Here’s a thread for anyone attending the convention to leave comments. Or, if you’re not at the convention and want to say something, that’s okay, too.
212 Comments
Comments are closed.
June 5, 2026
Your Premier Source on Third Parties and Independent Candidates Since 2008
Here’s a thread for anyone attending the convention to leave comments. Or, if you’re not at the convention and want to say something, that’s okay, too.
Jill Pyeatt is a small-business owner and jewelry designer from Southern California. She currently serves on the Judicial Committee of the Libertarian Party of CA. She can be found on Facebook and Twitter.
Comments are closed.
zapper wrote (@179):
No. “select” is a broader term that includes both “elect” and “appoint”.
The bylaws are ambiguous as to whether a vacancy is created and filled by the LNC or nominations are thrown open to new people which the convention delegates elect. I tend to think the vacancy filled by the LNC interpretation makes more sense in context.
However, if the vacancy filled by the LNC interpretation were chosen by the chair, the convention delegates would undoubtedly appeal the ruling of the chair and overrule him because they want to select the chair. It’s easier to pick the interpretation that the delegates would decide on anyway first, saving 10 minutes. That’s what I recommended to Hinkle the night before at the banquet.
I can’t stop being tired, myself. Going back to bed would be a wonderful use of my time today…
just slept 17 hrs and going back to bed….
http://www.thirdpartywatch.com/ came up with a really cool 404 error message which I jpg’d for future use.
No, they aren’t related.
ThirdPartyWatch.com was the original site. ThirdPartyPolitics.us just copies our entries, and Ballot Access News’, wholesale, and has no real readership.
I think you’re thinking of “Third Party Watch”. I don’t think they’re related, but I’m not certain.
So Is thirdpartypolitics.us the original IPR that got sold and everyone moved over here? hahahaha Can’t remember the name of the original one…
Trying to update articles on the official party wiki, but most of them could use significant work:
http://lpedia.org/Geoff_Neale
http://lpedia.org/R._Lee_Wrights
I’m SOOO tired and emotionally drained today, that I’m not up to posting much here. We’ll try to keep the important stuff posted, though.
This could actually be turned into a positive.
Brag about how the LP follows it’s rules.
Brag about how electing NOTA actually works and is a good idea.
Brag about using this opportunity to launch a nationwide search for the best candidate to be the LNC chair.
Then, do it.
Someone needs to get some sensible comments read to the convetion goers on the floor. The people watching have a better view of what’s happening now than the people caught up in the heat of the moment.
Sometimes, something happens which shows the true character of someone. Today was that day for Lee Wrights as he removed his name from the list of candidates for Chair.
Today is also that day for Mark Rutherford. The LP body voted twice yesterday that we did NOT want him as Chairman. The fact that he didn’t withdraw shows me his true character.
RC @ 197,
It would only take a few months at most – not long in the interest of Party unity and harmony.
If they pursue a second round of voting there will be too many complainers – with justification – It’s not worth the bad feelings to continue this past the NOTA results.
What’s this about MOLP Chair kicking 5 people who voted for Rutherford off the delegation… unless of course they were NOT MOLP people to start or lied about their intentions or whatever and he has that power via state party laws…
Carol @198 See @196
Wrights now going for V-Chair supporting Geoff Neale for Chair …whatever works!!
193 z, I dunno, that just looks like making the vice-chair the acting chair for QUITE some time…
I’ve put up an LNC thread
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/05/lnc-elections-thread/
#LPCON2012 Not clear, but looks like delegates decided Rutherford had lost and that’s why they are doing brand new candidates. Redpath and Wagner also nominated so far.
In other news, Paul takes 22 of 25 national delegate spots in Nevada, wins at least 15 of 24 in Maine, and at least one CD in Virginia with more to come…
@ 189
Let’s hope this is NOT correct.
It will not inspire trust among the membership if the Party doesn’t follow its own rules.
It does not give time for a search among the entire membership for the best candidate who may not be at this convention.
The convention actually made a wise decision by electing NOTA.
The bylaws give us time to wait and do an executive search and let the new NatCom find candidates and fill the position at a later date.
This is the best course of action.
@189: That is entirely out of order.
@ 186
Good point, RC. I accept that as a friendly amendment, with the further addition that I expect that such a 2/3 vote will not occur.
The delegates seem to want someone else. They may want to have time for a bit of a search among members of the whole LP, including those not in attendance at this convention, to become a unity candidate for Chair and to encourage the NatCom to make a greater effort to do an executive search and find such an applicant and select them.
@186: Because these are BYLAWS, which cannot be suspended, not rules, which can be.
#LNC2012 Six newly nominated candidates for LNC chair will get three minutes each to speak. Lee Wrights is one of them. Don’t know the rest.
more…
Given the choice between suspending the rules and having another round of Chair elections OR letting the LNC pick the next Chair, I can’t imagine that the intent was the latter. Nor can I imagine that ANYONE would prefer the latter. If one DOES prefer the latter, what’s the reasoning?
@184 makes sense. I heard they’re getting Judicial Committee on it. Like they have any credibility any more with Carling on there BLEEEEEH
Why is it not “game over” UNLESS the rules are suspended?
Even Mainiacs should get this.
Yes, in the final ballot, according to the bylaws, Rutherford was the lowest vote getter.
All candidates below 5% and the lowest vote getter are removed after each round.
NOTA is never removed.
So, Rutherford was the lowest vote getter, according to the bylaws. He is now removed.
Game over.
The question is, who there will point the proper Bylaws interpretation out to the delegates?
Rutherford was not the lowest vote getter in any of the votes yesterday.
Rutherford is removed from the ballot as the lowest vote getter.
There is no one left except NOTA.
NOTA wins.
Unless there has been a vote already this morning and NOTA got a clear majority, NOTA has not “won”.
“Should ‘None of the Above’ be selected for any Party office, that position shall be declared vacant and none of the losing candidates for that position may be selected to fill the vacancy for that term of office.”
This quote from the bylaws makes it clear that “None of the Above” having won means that the office is left “vacant.” It does not allow for another pass around the track at the convention. If it was the intent of the bylaws that another round of voting was allowed it would say so.
I suppose that it is possible that the convention could vote to suspend the rules – 2/3 vote? – and hold another round of voting for chair and even allow the losers back in the race. Wouldn’t that be a unifying force for the LP?!
And, quoting from @ 148:
“The Bylaws also say that in the event of a vacancy on the LNC, they appoint the position. Article 7, Section 9:
“The National Committee shall appoint new officers if vacancies occur, such officers to complete the term of the office vacated.”
Putting it all together: the new LNC, whomever they are, after the convention when they meet, would appoint a new Chair to fill the vacancy, but it cannot be Hinkle or Rutherford. Hence the LNC elections become damned important, as well as regional rep elections.
“Selected” is not the same as “elected”. They are two different words with two different meanings. A selection is by appointment by the LNC. An election is by the delegates on the floor.
Furthermore, if NOTA wins, and it did, per the Bylaws, the position is declared vacant. That means the election of NOTA is final and cannot be reopened, and the above-quoted Bylaw concerning vacancies of Officers is the controlling Bylaw. That does NOT mean that balloting can be reopened, as the vacancy decision, per the Bylaws, is final.”
It is obvious that now the race for LP Chair is over and NOTA has won. There is a vacancy that can be filled at the next NATCOM according to the rules. This is what the convention has decided.
We don’t need any more Oregon type crapola on this one.
Electioni over.
NOTA wins.
LP Chair is vacant for the next term that follows.
NatCom to fill the vacancy and choose next LP Chair.
The losing candidates may not be selected.
Wow, I really must be naive. Last night, I kept hearing about a “deal”. How does that work? I thought each individual in the convention votes they way they wish. What am I missing?
I suppose that’s a rhetorical question. But, I really don’t get it.
They can, I believe, but I believe it requires a 2/3 vote and provisio, but I don’t have RRONR in front of me.
171 bg: …unless they suspend to amend the Bylaws to change it.
me: Again, no expert in such things, but iirc Bylaws changes don’t apply to the current convention, yes?
It was like 3:00 am, so I wasn’t clear. Since we’re still electing for the upcoming term, we would to proceed to a new election. If we adjourn and have only elected NOTA, that’s when there’s a vacancy.
NOTA being selected means it got a majority of the votes per the Bylaws.
That means Mr. White’s interpretation is incorrect, because he didn’t piece the proper bylaws together.
Nick @159:
NOTA winning does not vacate the current term, only make the next Chair vacant until the LNC appoints one. See Article 7, Section 1:
“The officers of the Party shall be:
o Chair,
o Vice-Chair,
o Secretary, and
o Treasurer.
All of these officers shall be elected by a Regular Convention of the Party, shall take office immediately upon the close of the Convention and shall serve thereafter until the final adjournment of the next Regular Convention.
IOW, Hinkle’s term ends today after the convention, and the next Chair is vacant. The declaration of vacancy is automatic, and as such the appointment bylaw immediately is binding as taking it out of the hands of the delegates–unless they suspend to amend the Bylaws to change it.
I don’t see how to read them any other way.
Convention parliamentarian Bill White showed me another way. He basically said that if a set of nominees loses to NOTA, it doesn’t necessarily mean that NOTA is the convention’s final selection for the office.
It all comes down to how you read Should “None of the Above” be selected for any Party office. It could mean a) as soon as a set of nominees have all lost to NOTA, or b) if the convention stops voting for the office with NOTA having defeated the last set of nominees.
NOTA means “none of the above“. It does not mean “none of the available”.
TGADFLY // May 6, 2012 at 8:58 am
Will anyone be live streaming today’s floor events?
—-
Yes, first thing LNC has to do is tell next convention committee a) no floor fee and b) Wifi from the floor. Just because Root clique wanted to do what had to do to keep the hoipoloi out and uninformed about their shenanigans in Real Time, THIS time, doesn’t mean they should do it next time.
@161 — as someone who’s struggled to find historical information for articles for LPedia.org for six years I vehemently concur about online accessible archives.
I’m largely confined to dumpster diving in the Internet Archive and am presently struggling to get county information up one state at a time: http://lpedia.org/index.php?title=User:AutostubLP2
That and I’m completely overwhelmed by botnet attacks…
ObConvention: I have to agree that a near tie against NOTA is not a good omen for one’s level of support at all.
166 bh, oh, thanks. Sometimes I need to be spoon fed!
It’s not Mad Men, but the LP does a great job inventing drama.
Just as Cred Comm decided to seat Reeves, I can imagine some really twisted reading of this language and the LNC selecting Rutherford or Hinkle should no one be elected Chair.
Bob, the rule was quoted @133, @147, @151, @154, and @157.
“none of the losing candidates for that position may be selected to fill the vacancy for that term of office”
Electing NOTA creates a vacancy
I don’t see how you can read 11.8 as saying that selecting NOTA for the next Chair deposes the current Chair before his term is up. I’m hoping you can explain what difference is made by the 11.8 text that I highlighted @157, because I don’t like arguing that the rules say this convention might have cornered itself into not being allowed to pick the next Chair.
But I don’t see how to read them any other way.
159 ns: Both appointment and election are governed by the rules that those who were beat by NOTA can’t be placed in nomination for that office.
me: It certainly makes sense that, while still in convention, the convened can and should elect someone. But what if the collective will is to send a message to the LNC to stop the nonsense. If the clock runs out and the convention keeps electing NOTA, what then?
You and Brian keep asserting that the LNC cannot appoint someone who lost to NOTA. My question is: By what language do you make the claim? It certainly seems like a reasonable position, since the convention preferred NOTA and in essence rejected the candidate.
What I’ve not seen in this thread, however, is the rule that prohibits LNC appointment of a loser-to-NOTA.
Sorry if I’m being dense; perhaps there’s a straightforward explanation that I’ve missed….
Will anyone be live streaming today’s floor events?
On #LNC2012 I saw speculation of a deal; Rutherford Chair and Ruth people would vote Wrights VChair. Yes, it is the same old crowd. But until someone starts a fundraising efforts to get the Nick Sarwarks and other Smart Young Things to the LNC meetings to run the party it will be the same old incompetent 50 somethings…
Glad Shane Cory takes self out of the running for LNC because I still have a big “Shane Cory” file of stuff that he ticked me off about when he was in office, and it’s filed under LNC of all places…. BRING BACK THE LP.ORG ARCHIVES!!!
@ 153: I saw your speeches yesterday. Your passion and commitment is evident. I was surprised by the NOTA effort as I have nothing against Hinkle or Rutherford. Is there a Plan B if NOTA wins this morning?
@153 (and anyone else that cares): Electing NOTA creates a vacancy. If we weren’t in convention, that vacancy would be filled by normal LNC appointment procedures. But because we are in convention, the vacancy should (and will be) filled by an election. Both appointment and election are governed by the rules that those who were beat by NOTA can’t be placed in nomination for that office.
Why I voted for NOTA on all three ballots:
I ran for the California State Assembly twice. I served for a year as chair of the San Bernardino County LP. I served on the 2002-2003 San Bernardino County Grand Jury, where I was paid $25/day plus mileage and had to work an additional menial night job to make ends meet during my one year term; committees I chaired on the Grand Jury made recommendations that (when eventually implemented) saved taxpayers millions of dollars annually. I’ve collected signatures to get Libertarian candidates on the ballot. I’ve walked precincts. I ran a Ron Paul meetup in 2008 and encouraged Paulistas to join the LP.
I could not afford a $400 convention package this year, although I have in the past. Like a lot of people the last four years, I’ve had some serious financial ups and downs in recent times. I haven’t seen a check from my only remaining big customer in three months. I voted for NOTA three times because I found the $94 Poll Tax and the insinuation that I am somehow getting a “free lunch” by not having to pay for the privilege of having a say in the business of The Party – after I’d sacrificed thousands of dollars and hours over the years in the service of the LP and the cause of freedom – to be a spit in the eye, plain and simple. This wasn’t just an effort to bail people out of a bad convention contract; the fact that the “povertarian package” was called TINSTAAFL was a very calculated and deliberate insult and attempt to humiliate anyone who could not afford the $400 “basic” silver package. Both of the Marks voted in favor of the floor fee. That, in my case at least, was all there was to it. You can be sure I won’t be voting for anyone else who favored the Poll Tax on Sunday.
The LNC clearly cannot appoint anyone to Chair in for the next two years who loses to NOTA at this convention.
I’m having second thoughts about my reading @150. Look again at 11.8:
Should “None of the Above” be selected for any Party office, that position shall be declared vacant and none of the losing candidates for that position may be selected to fill the vacancy for that term of office.
My reading @150 would have the same meaning if the bold text above were missing, and that violates a basic rule of interpretation.
In addition, “shall be declared vacant” can’t mean that the current Chair’s term is immediately aborted before its natural expiry at the end of the convention. It can only mean that the Chair becomes vacant at the end of the convention.
We in the LPCA have the following in our convention rule 13.2: Lack of a majority vote for one candidate or a majority vote for “None of the Above” shall cause nominations for that office to be reopened. There is nothing analogous in the LPUS rules.
I now don’t see how to get away from the interpretation that only the next LNC can select a Chair if the convention selects NOTA for that office. The way I read 11.8, it would take a suspension of the rules to re-open the Chair race after NOTA wins it.
153 TK, right, but BG quoted this, too: “The National Committee shall appoint new officers if vacancies occur, such officers to complete the term of the office vacated.”
I’m reading that to say if NOTA wins, the LNC can appoint whoever the fuck they want to, to put as you might! No one is excluded, not even those who lost to NOTA.
This is not in my wheelhouse, but it sounds like Nick and Brian think they can still elect a Chair in convention. That makes sense to me, as the convention is still convened. Filling a vacancy seems like something that’s done when someone resigns or dies…
RC@152,
“Not an unreasonable opinion by you two, but do the Bylaws allow that?”
Offhand, the language referring to the situation as a “vacancy” seems to indicate that the office would be filled by LNC appointment.
But I’m operating on the basis of recollection here, while I doubt that Sarwark is.
RC@151,
“What language in the Bylaws say it can’t be Hinkle or Rutherford?”
This language:
“Should ‘None of the Above’ be selected for any Party office, that position shall be declared vacant and none of the losing candidates for that position may be selected to fill the vacancy for that term of office.”
150 bh: Before making his NOTA speech, Nick Sarwark consulted with me (and presumably others) and I agreed with him that a victory by NOTA would re-open nominations.
me: Not an unreasonable opinion by you two, but do the Bylaws allow that?
147 bg: Putting it all together: the new LNC, whomever they are, after the convention when they meet, would appoint a new Chair to fill the vacancy, but it cannot be Hinkle or Rutherford.
me: What language in the Bylaws say it can’t be Hinkle or Rutherford?
“Selected” is not the same as “elected”.
“Select” is used with a clear meaning of “elect by vote of the convention delegates” in Bylaws 8.3, 9.1, 14.2, Convention Rule 7.4, and even in Bylaw 11.8 itself:
Should “None of the Above” be selected for any Party office, that position shall be declared vacant and none of the losing candidates for that position may be selected to fill the vacancy for that term of office.
If “select” weren’t ever used this way in any of the Bylaws or Convention Rules, I would agree that “vacancy” here is something that can only be filled by the LNC.
Before making his NOTA speech, Nick Sarwark consulted with me (and presumably others) and I agreed with him that a victory by NOTA would re-open nominations.
Here’s the thing — and let me preface it by mentioning that I happen to personally like Mark Rutherford, even if I’ve always had significant disagreements with him.
If there are two candidates on the ballot for chair of an organiation and one just barely ekes out a win, that’s all good and well, and hopefully even those who didn’t vote for that candidate can move forward in good faith and so forth. That vote can reasonably be construed as “we liked that guy better than this guy, but we can live with this guy.”
If there’s one candidate and NOTA on the ballot, on the other hand, and the candidate doesn’t whip NOTA’s ass by a HUGE margin, it’s pretty obvious that that candidate lacks the confidence and support of a very large percentage of the organization.
If you find yourself in the position of trying to eke out a narrow win against None of the Above, it’s a big flashing neon sign that that reads “you shouldn’t be running.”
I also think Shane is onto something above.
Yes, there are some LNC members you (generic “you”) like, and some you don’t.
And some may be more to blame for bad things happening, while others just weren’t able to stop those bad things.
But at some point, maybe it makes sense to get rid of both of those classes of people in order to get a completely clean slate and a fresh start.
IDGAF . . . just to answer your question, I said the entire LNC should be replaced. It was a short quote I stated to Paulie.
If you’ve been around awhile, you would have noticed that the same warm bodies fill the leadership but simply switch out seats. The factionism remains the same as does the ineffectiveness.
I’ve worked for/contracted for six different LNCs. MOST and of those faces remain the same.
While these members all have their different reasons for serving (and they should all be commended), they all gotta go and the new leaders need to shoo them away from the periphery of influence to prevent the manipulation.
This includes executive positions, long-serving regional reps, and at-large members. Any person running who has a “long history” of service on the LNC should hit the road — it may be a badge of loyalty and respect, but not honor. Our track-record as a party speaks for itself.
The track-record of the LNC is far worse. It’s a sinkhole of right-column/membership-focused stupidity that does not move liberty forward — and yes, I’ll say that about my time there as well. I raised money and reduced spending, pulling the party out of serious financial straits but we did very little that advanced liberty.
Take a look at the names that are always on or around the LNC. These women and men are respected and even loved by most of us — from Wrights to Rutherford and Ruwart to Redpath.
I’d argue that serving on two or more previous LNCs (or working for one) should disqualify someone from serving again. Institutional memory be damned. We’re in dire need of a lobotomy.
In the morning, I say we choose our leaders with the disqualification above but with the standards below:
Chair: The person who shows up on time with the highest blood-alcohol content.
Vice Chair: The man or women who with the longest beard and ability to warm a seat.
Secretary: The best looking person in the room who can type a mean word document and verbalize the least.
Treasurer: The person with the least amount of money in their bank account and a carefree disregard for federal prisons.
At-Large: The folks nearest the east, west, south and north somewhat of the bottle of Jack Daniels hidden in the convention hall.
Regional Reps: Anyone who who sends less than 14 emails a month and is clueless about which delegates fall within the “radical” or “pragmatic” camps.
With those high standards above, I think we’ll see an improvement.
Note that the following folks should also be disqualified from serving: Me (I’ll run that baby into the ground just for fun), Steve Gordon (he’ll do the same but just with more flair and purpose), the lady who leered at me for swithing to NOTA (dude you took that waaay too seriously), Starchild (his costumes were lacking this year), and Travis Nicks (because he actually knows what he’s doing but refuses to recognize all of the above).
I quoted the relevant bylaw above, JT, so there’s nothing obtuse about it, except that you didn’t examine the entire document. The Bylaws also say that in the event of a vacancy on the LNC, they appoint the position. Article 7, Section 9:
“The National Committee shall appoint new officers if vacancies occur, such officers to complete the term of the office vacated.”
Putting it all together: the new LNC, whomever they are, after the convention when they meet, would appoint a new Chair to fill the vacancy, but it cannot be Hinkle or Rutherford. Hence the LNC elections become damned important, as well as regional rep elections.
“Selected” is not the same as “elected”. They are two different words with two different meanings. A selection is by appointment by the LNC. An election is by the delegates on the floor.
Furthermore, if NOTA wins, and it did, per the Bylaws, the position is declared vacant. That means the election of NOTA is final and cannot be reopened, and the above-quoted Bylaw concerning vacancies of Officers is the controlling Bylaw. That does NOT mean that balloting can be reopened, as the vacancy decision, per the Bylaws, is final. Had the delegates past meant to reopen balloting upon a NOTA win, they would have amended the Bylaws to do so, as the California Rules have been explicitly done so by their delegates past.
Bylaws Guru: “NOTA won, Rutherford lost, so there is no Chair, and they can’t run again. In fact, they can’t even reopen balloting for the position again since there is no provision to do that.”
Don’t be obtuse. The relevant section says this:
“Should a majority of the votes be cast for “None of the Above” in the Presidential or Vice-Presidential balloting, no candidate shall be nominated for that office. Should “None of the Above” be selected for any Party office, that position shall be declared vacant and none of the losing candidates for that position may be selected to fill the vacancy for that term of office.”
If balloting couldn’t be reopened in the event that NOTA won, it wouldn’t say that none of the “losing candidates” may be selected to fill the vacancy; it would say that nobody can be selected, just like the previous sentence says that if NOTA wins for President or Vice President, then nobody can be nominated.
How about starting an LNC Vote thread?
Shane Cory and Sam Sloans as heros of the day – who’d a thunk it!! At least shaking up the partyarchs and NatCommies even if Rutherford ultimately wins. Just don’t elect Shane Cory who removed the LP web site archives so we have no sense of history of the party. Nick Sarwark for Chair!!!
As an independent, I am on my own side. In reality, I am enjoying watching the antics. Just goes to show “which political parties are relevant” and which ones are not.
Interesting to see who has a name, and who has an alias, and who is on which side of the debate.
It is also notable, though I could not copy down masses of numbers, that there were considerable numbers of states in which NOTA has unanimous or nearly unanimous support and others in which Rutherford support was rather strong.
Those of you not here also missed Mr Knedler announcing that he wanted to challenge the vote in *every single state*, so as to invoke the ‘the secretary polls the delegation one person at a time’ rule for all 600 delegates.
I don’t care about who you are, or what you stand behind Alan. If the LP was relevant, it would be winning elections. Instead, you all just fester in the basement cannibalizing each other for the last 4 decades. Reading these comments, I don’t see a change in the future of the LP.
@135,
“How does NOTA make a better option than an actual LIVE person?”
Reductio time!
What if the “actual LIVE person” is Pol Pot or Adolph Hitler?
I think that’s pretty obviously not the case here, but …
“If others can get nominated now, and they are such strong options, why were they not nominated the first time?”
There was a third candidate, but he withdrew at the last minute after the credentials committee stole his state affiliate’s delegate seats.
From a tactical perspective, NOTA makes more sense than trying to put a campaign together at the last minute to compete with entrenched incumbents who have had months to campaign. Knock those entrenched incumbents out with NOTA, and you get a new contest with a more level playing field.
And, frankly, NOTA also sends a clear message: “Not only do we prefer some as-yet-unnamed C to A and B, we consider A and B unacceptable, period.”
I have no dog in the fight. Seems if a LINO like Root could get elected to party leadership, then a majority of your delegates have a history of ineptitude.
Read above that the LP hasn’t won a major election ever and that the entire leadership should be removed. I would ask, how long have the current leaders been in charge? A couple of years? Seems odd to blame Rutherford if the party hasn’t won in 40 years, and he’s only been around for a few years.
Was Rutherford ever the chairman? I have met him, and he seems to be more focused on the national party helping win elections, rather than just releasing press statements and “educating the masses” about liberty.
Enough of the games with NOTA and elect a human being already!
Ashamed? WHY?
NOTA means that we do not want to elect the candidates that are nominated. Why else do you think we have NOTA? If NOTA is wrong, have you proposed to eliminate it? If not, why not? And if NOTA is NOT a bad option to have, please explain a scenario in which it would be used, but those who vote for it should not be “ashamed.”
BTW, it’s nice to hide behind internet anonymity, isn’t it? I’m not afraid to stand behind my comments.
For anyone who is reading about the events at the Libertarian convention this afternoon: This episode is about crybabies among Rutherford supporters who couldn’t accept their loss. The first vote was completely legitimate. Now that I hear some of these same crybabies are blaming it on Wrights supporters, who accepted his loss graciously, I am beyond disgusted.
The NOTA voters should be ashamed of themselves…. If others can get nominated now, and they are such strong options, why were they not nominated the first time?
Libertarians claim to be philosophically sound. How does NOTA make a better option than an actual LIVE person?
@132 “will anybody point out what the Bylaws actually say?”
Good question!
Was all this televised on C-SPAN? I was out catching “The Avengers.”
Just watched Sarwark’s NOTA speech.
No sarcasm: He’s my hero, and not just for this.
Even if the bastards manage to steal it, the strong support for NOTA was a pretty clear “knock off the bullshit” message.
Article 11, Section 8 of the Bylaws:
“Should “None of the Above” be selected for any Party office, that position shall be declared vacant and none of the losing candidates for that position may be selected to fill the vacancy for that term of office.”
There is no provision for challenging the vote, either. NOTA won, Rutherford lost, so there is no Chair, and they can’t run again. In fact, they can’t even reopen balloting for the position again since there is no provision to do that. (“Selected” vs. “Elected”, and contrast the California Convention Rules, 13-2: “Lack of a majority vote for one candidate or a majority vote for “None of the Above” shall cause nominations for that office to be reopened.” )
But will anybody point out what the Bylaws actually say, or will the inmates continue to run the asylum?
We will be showing a free movie at 9:30 in Veranda B, Art Olivier’s “Operation Terror”. Please come and watch it, and forgot the bullshit from today for at least 90 minutes.
That challenge to the vote that Rutherford lost to NOTA was absolutely bogus. NOTA won it fair and square, and once again, a group of people is trying to use political chicanery to impose their will on the majority of delegates at the convention.
This is NOT how the LP should conduct its business. We should set an example of how an organization should be run, and should not engage in the dirty politics the GOP and Democrats use. If we can’t run our business in a way that implements the will of the membership – instead of just a few – then we have NO BUSINESS asking the general public to give us their votes.
These people should be ashamed of themselves. But you already knew that, didn’t you?
That’s the “do not vote for” list.
With that said, I am probably voting for Bill Redpath. I consider Bill a friend, and, though I often disagree with his votes, I have absolute confidence in his integrity, which is something I cannot say for some of the others on the LNC.
On the other hand, I’ve heard Bill Redpath mentioned as a Chair candidate if in fact nominations are reopened.
George
People might also have been concerned that the big slate being circulated by the YLNA is Rutherford for chair, Redpath for Vice Chair, and having Redpath chair the meeting put him in an embarrassing position with respect to knocking his slate leader off the ballot.
YLNA SLATE for those of you not having the handout (freat graphics, by the way)
Rutherford
Redpath
Mattson
Starr
At-Large
Knedler
Root
Sink-Burris
Pojunis
Salvette
Gary Johnson
People who can keep their voices down are welcome to drop by my suite room 19108.
And let me remind readers that we are under Roberts rules of order, parliamentary errors are always correctible later, and therefore an appeal later is always in order. See Dan Karlan’s remarks to the LNC on why he got involved in the Oregon dispute.
I ask that readers vigorously circulate the above points to people that they know who are attending the convention.
On the last Saturday vote, we had
Rutherford 278
NOTA 277
Sam Sloan 1
Rutherford did not have a majority.
The session Chair, Redpath, then ruled that the one person eliminated by the vote was Sam Sloan, because writeins count, and therefore there is another round between NOTA and Rutherford.
I made an appeal of the decision of the chair, which was not heard before the meeting adjourned for the day.
Rutherford’s ruling if sustained destroys our voting system. Readers should undersand that the meeting was very tiring and contentious, and should not blame Bill for what he ruled.
The issue is as follows.
Under our procedure,
if votes are
A -40
B-30
C-20
D-10
then D is eliminated, the next round is between A, B, and C,
A-40
B-35
C-25
and this time C is eliminated and A and B have it out.
Under the Redpath ruling, one person casting a writein vote jams the whole process, namely
A 40
B 30
C 20
D 10
writein 1
And writein is “eliminated”, so the next round is between A, B, C, and D, but on the next round
A 40
B 30
C 20
D 10
writein#2 – 1, THIS TIME WRITEIN# is eliminated, and the writer-in can go through all 13000 party sustaining members before he runs out of steam.
The correct ruling was that the writein (Sloan) and the bottom candidate (Rutherford) were both eliminated, NOTA wins, and we start over.
Also, several people have claimed to me that on the round in which Hinkle was eliminated, there was also a writein vote, and therefore by consistency Hinkle was not eliminated.
OK…shutting off internet for the evening — anyone who wants to stay in touch between now and the morning call me 415-690-6352
http://reason.com/blog/2012/05/05/anarchy-at-the-libertarian-party-convent
Chuck Moulton believes Rutherford will be dropped and new candidates will run, Many different ones being discussed
That gives both sides plenty of time to campaign!
Any idea who will be running for vice chair and/or At-Large?
RADICAL WAKE UP LIST
Put your phone numbers and room numbers here….we need to make sure everyone is up first thing tomorrow as that will be the key…
And a meeting place tonight for those who don’t want to do it here
there will be a new vote at 9 AM tomorrow. The previous vote was judged to be terminally inconclusive and we will start fresh at 9 AM
How can more people vote after the polls close?
Adjourning til 9 AM for re-vote
Yes, I believe
NO! Huge advantage. They are great schmoozers.
Can delegates still be added?
Tomorrow in the morning = big Rutherford advantage due to who tends to be up in the morning
and who doesn’t
Wow, this is really something.
There’s so much drama, I think we should re-open the nominations tomorrow in the morning. Everyone is just too mad now.
Now considering adjourning and having the vote first thing in the morning
Many people are really upset. After the seating of the Reeves group as delegates, which defied all logic in my view, and now this–I’ll cry foul, for sure.
More challenges …again
Shenanigans, you bet.
Rutherford 277-276
How can Rutherford win if NOTA won? I call shenanigans.
Challenged again
Final?
Rutherford wins 278-275
Shane Cory switched from Rutherford to NOTA because “What impact has the LNC made in the last decade? None. The LNC has won no elections and influenced no legislation. While I have a great deal of respect for Mark Rutherford, the entire LNC needs to be replaced.”
Now they will have another re-vote again.
Challenges are swinging votes to Rutherford because they are rounding up people to vote, so Rutherford will win.
Correct
Wow….so if NOTA wins, the past candidates cannot participate?
parliamentary wrangling over vote challenge procedures
And the audience erupts…
Appealed
NOTA wins 273-261
Could it be a tie?
parliamerntarian has been asked to the room
Stewart Flood believes it was 228-221-103 on the first ballot. Anyone know for sure?
From what I could tell from talking to people last night, I think Rutherford started out with more supporters than Hinkle.
I predict NOTA will get about 30-35% in the 2nd round. I don’t know if Nick intended to give the Chair to Rutherford, but that may have been what happened.
Trying to get count. It was by like 7 votes?
If NOTA wins Lee Wrights would run
NOTA has some very vocal supporters.
Vote count?
Hinkle lost very narrowly
What if NOTA actually wins? Would the vice-chair election winner become chair then?
I’m guessing NOTA will win 10-15% of the vote. That might hurt Hinkle a little more than Rutherford, and might tip the election to Rutherford.
I believe Rutherford does.
Which candidate seems to have the most support?
Sarwark speaking for NOTA after some parliamentary wrangling to allow him to speak.
Rutherford speaking for himself
Carissa Pillow speaking for Rutherford
BTW She is also new Region rep for KY, IN, OH and MI
Jillian Mack speaking for Rutherford
Geoff Neale spoke for Hinkle, now speaking for himself
Rutherford should knab this, but I expect it to be very close.
Michael Cloud speaking for Hinkle
Pat Dixon nominates Hinkle
Chair nominations
Rebecca Sink-Burris and ??? for Rutherford
And the winner of the vp spot is Gray.
Indeed.
John Jay Myers is giving a rousing nomination speech for Lee Wrightsa for vice=president!
My info is he has
There are two very cute little blonde girls still walking up and down the aisles holding signs for Lee Wrights. I really, really hope Lee Wrights agrees to run for vp.
And one vote only–the winner is Gary Johnson.
I am digging all the C-Span conversations.
http://www.uncoveredpolitics.com/2012/05/05/leading-candidates-debate-for-libertarian-nomination-on-eve-of-vote/
We are still waiting for Missouri’s and Nevada’s vote tickets, we’ve been told.
And great training for an alt party campaign
@57 Very, very impressive.
We are going to vote now!
Totally random comment: Gary Johnson climbed Mt Everest with a broken leg. Huh??? That’s impressive!
Progress!
Johnson is doing very, very well speaking this AM. He looks like he had a great night’s sleep (unlike me), and he’s saying mostly the right things. He’s promising to end the wars and bring all the troops home now! He also promised to keep learning re: the Fair Tax, which he called the “Less Unfair Tax”.
Down in front!
Johnson is speaking now. His supporters are going bonkers. There’s one guy walking in front of the cameras with a Lee Wrights sign. LOL.
Lee Wrights ends his speech with: “I am not at war. If enough people say that, we can have ’em any more.”
Amen, Brother!
Good morning! Today’s the big day! By tonight, we’ll know who the 2012 preswidential and vice-presidential candidates will be.
I’ve been asked to move my debate comments to the debate thread.
See ya there!
happy bday Carol. Mine’s on the 20th, I’ll be 40.
Nothing new on immigration from either one; both gave intelligent, sensible solutions.
I’m going to be 64 in 2 hrs and 15 minutes. Are they gonna gut my benefits? ha ha ha Thank heavens I’m taping this cause will have to listen when I’m more awake to see if they are confusing or I’m just not listening right. Too much hanging on computer to see what I’m missing there in LAS VEGAS. Will have to come in a few months and see if Wayne will put me up for a couple weeks… he he he
Mr. Wrights seems to be a bit more impassioned, so he is getting some whoops for that, perhaps more than Johnson, who is more even-toned. Both of these men are excellent speakers and, IMO, would represent our party well.
Debate thread here
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/05/libertarian-presidential-debate/
Please comment on the debate there….liveblogging appreciated from everyone, editorial comments also ok in those comments
An observation: These two men seem very equally matched, and audience reaction seems to be equal for both. Of course, people wave signs with their favorite candidate’s name on them, but, really, neither one is running away with this show.
Now will he say that on that campaign trail… he’s on record so media can now bug him about it. We shall see….
Now, the inevitable question about legalizing drugs:
Johnson explains the Libertarian view fairly well, without coming out to say : “Legalize all drugs”.
Wrights talks about the terrible drug problem this country has– and, that’s the war on drugs.
Well, he certain has been listening to libertarians on the fair tax since he went from wanting to strongly enforce it to start to now saying it was on the way of getting rid of ALL taxes. (Didn’t specify federal but assume that’s what he meant.) But actually just taped and missed most of first 30 minutes chasing run away dogs around.
via facebook
Bonnie S 5:26pm May 4
Sargeant-at-arms was called after the adjornment for the day to remove someone who was yelling ‘point of order’ to try to figure out what was going on. I told Hinkle later that I didn’t think that use of force was necessary for that. Part of his answer was that words are force. I disagree. There were a dozen ways to handle this otherwise, with tact instead of force.
Yes, Gary started out talking about the Fair Tax. Maybe he wanted to get the topic out of the way, but the crowd wasn’t entirely enthusiastic.
Gary Johnson got a huge round of applause when he announced he had “come out of the closet”–but he meant coming out about mbeing a Libertarian.
Oh no, Johnson mentioned the fair tax in his introduction! I’m sure people here will never forgive him. Go Wrights! This debate would have been better with Burns and Persson though.
Lee Wrights: “Libertarian is a life choice–more than a political party.”
The 12-year old girl who sang the National Anthem almost made me cry!!! Phenomenal!
Lee Wrights said “I’m running for President so I can leave you alone!”
The debate is starting. I’ll comment here on this thread, but we’ve got 3 0r 4 other IPR riters here to comment as well.
Let the games begin!!
Apparently, the other candidates for President barely got any tokens.
Top Two… LP style!
I was just hoping for a third or fourth candidate. With that said, I recognize that 2-person debates usually cause more fireworks 😀
Good point!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln%E2%80%93Douglas_debates Lincoln was the Republican, Douglas the Democrat. It was not within either party.
“2-person debate is kind of disappointing.”
Yeah… Lincoln-Douglas really sucked! 🙂
2-person debate is kind of disappointing.
I wonder how many tokens the others got?
Great to see the IPR folks meeting up and such. Paulie–you’re telling people to check IPR for coverage, right?
The debate will only include 2 people tonight. They didn’t even announce who, but I’d be willing to bet my little Netbook here that
it’s Johnson and Wrights.
Starchild was not on the committee. Dan Karlan needed a few minutes to prepare his report which he did a lot of work on and he felt that Starchild was distracting him. He felt insulted that he was being questioned as far as what he was doing in preparing the report.
Ryan C
Rumor has it that Johnson and Rutherford are both far, far ahead in polling but I don’t know how reliable or complete the info is. It may have been exagerated several times by the time it got to me. Lots of people not here at all yet today.
I think you can find a few pics on facebook but I have not logged in on that in a long time. However some people add various crap and claim it is pics of me and i would have to log in there again to get rid of those. So hopefully you won’t be mislead …
And Debra Dedmon…..just behind the CSPAN guys….next to AL/MS
“Or did you mean the pall-bearer?
Just kidding”
Uh… maybe! 🙂
If you are an IPR reader or a FB friend of mine and you’re at the convention, I’d love to meet you. I’m very near-sighted, so if I look at you and don’t react to your name tag, I probably can’t read it. Please say hello! I’m sitting next to Paulie in the press area. I’m fairly tall, have red-hair (although I note there are quite a few redheads here), and I have on a black dress.
Carol at 5: Starchild was simply being Starchild. He talks about transparency a lot. I was in the throes of Adult ADHD, and missed what happened immediately before.
Speaking of Starchild, he has announced that he’s running for an At-Large position.
Less candidates in the debate, what a wonderful idea. The party of freedom and ideas, bringing you as few a choices and voices as possible! Next time up, only the one candidate we want you to vote for!
Oops that was me. Borrowing Mr. Linnabary’s computer (thank you!)
We now have wifi for press on the floor so I should be able to be more helpful in reporting. Operating on a serious sleep deficit tho.
@12 press table next to Jill Pyeatt
@11: Carol writes, “Wayne Root’s “high quality” strategy is working!!” Not quite there yet though. Lee Wrights is still in the debate!
Paulie, I have been looking to meet you to put a name with a face. I appreciate your in-depth coverage if the LP.
Where are you hanging out? What do you look like?
I am imagining a Hawaiian looking guy in a floral shirt. Am I far off?
If the LP is to be a serious party it needs to lock out as many candidates as possible. The Republicans locked out Johnson and the other Mormon. They weren’t as successful as the LP in locking candidates out, of course. Wayne Root’s “high quality” strategy is working!!
Johnson and Wrights are a lock for the debate. If you have yet to cast your debate tokens please consider voting for other candidates. The LP cannot hold a televised debate with only two participants.
Congratulations to Gary Johnson. The great curiousity is now about the VP slot. Gary Johnson’s pick of Judge Jim Gray is a great ticket and now we await the decision of the party.
Or did you mean the pall-bearer?
Just kidding
What are the chances that Governor Johnson will take a good long look at this group and decide against being the standard bearer?
Any predictions on how tomorrow’s delegate vote totals might stack up for the nomination? Will Johnson get 60+%? 70+%?
Was Starchild on the bylaws committee or was he the only member watching or was he the one member they did not want to watch?
So who was pushing to get rid of bigotry from the platform, what was their argument, and did they succeed??
Damn, how much of a floor fee would they have wanted to charge Starchild to participate in their little session?
I finally got into the Internet here on the convention floor. People seem generally a lot more animated today–maybe everyone got good night’s sleep , or they’re just glad they finally got here. Anyway, not a whole lot went on yesterday except for an entertaining episode late yesterday afternoon when the By-Laws committee wanted 5 minutes of private talk without Starchild. That woke everyone up! The group probably would have allowed it, if we’d been told why. Since that was reused, we , voted that no, they couldn’t have 5 private minutes.
I have been told by someone who knows what’s going on, that it’s likely the debate tonight will be only Gary Johnson and Lee Wrights.