This IPR editor received the following communication from the Libertarian Party of Miami-Dade County:
I am the Executive Director of the Libertarian Party of Miami-Dade County. As such, I wanted to let you know what our South Florida affiliate is planning in the next couple of months when it comes to the presidential race.
We will be holding a Presidential Caucus for the Libertarian Party presidential candidates on March 15th to coincide with the Florida Preferential Primary. (Attached is the official plan adopted by the affiliate that details how the Caucus will be held).
Our caucus will be the only binding caucus in the nation. Our plan is to require all Miami-Dade County delegates to be tied to the caucus-winner at the National Convention, or face sanctions from our Executive Committee.
We have several requirements for our Caucus, and the presidential candidates have been warned via letter. Those candidates that will qualify will be invited at a March 1st Presidential Debate that will be hosted by Mater Academy Charter School and the Libertarian Party of Miami-Dade County. The debate will be focused on national security, foreign policy, and immigration.
This is the report:
Just curious if this ever happened
Marc thank you for that additional information. I had the Miami-Dade caucus post in full. I merely posted it
The unit rule at the 1976 Republican convention, the one I have been discussing, affected several state delegations, but was not the same as your. The delegates were freely chosen, and a fair number were ex officio and had not been chosen because they were going to be delegates. The rule set forth that the delegation would caucus, the candidate having majority support would be identified, and then the entire delegation would vote for the person supported by a majority of the delegates in that delegation. That’s very different from saying that the state chooses how the delegates will vote.
George,
What you seem to be saying is that there was some rule in 1976 that was not the unit rule, but that you want to call the unit rule.
The unit rule in 1976 meant something rather different. The unit that chose the state delegation *did not* require that the delegation vote for a candidate that had been named by the unit. There was a requirement, but it was quite different.
Something very fishy about this caucus. I asked an organizer of this caucus about the event, he said the caucus will held “in front of an audience of roughly 150 bright high school seniors and parents that lean libertarian at a school auditorium. And most of the audience attendees will be voting in the caucus.”
So, HS students and parents that “lean” libertarian (not LPF members) will be determining who the delegates from Miami-Dade will vote for at the National Convention. Yeah, I will move to disqualify any of these so called “delegates” from the Florida delegation at the State Convention. This is a clear act of fraud against LP and LPF members.
Thanks, Thomas and Marc. I actually had written to her on her website a few weeks ago, and didn’t hear back. That’s when I became concerned.
Hopefully all is well now!
She tweeted something last week (https://twitter.com/musicaljoy). On her Facebook page there was some reference to her having had Internet access problems in December. So hopefully she’s just having a problem getting online.
I haven’t seen Joy in some time. This is the contact info from her website”
[email protected] or [email protected]
BLOG: apps.Joy4ThePeoplesVoice.com/blog/
CELL: 530-640-0127 (Leave message or Text)
PHONE: 530-261-0186 (Leave message)
Donating to Mr. Ince’s campaign was a classy act, Dr. Feldman.
By the way, do you ever run across Joy Waymire in your campaigning? She hasn’t posted anything on Facebook since December 3, and I’m worried about her.
To correct the misinformation posted by Caryn Ann Harlos – January 26, 2016 at 23:16
From: http://www.facebook.com/groups/LibertarianPartyOfFlorida/permalink/10153927164452375/
Marc Allan Feldman Pierre-Alexandre Crevaux, You posted that Cecil Anthony Ince and I “both announced they would not participate in our caucus, citing a lack of fundraising to pay the $75 qualifying fee.” I pointed out that this is false, and I contributed $75 to Cecil’s campaign to he can take care of his fee. I am curious, how did you come to post such an incorrect and potentially damaging statement about a Libertarian candidate?
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 10:41am
Pierre-Alexandre Crevaux You’re right. Let me fix it.
Like · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 10:42am
Marc Allan Feldman 10:06am Jan 26
Cecil Anthony Ince I just contributed $75 to your campaign, if you decide to participate in the caucus.
I read Pierre-Alexandre Crevaux’statement indicating that you and I “announced they would not participate in our caucus, citing a lack of fundraising to pay the $75 qualifying fee.”
The truth is that I sent a Facebook message to Pierre-Alexandre Crevaux “Thank you for your kind invitation unfortunately my schedule does not allow”
Although I refuse to participate with either the “filing fee” or the submission of “qualifications,” I am happy to contribute to any other recognized Libertarian candidate who cannot attend because of the filing fee.
I have no interest in controlling how the LIbertarians choose to pick their delegates or the choices they make. I would ask that consideration be given to include NOTA and nominations from the floor for any candidate recognized by the LP on the national website, before the votes are taken.
George,
The meaning of the “unit rule” is not at all unclear. It is not permitted for “units” to require that their delegates vote in a certain way.
Are the “units” in question normally understood to consist of full state delegations? Yes.
Are county affiliates “units?” Obviously.
The penalty is implicit: Since the convention rules ban use of unit rule voting, state delegations or units/delegates thereof which announce in advance their intention to use it should not pass the credentialing/seating process.
However, I am old enough to remember the unit rule in operation at the 1976 Republican convention. The meaning of “unit rule” there was quite different from the meaning seemingly being invoked here. Also, the Bylaws do not prescribe a penalty.
A caucus that demands money and attendance by candidates, and all for what might be two or three delegates at the national convention? Can’t be on the ballot without handing them the $75 that they so desperately need?
Wow! Republicans have obviously taken over!!!
The whole reason why block voting is prohibited is to prevent this type of scam.
Darryl,
Glad to hear it!
@Tom Knapp: before learning that this is against LP bylaws, I had asked expressed interest in the process but have not sent any of the requested documents or a check for $75 and will not be doing so!
Disappointing that any of the candidates would cooperate with this scheme. Perhaps they haven’t noticed that it’s in flagrant violation of the national bylaws and could plausibly be used to prevent the seating of a delegation from Florida at the national convention.
From the Miami-Dade LP Facebook Page:
==News on our Presidential Caucus, to be held on March 15th.
Upon learning about the Presidential Caucus and the level of organization required to become a qualified candidate, Robert D. Steele (Virginia), Henry Herford (Louisiana) and Raymond L Dupuis (Washington) have dropped out of the presidential race.
Frank Atwood (Colorado) has switched his candidacy to the ‘Approval Voting Party’.
Cecil Anthony Ince (Missouri) and Marc Allan Feldman (Ohio) have both announced they would not participate in our caucus. Mr. Ince cited financial constraints over the $75 fee, while Mr. Feldman hasn’t given a reason as to his opposition to the Caucus.
On the other hands, the campaigns of Gary Johnson (New Mexico), Darryl W. Perry (New Hampshire), Steve Kerbel (Colorado), Austin Wade Petersen (Missouri), and Derrick Michael Reid (California) have all either shown interest or started the qualifying process to be included on our ballots.
Say what you want, our Caucus allows us to see who is serious about running and who isn’t.==
I have to say that I’m not a fan of this policy. While it may be well intentioned, it seems counter to the core Libertarian tenets of individualism and free choice. It would be fine if there weren’t penalties associated with failing to vote with the caucus. That’s the part that is over the line in my opinion.
I apologize to Joe Wendt. I know it how much it must irritate you that we agree on something.
@ andy,
No. Usually at the state convention, I usually don’t make waves. Given the possible affect this caucus will have on the Florida delegation, I will make waves this time.
Joe, would that just be an extension of your role as a bad guy and an evil troll here at IPR?
I’ve come to the conclusion that I will be the bad guy and evil troll under the bridge at the Convention. I will make the Motion at the LPF State Convention to exclude any Miami-Dade affiliate member from being a Florida Delegate at the National Convention if they continue with this binding caucus. This caucus violates the unit rule, and this violation may prevent the Florida delegation from being seated at the Convention.
If they make it non-binding or make it a straw poll, I wouldn’t have an issue with it because it wouldn’t violate the unit rule. Since it does and may put the LPF delegation at risk, I will make the motion.
@ Pierre,
“Some affiliates even allow Republicans or Democrats to serve as Chair (in Florida, at least).”
That is not true, STATE LAW requires the officers of a political party at ALL LEVELS to be a registered voter and member of the party they are running.
Pierre-Alexander,
You write:
“If we want to have a caucus, we are more than allowed to do so.”
Of course!
“If we want a debate, we are more than allowed to organize it.”
Yep.
“And if we want to tie our EC members that will also serve as National Delegates to a particular candidate, we can also do that.”
Not according to the convention rules.
The only way this would not work, and our Rules Committee has reviewed the topic as much as necessary, is if the National LP were to issue rules prohibiting local county chapters from establishing its own EC membership rules.
Local affiliates have complete autonomy when it comes to who it will allow in its EC. Some affiliates even allow Republicans or Democrats to serve as Chair (in Florida, at least).
If we want to have a caucus, we are more than allowed to do so. If we want a debate, we are more than allowed to organize it. And if we want to tie our EC members that will also serve as National Delegates to a particular candidate, we can also do that.
Why? Because our EC voted in favor of the binding and that clause has been included in our By-Laws. It is not a mandate on the national party, it is just one of the requirements to serve on our EC.
I will give Mr. Knapp the benefit of posing an interesting question when it comes to the potential incarceration of a candidate. Our plan frees up our delegates if the winner of the caucus suspends his or her campaign. Our plan also requires the candidate to file paperwork with the FEC. If a candidate is sent to jail, his or her campaign will be interpreted as having been suspended if it fails to meet FEC rules, and therefore the delegates will be freed.
Someone seems to to understand the meanings of neither “unit” nor “proportionally.”
If they are bound proportionally rather than by winner-take-all, it’s not a unit vote” and tehrefore no in violation of the “unit rule,” is it?
“Technically, our delegates will not be bound to any candidate. They will be “suggested” according to our caucus results. If our delegates don’t vote according to our caucus results (which they are free to do), they will be reprimanded by our EC and suspended from serving on our EC for a year.”
There are soo fallacies in this statement. First, if you suggest that someone do something or face the consequences, it’s not a suggestion, that’s an order. Second, it if you state that the delegates aren’t bound to a candidate, but will consequences for failing to vote for the designated candidate as directed, technically you are binding a delegate to a specific candidate.
It should be obvious that delegates from Miami-Dade are under a state of duress. This proposal is an interesting way to shake down Presidential candidates for $75 each.
The New Hampshire delegate in my observation is a volunteer who has agreed to let the state party tell him or her how to vote.
If the voting by the state delegation is by secret ballot is by secret ballot, it is going to be a bit difficult to enforce this gem. On the other hand, in 2002 the Massachusetts delegation voted by recorded vote on the grounds that we were representatives. For this reason I can say that all of the two dozen Indiana carpetbaggers that Eli Israel got on to the Massachusetts delegation did not vote, but all of them who did vote voted for Eli Israel. (That, by the way, is why my state party bylaws do not allow non-residents to be delegates to national.)
Pierre-Alexander,
If the candidate your caucus “suggests” is arrested on plausible charges of rape and murder the Wednesday before the nomination vote, will your delegates be reprimanded for deciding to go with a different candidate?
Yes, that’s what a dictionary says, but the definition stems from the practice, which just happens to have emerged vis a vis the level of state delegation.
If I was a partisan of Candidate X, and I knew that Miami-Dade had bound its delegates to Candidate Y, and if I was a hardcore player, I’d try to stop the Florida delegation from being seated on the basis that Miami-Dade is in violation of the prohibition on the unit rule.
And if I was involved in delegate selection at this year’s Libertarian Party of Florida convention, I would suggest not selecting any national convention delegates from Miami-Dade lest doing so result in Florida not getting its delegation seated at the national convention.
There are also REASONS the LP doesn’t allow the unit rule. One of the good ones is that our members and delegates don’t have nearly the chance to get acquainted with the candidates prior to the convention itself that the Ds and Rs do. They don’t get the media, they don’t have the events, etc. There’s a degree to which you arrive at the national convention still needing to know more about the people seeking your vote. It’s important that you get to be an actual delegate, not just a pre-programmed meat-based voting machine. And that reasoning would apply just as well to counties as to states.
Just clarifying a few things.
Technically, our delegates will not be bound to any candidate. They will be “suggested” according to our caucus results. If our delegates don’t vote according to our caucus results (which they are free to do), they will be reprimanded by our EC and suspended from serving on our EC for a year.
We are planning on having some delegates at the National LP and those will be selected at the April LPF convention.
Would that necessarily apply, if it’s only a subset of the Florida delegation and not the whole thing? How would that be any different from NH voting to pledge a single delegate?
I agree it’s kind of fishy, I’m not sure it’s prohibited. The dictionary definition of unit rule is “a rule under which a delegation to a national political convention casts its entire vote as a unit as determined by a majority vote” Obviously, the entire Florida delegation isn’t being pledged or bound.
Florida isn’t permitted to go along with it under the national convention rules. Article 11, Section 7 prohibits unit rule/unit voting.
I was wondering the same thing. If the Florida party goes along with this they could do that I suppose, but only if.
“Our caucus will be the only binding caucus in the nation. Our plan is to require all Miami-Dade County delegates to be tied to the caucus-winner at the National Convention, or face sanctions from our Executive Committee.”
Last time I checked, Miami-Dade wasn’t a state and therefore didn’t get any delegates.