to vote for a person: disapproval, and having no idea who the person is (or something similar). People generally disapprove of putting people on about whom they know nothing, and so that's a sort of disapproval, too. It's true that there is a problem of active vs. passive bias here - I would prefer that we used disapproval voting, which also gives a more sensible meaning to later rounds of balloting. Similarly to Starchild, my remarks are not reflective of any political preference, as the next 4 highest vote-getters seem to me to be very qualified for the JC. By the way, I also don't agree with the implied statement that none of the non-majority candidates should be seated. The bylaws are quite clear here, both in the case of the LNC and of the JC, in assigning the task in an open manner to the existing members. The delegates stated that they wished for those people to exercise this power when they adopted the bylaws as they exist. Those doing the appointing should consider the candidates who did not receive a majority, as well as anyone they think is qualified. If appointing non-majority candidates, though, they should not say they are honoring the will of the delegates, but rather should say "these are the people we have chosen," the same as they would in any other circumstance. When a vacancy exists outside of the convention, it is their choice and their responsibility, regardless of what mechanism they might choose to use. It is not the case, either, that there are any clear customs here. The LNC used that process to seat at-large members on Monday, but did not use it to fill officer vacancies in past terms, for example. Arguably, it would make more sense for officer vacancies because there is a limit to votes cast by each delegate. I think it is rather contradictory, though, to claim that the will of the delegates is to seat people who were approved of by less than half of the delegates voting. Joshua A. Katz Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat) On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 11:20 AM, <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> 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.

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org