I(PR), with help from David Nolan who printed up the ballots and gave me the idea, and help from David Nolan, Mark Bodenhausen, Anna Alldredge, Dan Karlan, Alicia Mattson and Aaron Starr in counting (my apologies if I forgot anyone) conducted a poll of the attendees at the Libertarian State Leadership Alliance/National Committee dinner and chairs debate.
The results were as follows:
Round 1
Root 29
Hancock 21
Myers 13
Phillies 12
Hinkle 7
NOTA 1
Illegible 1
Round 2 (dropping off lowest place humans one by one)
Root 29
Hancock 24
Myers, Phillies tied at 13
NOTA 1
Round 3
Hancock 44
Root 31
NOTA 1
Caveats:
* Myers was a write-in, the ballots were printed before he decided to drop in at the last minute today.
* Some people only checked their top choice whereas other people ranked all their choices.
* The order of candidates was different on different ballots to minimize any prejudice introduced by ballot order.
-paulie
My recollection is California allowed people to vote for up to two candidates that year (without cumulative voting). This is the same way we vote for LNC At-Large candidates at the national convention.
There is a much bigger problem with splitting votes in such a multi-seat election process than is present in single seat elections with round by round eliminations. I don’t deny there will be some votes lost at the margin by not uniting behind a single candidate for chair; however, it is nowhere near the problem of vote splitting in for example a two seat election in which three candidates appeal to the same demographics.
This is why I prefer a single single-transferable voting system or a cumulative voting system for LNC At-Large elections. I proposed both to the Bylaws Committee. Single transferable voting was reported out. Cumulative voting was not reported out. In my opinion single transferable voting is a better system, but cumulative voting is easier to understand — and thus more likely to be passed by the delegates.
LPCA doesn’t use ranked votes. In the above-mentioned races for LNC regional rep, we cast an unranked ballot for up to two candidates, with the top two vote-getters winning. If we only have one regional rep seat, then our ExCom chooses among the two winners, and has always chosen the top vote-getter.
So Rob is right that Starchild’s presence in the race could have hurt him among people who liked both better than M but liked Mark better than both. However, the LPUS Chair balloting is by multi-round elimination, and isn’t subject to the problem that allegedly hurt Rob’s race for LNC rep. Like Paulie, I’m mystified that Rob doesn’t seem to understand how multi-round elimination voting works. Rob seems to assume that in 2008 all Hancock supporters would have preferred Bennett to Redpath, but the data from the next round of voting overwhelmingly suggest that wasn’t quite the case.
JT, LPCA uses ranked votes.
Single-round or multi-round?
Rob, does the California LP use round-by-round elimination voting to determine its LNC rep? If it did, and if you’re correct that you were the second choice of most of the Starchild voters, then he would been dropped and you would have won. So the fact that he was initially running against you and splitting the “gay vote” wouldn’t have cost you the race. Elimination voting is what the national LP uses for LNC chair.
I don’t know the answer to that, but if California does use round by round, perhaps (some, most, all?) Starchild supporters either did not have a second choice or thought Mark Hinkle was the next best candidate?
To clarify, btw, I myself have nothing against Mark Hinkle. I was strategizing with Rob Power so he would beat M Carling.
In case anyone believes Rob Power beating M Carling would have been irrelevant, keep in mind that regional negotiations take into account who would be the representative. I believe if Rob had been the second representative then California would have joined in a double region.
Rob Power wrote (@71):
Rob,
I certainly remember that exchange; however, I don’t think I limited it to “pro-gay” or used that phrase. I simply said you pulled from similar demographics and I stand by that comment. If my recollection is wrong and I inadvertently made an offensive generalization, then I apologize.
My suggestion then was that Rob run for representative endorsed by Starchild and Starchild run for alternate endorsed by Rob.
JT, LPCA uses ranked votes. We elect two (residual in the Bylaws from more robust times when CA was a/in a double region) and the XC chooses one since we have only one at the moment.
I do understand that.
What happened in this straw poll? The non-Root votes accrued to Hancock, who eventually won.
We don’t normally take down threads. Of course, I don’t know what might happen if and when IPR is ever sold again.
Fair enough.
The radicals did support Ruth, in fact the Radical Caucus booth was making and distributing her buttons. Hancock had his own supporters, and for some of them their second choice was apparently either Redpath or NOTA.
Where are the numbers supporting this contention?
Not in this straw poll. Not in Dr. Phillies’ results for President in Denver. Not in any of his previous runs for chair – four, I think it was?
I’m happy to consider evidence, although it ain’t up to me. I know Ernie has zero interest in dropping out and I doubt Hinkle would either. The best strategy would be for Rob to help convince the three candidates to do everything they can to convince each other’s supporters to rank all three ahead of NOTA and ahead of Root, and to stay and vote in the rounds after their top choice is eliminated. I would join him in such a unity campaign. Anything beyond that is just wishful thinking on Rob’s part and if anything, if he sticks with continuing to call for candidates – including the winner of the straw poll – to drop out and endorse his candidate, he will achieve the opposite of his intention.
Rob, what would lead you to suspect that we would take a thread down? We’ve taken very, very few threads down, ever, and for specific reasons when we have.
Well, if you want to coalesce behind a single candidate, the straw poll results indicate that should be Ernie Hancock.
They certainly don’t indicate that it should be George Phillies, nor does any other evidence I can think of.
And I say this as someone whose first choice was and remains Mark Hinkle.
However, again, I do not believe that any of the candidates will withdraw due to such an argument, and if anything they will take it as an insult.
The real unity proposal is the one I advanced here.
If Rob doesn’t get behind it, he’ll help achieve the exact results he is warning against.
Rob, does the California LP use round-by-round elimination voting to determine its LNC rep? If it did, and if you’re correct that you were the second choice of most of the Starchild voters, then he would been dropped and you would have won. So the fact that he was initially running against you and splitting the “gay vote” wouldn’t have cost you the race. Elimination voting is what the national LP uses for LNC chair.
Brian: “The impression I got in Denver was that a large majority of delegates didn’t identify with either of the two small caucuses who brought agendas to that convention.”
Personally, I didn’t mean that most delegates were involved in a particular “caucus.” I was referring to my own perception of which individuals were more radical and which were more moderate concerning their own political perspective. In that regard, I’ve thought that the past national conventions I’ve attended were roughly equal, meaning that neither side far outweighed the other. But I didn’t conduct a scientific poll or anything.
Brian: “Thus I think it’s a mistake to focus on the (largely false) dichotomy of radical vs. pragmatic.”
I think that when you’re talking about many individuals whose common interest is ideological, the category of “radical/moderate” or “purist/pragmatist” or “nutcase/coward” (in less amicable terms) is the main divider. Whether or not it’s a good idea for Libertarians to focus on that divider is another question.
It’s not just about the final votes, guys. It’s about campaigns leading up to the vote.
Though the dozen or so Libertarians who live and breathe by IPR may not seem to understand this, the overwhelming majority of delegates make their voting decisions at the convention. So if the Root campaign is united, but the campaigns opposing Root are divided, what do you think will happen?
If we get to convention without a clear single opponent to Root, and that leads to a Root victory, which will lead to me declining the nomination for Secretary, don’t you dare take down this thread. I plan to link to it and refer to it whenever anyone asks me what happened or accuses me of “flaking out” (to use Mr. Nolan’s phrase).
It’s hardly “flaking out” if I’m giving you months of fair warning that I refuse to be Root’s Secretary.
I’ve learned my lesson about splitting the vote. At the California party convention a couple of years ago, in the race for LNC Regional Rep, Chuck Moulton warned me (right in front of Starchild, so I’m not betraying any confidences) that if Starchild stayed in the race, he’d pull all the “pro-gay” votes from me and cause Hinkle to get elected. I naively said “the more, the merrier.”
Mark Hinkle 34
M Carling 33
Rob Power 28
Starchild 17
Herb Peters 1
NOTA 1
And Hinkle was elected our LNC Regional Rep. I don’t claim that I would have gotten all of Starchild’s votes, but I don’t think M would have gotten any. If I had gotten even a dozen of those votes that went to Starchild, I probably would have won. Given all the crap that has gone on with the witch hunt against Angela, the attempt to remove Lee, and other nonsense on the LNC, and given Mark’s voting record (see the “Pie Fight” diagram that was circulated at LSLA), don’t you think my vote on the LNC would have been helpful these past couple of years?
I’ve learned my lesson. When will the rest of you learn?
To be quite honest, if the radicals screw this up yet again like they did in 2008 by not supporting Ruth, I really don’t mind following in Ruth’s footsteps and taking a break from politics. Ruth seems quite happy. I’ve already stepped down as county party chair, am off the state party executive committee, and have announced that I’m not seeking re-election as Outright’s national chair, so I have no other “irons in the fire.”
Either we do this thing right and avoid splitting our campaign efforts in St. Louis, or Root will win, and I will no longer have any leadership positions in the LP and will be free to spend my time on other pursuits. Given my current level of frustration with Root’s opponents splitting their campaign efforts, such a break is not at all unappealing to me.
It’s totally up to the radicals. They don’t have a majority to elect Ernie, but they have a significant enough minority to decide whether it’s Root or Phillies chairing the next LNC. Those are the only two choices, folks.
Don’t you dare take this thread down when I’m proven right. People need to know why I’ll be humming the “Told You So” song every time Root does something infuriating as LNC Chair (such as aligning himself with Sarah freaking Palin).
Really, folks. How sad is it that a Palin worshiper has a very real chance of becoming LNC Chair? And it’s only because our side can’t coalesce around a single electable candidate to oppose him. It’s all so very, very embarrassing, on so many levels.
The impression I got in Denver was that a large majority of delegates didn’t identify with either of the two small caucuses who brought agendas to that convention. My impression was that most NatCon delegates were hardcore activists who were confident that the LP would remain true to its principles, and who were pragmatic about giving the LP its best chance to put a positive libertarian message before a large audience of voters. Barr and Ruwart each represented such a chance, and the number of delegates that voted for them on the final ballot was by no means a measure of how many delegates agreed with their particular variant of libertarian ideology.
Thus I think it’s a mistake to focus on the (largely false) dichotomy of radical vs. pragmatic. A more important dimension is risk aversion — whether a delegate thinks the risk allegedly posed by a candidate to the LP’s ideology or cohesiveness is worth the potential benefits of having that person lead our parade.
Mike: “This indicates that, at least in Denver, the Party was pretty evenly split between factions, and it remains that way to this day.”
That’s been my experience at Libertarian national conventions. I think the broad radical contingent (those who identify as anarchists or strict minarchists) and the broad moderate contingent (those who identify as fiscal conservatives/social liberals) are roughly equal there. Of course, if you use the term “radical” only as a synonym for “anarchist,” then those individuals are definitely outnumbered.
Two excellent points.
The only floor management I saw/heard was “vote for whoever you want, whenever, just not Bob Barr.” That didn’t seem terribly well thought through.
Years ago the NY Lottery had a slogan: If you don’t play, someone else wins. Same principle here: If you don’t go to St Louis, don’t be surprised when you wake up Memorial Day and find Wayne chair.
You can’t beat somebody with nobody. And your silence/non-attendance will be interpreted by Wayne’s forces as consent.
I again repeat: If you are on the fence about going to St Louis or not, please do not make a final decision until you talk to me.
Not necessarily. To make that claim would assume nobody switched votes between ballots, and we just don’t know if that’s the case.
And I wasn’t commenting about Rob’s theory either way. Just quoting numbers.
But if Rob is correct, and all of Hancock’s vote would have gone to Bennett, then Bennett would not have won on the first ballot by besting Redpath 184-183-2, (49.86%)leading to the second round to be Bennett vs. NOTA. (185 votes was 50.14%)
If anyone kept Redpath from winning on the first ballot, it was those two NOTA votes, not Hancock.
So, it seems that if Hancock hadn’t run for chair in Denver, Redpath would have won on the first ballot. At least as I read that.
Rob’s argument is still incorrect, unless I see something I have not yet seen.
@54:
IIRC, looking at the minutes, nobody had a majority on the first ballot for LNC Chair in 08, and Redpath missed it by two NOTA votes, and Hancock was eliminated. The next round was +21 Redpath, +34 Bennett, +2 NOTA, +1 write-in (JR Enfeld), -13 total.
It’s also worth noting by looking at those same minutes, on the second ballot for VP, Root only got a majority by 6 votes, and on the last ballot for President, yet Barr is listed as getting exactly 50% of the votes by raw numbers but 51.6% of the total, which doesn’t make sense. Then again, most of those percentages don’t match the raw numbers either.
This indicates that, at least in Denver, the Party was pretty evenly split between factions, and it reamins that way to this day.
My prediction is that he won’t.
But regardless of who does or does not drop out, if Hinkle, Phillies and Hancock do everything they can to convince everyone who supports them to rank the other two above NOTA and above Root, they will not “split the vote” as Rob fears.
Of course it will still be up to the individual delegates, no candidate owns their supporters.
Based on results in Austin, I think it may be realistic to expect Hinkle to drop out before St. Louis.
I don’t think it is realistic to expect either Hancock, Phillies or Hinkle to drop out and endorse the other, and I’m not sure it would do the remaining candidate(s) much good anyway.
What I would hope they would all do, however, and which I don’t think is unreasonable, is to ask all their supporters to rank all three ahead of NOTA.
Not that this would sway all their supporters. But it would make sense, and it’s the only tactical alliance I can see having any chance of actually happening.
I don’t think Rob is using moderate in a sense that encompasses Root and Barr supporters.
As best I understand it, he is saying there are more Phillies-type Libertarians than Ruwart/Kubby type Libertarians at conventions, so the Ruwart/Kubby/Hancock style candidate should endorse Phillies and crew so that we don’t keep getting Barr, Root, et al.
But Ruwart’s close second for President, Kubby’s close second for VP, and Hancock’s lead in the final ballot of the straw poll indicate that Rob’s theory is incorrect, unless I misunderstood him.
Rob: “Moderates outnumber the radicals at convention.”
How are you defining “moderates” and “radicals”?
Statement:
“Moderates outnumber the radicals at convention. If it were the other way around, I instead would be encouraging George to step down and endorse Ernie.”
Reply:
“If this is true, why did Ruwart, not Phillies, end up with second place in Denver?”
I guess it depends on what you mean by “moderate.” My guess would be that Ruwart, not Phillies, ended up in second place in Denver because the “moderate” vote started out split mostly between Gravel, Phillies, Root, Jingozian and Barr, and broke significantly for Barr as other candidates were eliminated.
The problem in 08 was failing to bring people to the convention and not enough floor management.
It appears that he must have gotten second place votes from moderates in the straw poll. How else do you explain the results?
If this is true, why did Ruwart, not Phillies, end up with second place in Denver?
I don’t understand this logic.
Hancock appears to either have more support, or be able to better sway people with his rhetorical skills.
Or perhaps this was a hugely skewed sample? But, it did not appear that way.
Nor would it be indicated by the relative results for Ruwart and Phillies in Denver.
I came into this with Hinkle as my first choice, and undecided between Phillies and Hancock for second.
The results are pushing me to Hancock for second place support as it appears he stands the best chance.
The results of this straw poll indicate the opposite. What is your theory as to why?
BTW sorry for breaking this up into multiple comments, the computer keeps shutting down….
Many radicals supported Bennett. I think the judgment is misplaced.
Beyond that, see analysis in my preceding comment. Either some Hancock voters had Redpath as their second choice or it was Hancock or NOTA.
Eliminating Hancock as a first round choice would not have made Bennett chair.
I don’t understand the problem. The votes of non-Root supporters accrue to the other non-Root candidates as their candidates are eliminated, eventually catapulting one of them ahead of Root, as we saw in this straw poll.
The only way this fails is if
1) Root has a first round victory
2) Some of the people voting for non-Root candidates find Root preferable to some of the other non-Root candidates (that was not the case here)
or 3) They find NOTA preferable to some of the other non-Root candidates; but in that case, eliminating their preferred candidate(s) leaves them supporting NOTA.
What am I missing?
LOL, Ed Godard. It’s not like I ever expected to get the vote of a Kenn Gividen supporter like yourself. But thanks for coming up with another reason not to vote for me, as if my being the National Chair of Outright Libertarians wasn’t already reason enough for you. 🙂
Look, the Chair and the Secretary have to work together more than any two other members of the LNC, so “building the best party possible” means finding a Chair and a Secretary who respect each other.
I’d be happy to post a letter I received from Wayne as proof that he doesn’t respect me, and anyone who reads it will understand why I no longer respect him.
Wayne needs to find his own candidate for Secretary. I’d be willing to serve with any of the other gentlemen running.
I don’t believe Hancock would allow himself to be bogged down in LNC minutia.
What he would do is use the title to get additional publicity.
I wouldn’t mind a Hancock chairmanship if we have a good committee to go with him.
Much the same as with Wayne, the only difference is that I like Ernie’s ideology better.
Thank you, that helps as well.
Righteous. Looking forward to revelations – four horsemen and all 😛
OK, finally got your point 🙂
Unfortunately, there was no way to do actual multi-round voting in this case. No one would have sat there long enough. Well, maybe a couple of people.
This was the best we could do.
Wow, aren’t we a tolerant bunch.
The only candidate for Chair for whom I’ve stated I am not WILLING to serve as Secretary is Root.
So, unless my candidate wins, I will not serve. Promises, Promises.
I don’t understand statements by individuals running that go “I won’t serve under…”. It’s about building the best party possible, no? Also, why would you not want to bring your position to the table? Better to abdicate entirely?
I can’t get behind anybody who makes such a statement. It’s absurd and child’s play. Have to vote against you in St. Louis.
The only candidate for Chair for whom I’ve stated I am not WILLING to serve as Secretary is Root.
But here’s the point I’ve been trying to make. Root’s backers will not split their vote. Those opposed to Root are currently splitting their vote.
Ruth Bennett would be Chair today if the radicals hadn’t thrown their support to Hancock in 2008. The radicals likewise can screw up this election , too.
Moderates simply won’t vote for Ernie when they hear his ideas about what the role of the LNC ought to be. And there aren’t enough radicals (anymore) to get Ernie elected over Root.
The only way to stop Root is for the radicals to learn a political lesson from 2008 when their support of Hancock over Bennett led to Redpath’s re-election. Angela Keaton has clearly learned this lesson, and she has endorsed Phillies.
The radicals must support Phillies (preferably with Hancock’s endorsement), or else Root will be the next Chair. Just do the math, and don’t trick yourself into thinking Hancock will get moderate votes. Moderates outnumber the radicals at convention. If it were the other way around, I instead would be encouraging George to step down and endorse Ernie.
So when I say I will serve as Secretary only if Phillies is elected as Chair, it’s not a matter of willingness, it’s a matter of crunching the numbers, understanding past votes, and learning from past electoral mistakes such as 2008.
I’d be willing to serve under the others besides Root, but if George isn’t elected, it will be Root, and I won’t serve under Root.
I hope that clarifies my past statements about the conditions under which I’ll accept the nomination as Secretary. I’m willing to serve with all except one of the candidates, but none of them besides George have any chance of beating Wayne at convention.
From what I have seen, Ernie Hancock appears to be the candidate for Chair with the most commitment to actually promoting Freedom and making the Libertarian Party part of the Freedom Movement. If I were a delegate, I would vote for Ernie Hancock.
My only issue would be that if he is national chair, it might take time away from his other activism.
@28, you said, “The rest of Phillies’ team plus Hancock at the top would be good, although I have heard that the Phillies team will only run if Phillies is elected chair. A shame, if true. ”
I can’t speak for everyone on the “team,” but I can tell you that I intend to run and I intend to win, even against someone as formidable as Mark Rutherford, regardless of who wins as chair.
The summers in SoCal are pretty darn nice, too, but y’know… I care about the LP, not about stroking my own ego or punishing the delegates for making a choice I don’t agree with by taking away a choice.
I’ve said repeatedly that I can work with ANY of these men as chair. My goals, my ideas… they’re not subject to who has the gavel in hand, and I won’t be petulant and hold them back simply because I don’t agree with the delegates in who they elect.
I can tell you who I’d RATHER work with, sure, and in fact, I have by allowing myself to be listed as part of the New Path slate, but at the end of the day, it comes down to doing what’s best for the party. I have something that can complement each of the chair candidates and make the party stronger.
If Hancock is elected, given that he’s said repeatedly that he really doesn’t care what the LNC does and would rather focus on the 13 year old activist “over there,” he’s going to need someone like me who actually DOES care what the LNC does and is willing to take point on the administrative tasks that he doesn’t find as important.
If Phillies is elected, he will probably want me to be the more public face of the party while he focuses on the administrative tasks for which he is best suited.
And so on.
So no, don’t worry about “the rest of the team” backing out if Phillies doesn’t win.
Hancock cannot see the forest through the trees. He will hold the lp party back as the rest of them did.
I was fortunate to be there for one of the most enjoyable PL panel ‘debates’ I’ve seen in the entire time I’ve been involved with the organization.
In a nutshell, here’s what I saw happen:
George put up a surprisingly coherent presentation, but ultimately said, “I want to be LNC Chair and will organize it like I did Massachusetts.”
Mark said: “I’ve been around a long time, vote for me”.
John said: “Buy my website idea”.
Ernie said: “The LP should join the freedom movement–the Love-a-lution”, and here’s how (detailed his plans and backed them up with multiple examples of success), we can turn the PL into an actual political force by freeing minds and empowering individuals.”
Wayne said: “I’m Wayne, I’ve been hailed by the neo-con media as a ‘friend’….I’m Wayne.”
Had there been enough physical ballots for all the attendees, I am confident that Ernest Hancock would have won right out of the gate. The young people coming into the LP want to “do” something, not relax in the confidence that the LNC has polite and sedate meetings.
Ernest Hancock is THE MAN! Go Ernie!
Hancock! Hancock! Hancock!
Freedom is the answer…what’s the question?
Vote Hancock for LP freedom!
… conversation with a couple friends on the committee suggest that the speaker lineup is not final. Could be changed.
Further, bear in mind (and I’m sure Bob Sullentrup would concur) there are many fine places to have lunch or dinner in St Louis. Even places that can accommodate a good number of people simultaneously.
“More will be revealed”…
Paulie
Thomas says that at NatCons everybody votes for one. Then the lowest vote-getter gets eliminated. Then everybody votes for one again, and so on. That’s called Elimination Runoff. It’s not a ranking method.
Up top everybody fills out a rankvote ballot, and then the data is run through an elimination and reallocation algorithm. That’s usually called Instant Runoff in the States. Instant Runoff attempts to simulate Elimination Runoff, but no ranking method can do such a thing. They’re much different methods and their yields differ.
Yes, it does.
Thank you.
The gaping hole in Chuck’s analysis is in the assumption that “Ernie is everyone’s second choice.” As I said, Ernie is the second choice of three voters whose favorite is Hinkle. That’s all we know, because it’s instant runoff. Those whose favorite is Myers or Phillies may have had Hinkle, Phillies or Myers for their second and third choices for the most part and Hancock mostly fourth, for all we know. So, to say that Ernie “will win if he gets to the second ballot” can not be assumed. It may be that Mark Hinkle will win if he gets to the second ballot.
This’s a perfect example of the perverse outcomes that instant runoff can and does yield.
Interesting question. I’m not sure who, if anyone, kept the original ballots to provide any additional analysis.
I’m also not sure how the results would have changed if Myers was printed on the ballot, although keep in mind, this is his home state, there was also a state LP convention here this weekend, and there was a much larger percentage of the audience from Texas than we might expect in St Louis unless Texas brings busloads of people and seats them in other delegations after filling their own (unlikely). I don’t know if Myers will be traveling to other state conventions to build support, either.
Also, I wonder how the results would change if everyone knew it was a ranked runoff rather than simply a first-choice-only ballot?
In any case, the voting system was the same as what we have been using at NatCons, and as far as I know it is the one we will use at this NatCon as well.
Paulie
Let me clarify, for the record as I have said to others in Austin. Wish we’d had more a chance to talk… but we can any time.
I am in it to win and I am in it for the duration. George is my first choice. I have said I could work with Ernie or Mark. I do not know enough about John Jay to say yea or nay but I suspect I could work with him reasonably well too.
I would prefer not to work with Wayne. However, my team has people running for regional and alternate spots too. I’m not going to say, gee if George is out I’m going home, so best of luck to y’all but summers in Maine are nice and I don’t need the aggravation. So you (who are elected off the floor) deal with Wayne, Aaron and those folks for 2 years.
People vote strategically and may think hey let’s vote Wayne in and put a guy like James there to balance things out and because we like him/his ideas/or whatever.
Hope that helps.
I prefer approval voting too, Thomas, for the same reason. . . and because there’s nothing simpler.
James and David
It may be that Hinkle was the most popular second choice. There’s no way of knowing because it’s instant runoff. There’s even a chance that Hinkle was the most popular in total first and second choices. Bucklin would reveal that. The above instant runoff data conceals that.
In fact, I thought there were plans for a straw poll as a test of Ms. Mattson’s e-voting system, but if so, those plans were scrapped.
If Mr. Nolan had not come up with his forms, there would have been no poll at all.
At this point, I am more inclined to think it was a trial balloon and a distraction from the speaker lineup issue, which received far less attention as a result, and ended up being a big win for the currently dominant faction.
For me, the biggest surprise in the poll results was Ernie Hancock’s strength and Hinkle’s weakness. Mark is well-known in CA, but not so much elsewhere — while Root, Hancock and Phillies have made many appearances around the country. I agree with Chuck Moulton’s analysis above. Unless there is a big upset in the next 3 months, this will be a contest between Hancock and Root. I really wish Root would run for US Senate in Nevada instead of running for LNC Chair. He could be a major presence in that race!
I would certainly not write him off, especially with Mark Rutherford and Aaron Starr on his team, along with several state chairs of large states.
Chuck,
Once again Chuck’s analysis is on the money. And as someone who wants administrative change, radical philosophy AND media exposure – I’m not unhappy.
Hinkle remains my first choice, but I don’t think he did well at all in the debate, and I don’t think he will improve fast enough to make his candidacy viable. The debates will make a big difference in who is elected.
Hancock could be really good, depending on who is elected to the rest of the LNC.
The rest of Phillies’ team plus Hancock at the top would be good, although I have heard that the Phillies team will only run if Phillies is elected chair. A shame, if true.
I haven’t heard Mark Rutherford, or anyone who supports Root, saying whether they will run if Ernie is elected chair. Mark Rutherford would also work well with Ernie as chair – but only if he agrees to do it.
Ernie is not bringing a team, so if these results can be indicative of what we can expect, it’s time to start thinking seriously about who we can round out the rest of the LNC with. The chair is not the dictator of the party, and only has limited powers – the rest of the LNC is at least as important.
Melty,
Personally, I prefer approval voting. It seems to me to be inherently less polarizing.
Poor Wayne. Let me get my violin.
I would have thought, frankly, that Mark Hinkle would have been everybody’s second choice. That part of Saturday surprised me. I think Chuck’s analysis is very prescient.
Right now it looks to me like Aaron and his people are on the defensive. They probably assured Wayne that the straw poll was a lock. They obviously assumed their little floor fee scheme was a fait accompli, what with Alicia’s 10-page manifesto of “incorrect arguments” and their blessing from Mr Robert himself. From comments they made at the LNC meeting, they obviously know their actions and activities with respect to the LNC are now and will continue to be under extraordinarily close scrutiny.
I am still waiting to hear their defense of their stewardship. I suspect, in the end, they will offer none.
Thanx Thomas. I’m glad to hear that the method used at the big convention for chairman is the same as for president. It’s called Elimination Runoff – no ranking, just an exhaustive series of runoffs.
I know that Bill Redpath officially endorses a form of ranked voting that eliminates and reallocates which in the States is commonly called “Instant Runoff”. IRV proponents have recently taken to calling it “Ranked Choice Voting”, as if there were no other kind of voting that involved ranking your choices.
Instant Runoff is an attempt to simulate Elimination Runoff in one crack, but that’s an impossibility.
If the going method were to be changed so everybody would vote just once, what Darryl suggested above would be a good idea. Approval Voting is the world’s simplest form of voting, even simpler than Plurality Voting. It tends to select someone that most find good to tolerable. Or else do Range (Score) Voting.
Melty,
I think the point is this: Paulie wasn’t trying to produce a projected ranked voting outcome, he was trying to simulate the actual process as it is conducted at LP conventions.
Unless that’s changed (and I know that Bill Redpath was advocating for ranked voting, but I can’t remember if it was put into the bylaws in 2008 and don’t think it was), then the process is:
1) First ballot. Everyone votes for a candidate.
2) Subsequent ballots: Lowest-performing candidate in each ballot is eliminated from next ballot, except that NOTA always remains.
3) Race ends when either NOTA or a candidate gets a majority on a ballot.
That’s what Paulie was trying to simulate in his analysis.
Personally I am encouraged … but this was a different sample and three months is forever in politics. Don’t count on the results in St. Louis necessarily resembling the results in Austin.
Chuck,
You write: “the national convention will be much more radical than the state chairs conference was.”
I’m not sure that’s true … and I’m not sure it matters as much as it might appear to matter.
Even if we assume that state LP chairs in general are less radical than convention delegates in general, it’s also possible that more radical than non-radical LP chairs traveled to Austin for some reason (to register opposition to the registration fee, for example).
And even if we assume that convention delegates tend to be more radical than state chairs, it’s possible that the state chairs have a more experiential/long-term view of the candidates while the delegates may be more easy to sway with immediate presentation.
I’m not trying to be a buzz-crusher here, but I wouldn’t write Wayne off just yet.
Chuck, from the data only the 3 second choices from Hinkle’s stack are certain. For all that can be told from the data there as few as zero second choices for Hancock in Myers’ and Phillies’ stacks, and even zero third choices. The 20 from Myers’/Phillies’ stacks that went to Hancock were second or third or fourth choices.
Approval Voting could be another option – On an approval ballot, the voter can vote for any number of candidates (similar to IRV) however the preference isn’t made between first choice, second choice, etc…
These are very interesting results.
My interpretation:
1) Root can only win on the first ballot.
2) Ernie is everyone’s second choice, which means he will win if it gets to a second ballot.
Practically no one shifted from any other candidate to Root after they were eliminated. His total went from 29 to 31 — only gaining 2.
Ernie gets a lot of overlapping demographics in my opinion.
If you want administrative change, you vote for George Phillies or Ernie Hancock. If George is your first choice, Ernie is your second choice (and vice versa). So when George is eliminated, Ernie gets a lot of his supporters.
If you want radical philosophy, you vote for Mark Hinkle or Ernie Hancock. If Mark is your first choice, Ernie is your second choice (and vice versa). So when Mark is eliminated, Ernie gets a lot of his supporters.
If you want media exposure, you vote for Wayne Allyn Root or Ernie Hancock. If Wayne is your first choice, Ernie is your second choice (and vice versa). So when Wayne is eliminated, Ernie gets a lot of his supporters.
So as candidates are eliminated, Ernie accumulates more and more votes. Wayne accumulates almost no extra votes.
Also, I heard that Wayne was despondent about the results in his hospitality suite after the straw poll. He was heard to mutter that he couldn’t believe there were so many radicals at a state chairs conference. Wayne is in for a rude awakening: the national convention will be much more radical than the state chairs conference was.
I’m saying, if you’re gonna do rank voting, it’s better to keep to a simple form of it. Do no eliminating & reallocating. Just add on.
From the above data it can be inferred that out of the 7 ballots topped with Hinkle, 3 had Hancock for a second choice, 1 Phillies, and 3 gave no second choice. Also, on the 25 ballots topped with Myers or Phillies, the second, third and fourth choices included 20 for Hancock and 2 for Root. Nothing more can be inferred.
Here’s how rank voting with no elimination & reallocation, but just adding on, might look. (it’s called Bucklin voting, and I’m not a proponent of it, but it’s a better rank vote than instant runoff)
First Choices
Root 29
Hancock 21
Myers 13
Phillies 12
Hinkle 7
nota 1
illeg 1
No majority, so tally up all second choices and add onto first choices for each. (I’ll just suppose that over a third of the people gave a second choice, and I’ll supply some possible hypothetical numbers.)
Second Choices
Root 1 -> 30
Hancock 14 -> 35
Myers 3 -> 16
Phillies 5 -> 17
Hinkle 6 -> 13
Still no majority, so look at all third choices and add on. (I’ll suppose over a quarter of the people gave a third choice, and make more possible hypothetical numbers.)
Third Choices
Root 0 -> 30
Hancock 8 -> 43
Myers 4 -> 20
Phillies 5 -> 22
Hinkle 5 -> 18
If any votes fewer for Hancock it would go on to add on fourth choices.
The actual numbers could be much different, but would probably yield Hancock winner in the third or fourth round.
This additive style for the count (Bucklin), is much less prone to perverse outcomes than elimination & reallocation (instant runoff).
Congratulations to Ernest Hancock on winning the Austin chair debate! Coming on the heels of his recent victory at the California LP convention (a state that went for Root two years ago), this result gives me increased confidence that the Libertarian Party will be able to pull back from the dismal fate that the party has been sliding toward as it has gradually downplayed libertarian ideology and failed to cherish a revolutionary spirit.
I can see the campaign posters now: “If you like Aaron Starr’s tenure as LNC Treasurer, you’re going to LOVE Wayne Allyn Root’s tenure as LNC Chair!”
my reference was to apostrophe typo
Submit button, general gremlin. I discovered a workaround last night.
When you type your comment hit tab and then enter rather than pointing the mouse at the submit button and clicking.
Paulie,
The twitter widget wasn’t in comments, it was in the post. Also, I immediately deleted it when I saw that it didn’t appear or work.
If the problem we’re talking about is the “submit” button not working, that’s something that I’ve had happen occasionally. I don’t know what the cause of it is, but on past occasions I’ve not noticed any Javascript, etc., in play that might have to do with it. I think it’s just a general gremlin of some sort.
Tom, as an IPR writer, you can actually edit your comments…
Not sure how Melty’s system differs from what we did?
tab, enter seems to work when submit does not
Thanks Tom, though I can’t seem to comment on it now.
Nick,
Done!
We need a thread for the floor fee debate.
And now I have to admit that I thought the actual Chair election was tomorrow, rather than in May.
Oops! That’s egg you see on my face.
Ack! Apostrophe Police to the scene! “Gem’s” should have been “gems.”
Very interesting results (I agree with Brian on the surprise factor).
I expect that Phillies will do better at the convention than he did in this poll (he’s got considerable skill and experience in delegate outreach and will use it to improve the time between now and then).
On the other hand, I expect that the “Mark Rutherford factor” will exert less influence at a larger convention than it would presumably have had at this smaller leadership event. Mr. Rutherford is one of the gem’s in the LP’s crown in terms of organizational ability, etc., but he’s probably better-known among the crowd that was in Austin today than among the crowd that will be in St. Louis in May.
Let me clarify: they hold separate rounds of voting, eliminating a single candidate after each round. This procedure tries to simulate that process by automatically reallocating the votes for each round, — instant runoff voting.
Has the Libertarian Party been choosing its chairman with this algorithm? If so, since when and why?
To answer Melty, Paulie did it this way because this is exactly how it’s done during the election itself.
I wouldn’t read terribly much into these totals, since the total number of votes (84) is probably only about 20% of the total number of delegates. The interesting thing is how the numbers move. Based on the survey, we can tell the following things:
1) A substantial number of people liked the new guy.
2) Votes for the new guy were, at base, Hancock votes.
3) Hinkle voters seem to view Hancock, rather than Root, as their second choice.
4) The votes Root gets on the first ballot are the votes he’ll get throughout the convention. If he’s not over 40% on the first ballot, he’s done. He probably needs to be over 45% in order to win.
Why would ya wanna take a fine set o ranked ballots and eliminate and reallocate with them? There’s no need to get elaborate and opaque with it.
First everybody’s first choices are tallied under Round 1. Fine. From there, why not simply tally all second choices for each under Round 2, third choices under Round 3, fourth choices, rather than be tossing out choices for rerestacking? Keep it simple and transparent.
If you like, simply add the second choices to the first choices for each candidate to get each their totals, then third choices, then fourth. If the fifty percent line is meaningful to you, just add up rounds til that line is crossed. If done so, it’s called Bucklin voting. It’s a much simpler and less glitchprone algorithm for rankvoting than the nonadditive instant runoff method used above. Why obscure part of the vote with this shifty shellgamelike elimination/reallocation process?
Great idea!
Except for Root leading on the first ballot, there’s no part of these results that don’t surprise me.