Libertarian National Committee Considers E-Ballots to Fill Open Position

>This was found yesterday AM on the LNCDiscussPublic list.  It was written by Ruth Bennett, Secretary of the LNC.

 

Dear LNC members,
>
> In thinking about filling this position and seeing the names of the folks
> self-nominating, I realized that there is no logical reason to ask anyone
> interested to spend the time and money to fly to D.C. to make their case to
> us. I would much rather that we make our selection and then urge the others
> to make a donation of the money they’ve saved to the NLP or the Johnson
> campaign.
>
> Realistically, most of us have probably made our decisions or at least
> narrowed it down from the list. I am just proposing that we make the
> decision now, let the new member get all the necessary reports and get up
> to speed.
>
> Please, also remember, that we have such a limited amount of time together
> and it seems like a mis-allocation of those limited hours to make a
> decision that most – likely all – of us have already made. Let’s say that
> we have just these 8 candidates. If each is allowed just five minutes to
> make her/his case, that is 40 minutes at best. Plus wrangling over a
> voting system and voting and counting ballots. We will have spent a
> minimum of an hour and a half out of our total of 12-14 hours together –
> about 10% of our meeting! It just does not seem like a good use of our time
> – when we can have a decision in the next couple of weeks.
>
> Currently I have these names – and more are likely coming: (in no
> particular order)
>
> Carl Perrson Paulie Frankel Am I
> missing anyone?
> David Blau Mark Hinkle
> Bill Still Gary Johnson (TX)
> Gigi Bowman Guy McLendon
>
> So please vote AYE on this motions as quickly as possible and we can
> proceed to a vote on our new At-Large member.
>
> Thank you for your consideration.
>
> Ruth

100 thoughts on “Libertarian National Committee Considers E-Ballots to Fill Open Position

  1. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I was away from the computer most of yesterday, and I will be most of today, also. It appears the LNC might be planning to fill their open position in a manner different than we thought. Are they interested in feedback? I don’t know. I do think their votes should be recorded. The secrecy is what got the LNC into the trouble they’ve been in the past few years, IMHO.

  2. George Phillies

    The Bennett motion makes the votes secret. Of course, it has to pass first.

    Tim Hagan may have been dragged into this, but IMHO this is a scheme to assist the election of Mr Hinkle.

    An important issue to remember about Mr Hinkle as an LNC candidate is that he ran for chair last time, and finished third behind Rutherford (finished second) and NOTA.

  3. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    That vote was for Chair, however, George. Not wanting Hinkle as chair is different than not wanting him for At-Large Rep. I suppose I don’t mind the e-ballot, but I find the date of Oct 5th as rather arbitrary, considering that Geoff Neale’s instructions didn’t include that date. I think it’s very important that the vote NOT be secret, and it disturbs me that anyone on the committee would want it to be secretive.

  4. Thomas L. Knapp

    The LNC’s bylaws require a roll call vote on all substantive motions.

    Appointment to fill a vacancy is surely a substantive motion.

    That doesn’t seem to mean they couldn’t do it by mail ballot, of course, as long as the results of who voted how are published.

  5. paulie

    Tim Hagan may have been dragged into this, but IMHO this is a scheme to assist the election of Mr Hinkle.

    How does it help Mr. Hinkle?

  6. paulie

    The LNC’s bylaws require a roll call vote on all substantive motions.

    Appointment to fill a vacancy is surely a substantive motion.

    I think so too, but others (including iirc the chair) disagree. They say an election is not a motion, or something like that.

  7. paulie

    I was away from the computer most of yesterday, and I will be most of today,

    Anyone else want to post Gigi Bowman’s statement in the meantime?

  8. George Phillies

    In addition, “Instant Run-Off Voting” is actually a multitude of possible detailed rules, for example rules for dealing with last-place ties. This motion lets the Secretary make up her own voting rules.

  9. paulie

    Wes and George,

    Thanks. I voted no, although it did not count – JJM voted yes.

    Now please explain how the timing changes the outcome?

    No one has answered my question.

  10. George Phillies

    In addition, the reported voting scheme appears to violate the Bylaws “The Secretary shall preserve all such votes until the next meeting of the National Committee, at which meeting the Committee shall order the disposition of such votes.” in that the reported electronic location does not appear to give the Secretary custody of the ballots.

    How does the timing matter? Observe that the motion was sprung on the committee, meaning that someone has votes lines up, barely, and then wants to get the vote done before other sides have time to speak up.

    Paulie, you might ask the Chair to rule the motion out of order.

  11. Q2Q

    I think this is an attempt to anoint Hinkle as the new LNC member. Hinkle is undeserving of an appointment, he mismanaged the LP while he was Chair and he couldn’t even beat NOTA when he sought re-election. Of course, I am a Carl Person supporter, so I am biased.

  12. From Der Sidelines

    The vote is to make an appointment an election, and that violates the Bylaws, which explictly state that vacancies are filled by appointment by the LNC.

    That means each candidate must be voted on singly until the appointment is made. Not an election.

    They have made this mistake in the past.

    That also means the motion itself is out of order, and an such election from it is null and void.

  13. George Phillies

    @17 Let us recall the wit and wisdom of Dan Karlan, defending his actions with respect to Oregon last year, in which he noted all actions resulting from an invalid action are under Roberts also invalid, ad infinitum. For example, if an invalidly chosen member is allowed to participate in an allocation of money, the allocation is also invalid.

    Thank you for explaining the appoint and elect distinction. I recall hearing you make it before, and did not understand what you had in mind.

  14. From Der Sidelines

    @18: Actually, that distinction was made by Wagner, not me.

    And yes, Karlan has made that point before, so it’s only fitting to cram it back up his moustached behind.

  15. paulie

    Yes votes so far:

    Redpath, Hagan, Bennett, Cloud, Myers. Kirkland is a co-sponsor so she will presumably be a yes vote. Neale is said to be in favor and may be the ghost author.

    Voting no so far:

    Vohra, Pojunis, Mack.

    Wiener may have voted no, but his statement was not unequivocal.

    Sam Goldstein and myself voted no, but it won’t count because we are alternates whose region rep has voted.

  16. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    @ 13: the motion was sprung on the committee, meaning that someone has votes lines up, barely, and then wants to get the vote done before other sides have time to speak up.

    @ 17: The vote is to make an appointment an election, and that violates the Bylaws, which explictly state that vacancies are filled by appointment by the LNC.

    So the LNC is ignoring its own rules, much like the Soviet Politburo? So what else is new?

    The Republican Party is not republican.

    The Democratic Party is not democratic.

    The Libertarian Party is not libertarian.

    All three parties believe in principles, until said principles become inconvenient.

    The American people are smart to limit their choices to two rotten eggs, rather than add a third rotten egg to the menu.

    Perhaps someday a party of principle will emerge. That day is not yet here.

  17. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Is it possible that the e-votes won’t be kept secret? I can’t imagine why Myers would think that’s okay.

  18. ATBAFT

    Cripes, we can’t even fill a vacant LNC seat without controversy. How about a by-laws amendment that vacancies in at-large seats are automatically filled by the first runner up from the convention if the vacancy occurs in the first twelve months after the convention, and leaving the seat vacant if the vacancy occurs within 12 months of next convention?

  19. paulie

    Is it possible that the e-votes won’t be kept secret? I can’t imagine why Myers would think that’s okay.

    JJM did not lay out his reasoning for his vote.

  20. paulie

    The current motions appears to be to have a secret vote on another organization’s website.

    My reasoning was:

    Although my vote won’t count (already superseded), I vote no.

    1) Timing

    There has already been a widely circulated application process which has gone out to state chairs, been shared with the membership and so on, which specified a November application deadline and a vote at the November meeting. Since it takes time to filter information back and forth it is not really fair to other people who may be considering applying and haven’t yet done so, It would take time to propagate the change of plans through the lists and would leave people with very little time if any to apply.

    Also, a lot of people are very busy with election campaigns right now, so they may not really have time to apply, or, in the case of LNC members, to have time to fully consider the applicants and statements, ask us questions, and so on.

    2) Voting method

    Even for those of you who have made up your minds already, and would like to get this out of the way quickly and move on, what about the voting method?

    The motion specifies a voting method, which not everyone agrees to.

    For example, my own preference is for approval voting and for the votes to be on the record. The current motion calls for IRV and, if I am not mistaken, secret voting.

    Also, is voting on another organization’s website the same thing as an email vote?

    I think it is an important decision for the LNC and the votes should be on the record.

    3) Being there

    If anyone is unwilling or unable to travel to this meeting to make their case, it’s a pretty good indication that they would be likely to miss other meetings as well or even flake out completely. In other words it acts as a filter, albeit an imperfect one.

    -paulie 415-690-6352

  21. Stewart Flood

    I considered filing an appeal to the JC last term over “secret” ballots to appoint members of committees and vacancies on the LNC.

    About a year ago, after urging from several people, I started studying Roberts and started taking the practice tests to learn more about Parliamentary procedure. I learned very quickly that the election process we had been using was not proper.

    At that time, it had been more than six months since the last time the LNC had used a secret ballot, so I took no action. But at the Orlando meeting we filled a vacancy on the LNC by secret ballot — over my objection.

    I considered filing a complaint, but since the time needed for the process would have taken us to the convention (and possibly beyond), it wasn’t practical.

    I don’t care what vehicle they use to record the votes, but if they don’t publish the vote tally, with the names of the LNC members voting for each candidate, then we (the delegates from the last convention) should file an appeal.

    If I had been aware that these ballots are in violation of the ByLaws I would have objected a long time ago. It was “the way it was done” so why would anyone who wasn’t an expert in Roberts or the Party ByLaws need to research it?

    Everyone who runs for the LNC should be aware of what the ByLaws, the Platform and Roberts really mean BEFORE they run for office. You don’t have to be an officially registered expert in it, but if you don’t know what the rules are, how can you protect the interests of those you represent?

  22. paulie

    Posted to LNC list:

    Some other issues about the vote have been raised on IPR or in private emails.

    I’m no bylaws expert so I have no idea whether these points are correct but someone should look into it at a minimum.

    1) One person has expressed the opinion that voting on another organization’s website may not satisfy the “vote by email” requirement.

    2) Several people have expressed the views that not having the votes on roll call violates the requirements that we have a roll call on all substantive motions.

    3) One person claimed that it should be an appointment, not an election, with every person being voted up or down separately until one gets a majority, in order to be bylaws compliant.

    4) One person said “In addition, “Instant Run-Off Voting” is actually a multitude of possible detailed rules, for example rules for dealing with last-place ties. This motion lets the Secretary make up her own voting rules.”

    5) That same person: “In addition, the reported voting scheme appears to violate the Bylaws “The Secretary shall preserve all such votes until the next meeting of the National Committee, at which meeting the Committee shall order the disposition of such votes.” in that the reported electronic location does not appear to give the Secretary custody of the ballots.”

    If any of the bylaws experts would clarify these issues that would be appreciated.

    -paulie 415.690.6352

  23. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Does it bother anyone else that Ms. Bennett thinks everyone has mostly made up their mind who to vote for, while candidates are still coming forward?

  24. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    If anyone desiring a secret vote is reading this, could you please spell out some reasons that you think secrecy is appropriate? I can’t think of even one reason.

  25. paulie

    LNC list:

    “Methods by which committees can be appointed are as follows:
    a) Election by ballot…”

    At least in this context, an election is a method by which an appointment can be done. Please ask the person where Robert’s equates an appointment with a separate vote for each candidate.

    Tim Hagan

  26. paulie

    If anyone desiring a secret vote is reading this, could you please spell out some reasons that you think secrecy is appropriate? I can’t think of even one reason.

    Their argument is that, because it is a vote on individuals that they interact with – ie people they know and will be running into – it is awkward to have the votes be public.

    They’ve also advanced the argument that when delegates elect the LNC in convention our individual votes don’t have to be on the record (not true of all states).

  27. Stewart Flood

    A secret ballot is the only way that votes can be “controlled” from behind the scene by those manipulating the system.

    It is certainly possible, and even likely, that a majority of the LNC have already decided on a candidate. But the only way to know which LNC members are still being controlled is if we know how they vote.

    Members worried about someone they might have to work with knowing that they didn’t vote for the person? Hog wash. Grow up.

  28. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    WHY should the voting public believe that Libertarians are likely to be more honest and principled than Demopublicans, when, in instances where Libertarians have held petty power (usually in party offices), they’ve proven to be just as opportunistic, Machiavellian, dishonest, and duplicitous as the majors (albeit far more inept, in a Keystone Cops sort of way).

    The LP promises big, but its meager track record does not indicate an ability to follow through with honesty or integrity.

  29. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Their argument is that, because it is a vote on individuals that they interact with – ie people they know and will be running into – it is awkward to have the votes be public.”

    In other words, there is heat in the kitchen.

    The standard response to heat in the kitchen complaints is “if you can’t stand it, get out.”

    And in any case, how is it obvious that these “individuals they interact with” will prefer being stabbed in the back to being stabbed in the front?

  30. Eric Blitz

    If the individual members of the LNC conceive of their role as being representatives of the LP membership, then it is hard to justify a secret ballot on such a substantive measure. How else are members to assess the quality of their representation if important issues are disposed of by secret ballot?

    There are circumstances when representatives are properly to conduct their deliberations and guidance in secret, but those should be very narrowly tailored to meet critical institutional (party) needs. I would look to guidance to just about any state open meetings act (the truth is, some are better than others, but their is a consensus on the major points) for guidance on which issues should be. So, if the LNC needs legal advice or must provide strategic decision making in a legal matter, a closed session meets a critical institutional need. The same would apply to the other standard reasons you’d close a public meeting; to discuss contract negotiations, employee relations issues (discipline, promotion, etc.) , some very limited bidding process decision, investment management, very limited investigatory issues involving criminal conduct which can lead to officer/director/entity liability, and for a political party, I can imagine perhaps some limited secrecy for tactical decision making (hard to parse this one out without letting the exception swallow the rule).

    To respond to the premise that Their argument is that, because it is a vote on individuals that they interact with – ie people they know and will be running into – it is awkward to have the votes be public.”– I would point out that it shouldn’t be viewed as a personal decision, but an institutional decision. The votes of members are personal, for an LNC member to vote as a representative, that is not (or should not be) a personal decision, but a representative one. Also, coming back to the use of sunshine laws as an example providing guidance, I’d note that some of these laws exempt open meeting requirements for the purpose of protecting the privacy or reputation of a person, but ONLY if it involves something that is not a part of the official business of the government. I think you can make the same argument with respect to the LNC, if it involves the official business of the Party, privacy and reputation should not be used as an excuse for secrecy.

  31. paulie

    Eric, Tom, Stewart:

    Agreed.

    As I hope you all know, I am on your side on this.

    I want the election to be open.

    I won’t be mad at anyone for voting for any of the other choices, as most are very good.

    I did get a mild slap yesterday evening for being the one to make these objections on LNC list while I am running (I was hoping someone would beat me to it but eventually couldn’t restrain myself and spoke up).

  32. Jim Duensing

    I want to go on record publicly and immediately. Crazy conspiracy theories on the internet have theorized that the secret vote of the LNC to appoint a replacement for WAR has been done so that the LNC members can vote for me without having to do so publicly. I would like to clearly articulate that I am not behind this effort and that if I am elected or appointed through such an unlibertarian secretive process, I will not serve.

    In Liberty, with Eternal Vigilance,

    Jim

  33. John Jay Myers

    What about this says that Ruth wanted the votes to be secret? Every time we have ever done e-vote that I remember the results were made available. If that is not the case I would change my feeling on the issue.

  34. David Colborne

    What’s the text of the actual motion that Ruth Bennett is proposing? It’s not present in this article. Without the actual text of the proposed motion, there’s insufficient information to determine what, where, or how serious the problem with the motion is.

  35. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    jj @ 44: I’ve asked the same question, and the answer has been that it has been rather assumed to be secret. It’s an important point, as most of here don’t seem to mind the e-voting, but the secrecy, yes. Can you help to clarify this?

  36. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I’ll see what I can do to update this story. I’ll write to Ruth and/or anyone else who is willing to give me an update, and let you all know what I find out.

  37. George Phillies

    @47 Your Bylaws require that the ballots be preserved to the next meeting. The proposed evote does not permit this. I urge you to ask the chair to rule the motion out of order because it violates the bylaws.

  38. George Phillies

    I hope the LNC if it votes for this crock is looking forward to speaking to the Judicial Committee again, not to mention spending two years having the issue discussed by Liberty for America.

  39. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    George, how can you be so sure that secrecy is included? I haven’t seen it talked about on the LNCDiscussPublic list. Ruth has presented this as a time-saving measure. Are you sure that secrecy is her intent?

  40. From Der Sidelines

    @35, replying to Hagan:

    An appointment is done as a vote on a single person-single position, up or down, by the body. The person is the only one considered and is either accepted or rejected.

    An election is done as a vote on multiple people-single position (in this case) with most votes winning.

    That should be rather obvious unless one has never voted on anything in their lives.

  41. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Paulie agrees with you, George. I’ll try to verify it either way.

    In the meantime, the new Johnson video that I’ve posted is hilarious!

  42. Stewart Flood

    And our ByLaws specifically state that the LNC appoints someone to fill a vacancy.

    As JJM pointed out in 47, the motion does not necessarily call for a secret ballot, but merely a mail ballot. Others on the LNC have been arguing for secrecy, but I do not believe Ms Bennet would be in that group since she is quite aware of the ByLaws and the meaning of both appointments and substantive motions.

  43. paulie

    The motion is:

    I move that we fill the At-large vacancy as follows:

    Self-nominations are currently open. An additional announcement will be sent to the State Chairs list. Nominations are closed as of OCT 5, 2012.

    Each nominee is encouraged to submit a one page “application” to the Chair and the Secretary to include:
    Name
    Address
    Telephone number/s
    Email address/es
    Year joined the National LP and member number
    Any Party offices – national or state – ever held
    Any candidacies for public office
    Any potential conflicts of interest
    An acknowledgment that all travel expenses are the responsibility of the nominee

    All applications must be received by the Secretary and the Chair by OCT 5, 2012

    Additional resumes or CVs may be included. The Secretary shall distribute nominee information as received. The Secretary will make available an instant run-off voting procedure no later than OCT 6, 2012 Balloting will end on OCT 16, 2012.

    As always, Regional Representatives will coordinate voting with their Alternates.

    Motion made by Ruth E. Bennett
    Co-sponsored by Michael Cloud, Tim Hagan and Vicki Kirkland

  44. paulie

    Current votes:

    Yes: Hagan, Bennett, Cloud, Redpath; Kirkland by implication since she is a cosponsor. Reportedly, but not yet officially, Neale.

    Maybe: Myers – yes if the votes are public, no if they are secret (p: my understanding is that they are secret)

    Abstaining: Blau

    No: Vohra, Mack, Pojunis, Wiener. Reportedly, but not yet officially, Starchild.
    Alternates: Lieberman, Goldstein, myself. All from regions whose reps already voted.

  45. paulie

    From Ruth Bennett:

    Dan, I am certainly open to suggestions about how we vote, but I see no provision in our Bylaws for a secret ballot. I do see the requirement for a roll call vote on all substantive matters or if one member of the committee makes a request, so I see no provision at all for any kind of secret ballot.

    What I really don’t want to see happen is for the perfect to be the enemy of the good. We could ask 3 Libertarians the best voting system and get at least 4 opinions! I chose OpaVote to try because it is appears to work and is free. Again, I am open to other suggestions.

  46. paulie

    From Geoff Neale:

    I want to state my opinion about one aspect of the discussion. An election is not a motion, and the Bylaws do not require us to hold open elections. In my terms on the LNC I have participated in just about every method known to man, and it has always been the decision of the LNC how each election is conducted.

    Additionally, while methods like IRV and such do minimize the need for multiple ballots, I am wary of methods that take longer to explain than the simpler approach of just voting many times.

    It seems to me that the overriding reason for a mail ballot is so that we don’t get eight people flying to DC, only to find out that half of the candidates will not get even a single vote. I have not counted the ballots on the motion, but sense that it will either fail or barely pass.

    I am wondering whether there is any value at this point in an informal secret poll to figure out who the contenders are, so we can at least let the rest know their chances are not good.

    Geoffrey Neale
    Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

  47. Amused

    Back when Nolan died, several IPR regulars (Paulie, Myers, LGirl) argued that Nolan should be replaced with someone from his own faction.

    Will we be hearing that argument now that Root’s seat is empty?

  48. paulie

    Phillies has floated that argument (I can’t say for certain, but it may be because he is dead set against Hinkle).

    I’m not as inclined to make that argument now as I was then because the Root-Rutherford “side” did not agree to that argument when they filled seats the last couple of terms, so I see no reason to extend them that consideration now.

    Additionally, I know of no one from the current list of candidates that fits that criterion.

    Who would you consider that to be? Guy? David? Someone else? Phillies is suggesting it’s Hinkle, which Hinkle vigorously denies.

  49. George Phillies

    @62 I floated the argument because it would be hypocritical to argue it when Nolan departed us, but not when Root departed us. It is an interesting way to sort out some of the hypocrites who affect to be making principled arguments but only when it is to their advantage.

    The contrary argument, which is also valid as a consideration, is that the Root-Rutherford faction has been waging war to death against the not Root-Rutherford people — not just radicals — and the favor should be returned.

  50. paulie

    I have decided that as a candidate myself I will not be voting in the actual election. I’m not sure whether I should say who the other candidates I like besides myself are, except to say that there are several excellent choices, including the ones that I am hearing informally are the leading contenders.

  51. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Lenny, I removed your comment as spam. I’ll remove any similar comments as spam, so go do something productive instead of trolling here.

  52. From Der Sidelines

    Someone needs to tell Neale there is a difference between an election and an appointment as I have already explained.

  53. Steve M

    one problem with removing a post is it screws up where some uses the@post_number to say what they are responding to…. for example George @65 is now saying @65 I am perfectly happy…..

    Makes for confusing reading… is it possible to just remove the content and leave a blank post?

  54. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    The postthat I deleted had just been made as comment # 68, and my comment just replaced it. However, sometimes the numbers do get screwy but I don’t know how to prevent that.

  55. Steve M

    @72 thanks for the explanation…. i try to overcome it by stating the posters name as well as the @post_number..

    eg

    George @65 me too.

  56. George Phillies

    I continue to await an explanation as to how this proposal allows the secretary to retain the ballots, as opposed to some third party’s claims as to what the ballots are.

  57. paulie

    why not let the person who nominated root for the position state who their preferences are?

    Well, it has to be someone that is running or at least willing to run.

    Gary Johnson (NM) has some other matters to concern himself with at the moment.

    Not recalling who else nominated Wayne right now. Someone could check the record.

  58. paulie

    Surprise…Geoff Neale voted no.

    The main reason is that certain issues have been raised asking for rulings from me – here they are:

    Our bylaws allow for email ballots but do not allow other voting methods explicitly. I will not unilaterally rule that other methods are implicitly allowed because the nature of online voting is different enough to contradict the email method. All mail ballots are public, and known during the voting window, and online voting is private. I cannot reconcile these under the bylaws as written.

    I also will not rule that elections must be or cannot be secret. That always has been a group decision that I think should be enshrined in the bylaws or policy manual.

    Therefore, it is my position that this motion is out of order, but I am not clear if I have the authority under RNR to make an official ruling outside of a meeting.

    I agree that our time is limited and should be optimized. Therefore, if this motion fails, I will call for our meeting to start at 8AM and incorporate a working lunch to maximize our time.

    I still favor some form of non-binding private polling so that we can gently let some of the candidates know ahead of time that their chances are remote, but I see no way of avoiding the situation of candidates spending money in vain. It is up to the candidates to determine for themselves if the money and time involved is well spent.

    Geoffrey Neale

  59. Thomas L. Knapp

    Paulie @ 78,

    “Lee Wrights voted yes.”

    To clarify: You’re saying he voted yes to have a secret vote, contrary to the clear and unambiguous language of the bylaws? Or on something else?

  60. paulie

    He voted yes on Ruth Bennett’s motion. I believe that motion calls for a secret vote. Whether that violates the bylaws has been disputed by various people. He did not explain his vote.

  61. paulie

    Oddly, Vicki Kirkland has now voted no, despite being a cosponsor.

    I am guessing between that and Geoff’s vote this must mean the motion is dead?

  62. Thomas L. Knapp

    @80,

    “Whether that violates the bylaws has been disputed by various people.”

    “Denied,” perhaps. “Disputed,” no. “Disputed” implies that there is some ground for argument/debate of the issue, and there isn’t.

  63. From Der Sidelines

    @83: That is true. An email motion is treated the same as if it were made in person, and the Chair can rule it out of order, and the body can override the ruling of the Chair.

    Really, the only difference between email motions and votes and in-person motions and votes is that discussion tends to happen before a second, and also before a question is called. That can make it hairy, but if the timestamps are properly used to sort everything by time, then it can make sense.

  64. paulie

    Nays that count: Lark, Kirkland, Neale, Wiener, Myers*, Pojunis, Mack, Vohra

    *I’m counting Myers as a nay based on my understanding of the motion

    Ayes: Wrights, Bennett, Hagan, Cloud, Redpath

    Nays from alternates whose reps voted: Lieberman, me, Goldstein

    Starchild has told me he will vote no, but he hasn’t been online.

    Blau, abstaining for the record

  65. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    It does seem like an odd division of who voted yes and who voted no. Could it possibly mean more individual stands, and less factionalism on the LNC? Or did a few people get nervous that so many of us are watching this?

    Who knows? It might mean nothing at all.

  66. Nicholas Sarwark

    Their argument is that, because it is a vote on individuals that they interact with – ie people they know and will be running into – it is awkward to have the votes be public.

    That’s not an argument, it’s a sign that those people are not cut out to be on a board. If you can’t look someone in the eye and explain why you won’t vote for them, how can you make hard decisions about the direction of the organization?

  67. Nicholas Sarwark

    I continue to await an explanation as to how this proposal allows the secretary to retain the ballots, as opposed to some third party’s claims as to what the ballots are.

    If the form allows the voter to enter his/her name, that person could be polled after the fact to verify that the system recorded his/her vote correctly.

    When I lose a trial, I ask the court to poll the jurors individually to verify that the verdict read by the foreman is actually their verdict.

  68. George Phillies

    @90 Polling after the fact, “stand up and speak”, is unreliable, unless done by secret ballot.

    The proposed system does not appear to record in the end who voted each way.

  69. Stewart Flood

    If the proposed system acts in the manner that Dr Phillies describes, then it would be a ByLaws violation on two counts: substantive motion as well as a request by at least one member for a roll call vote.

  70. Zapper

    Why is it that the LNC is involved in a sideshow while only a few weeks remain for the Johnson campaign and hundreds of other LP candidates and volunteers who are actively working on the election to get out our message, raise money, attract voters, get media attention and to get Gary Johnson into the debates starting next week?

    Come on guys, get out of your little squabbly world of minuscule importance …

    … lead … follow … or get out of the way !

  71. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Fair comment, Zapper. I spent last evening researching California’s multiple propositions and wrote ten letters inviting speakers from the respective groups to talk to our region at our October meeting (although in most cases, of course, we’ll explain to the speaker why we don’t need such a law–); I’m taking a break now to write an update for IPR re: this replacement spot; after that, I’ll spend some time this evening writing 7 more companies about their sponsorship in the exclusionary debates. Some of us have become quite proficient at multi-tasking. I guess I need 2 monitors at home, like I have at work, though.

  72. Pingback: Compilation of Candidate Statements for Open At-Large Position on the LNC | Independent Political Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *