Open thread for the discussion of anything and everything related to next week’s Libertarian Party national convention in Columbus, Ohio.
Have at it in the comments.
Libertarian National Convention 2014 “Pre-Game” Thread
134 Comments
Comments are closed.
Sorry, not sure what you mean by call?
And just in case anyone reading this thinks that I’m trying to put a political spin on things to run for something: I am not running for anything. And I will make sure that I do not go to the restroom while they are doing nominations for at-large so that I won’t end up getting nominated by someone without my knowledge. I never did find out who nominated me…
Oh yes…I caught only some of the LSLA presentations, but it looked like a very good event.
I had an interesting and very non-confrontational discussion with Mr Wagner about the issues surrounding the events from three years ago. He agrees that he committed a coup, but in this discussion gave some state law background that was not presented three years ago to the LNC that could support the argument that it was a “legal coup” (his words). I wish that some of this information had been presented to the LNC, but it was his decision to tell us a “half-truth” (his words). So while I dislike what he did, he may have had a legal statute to do it under.
Regardless of who was right and who was wrong, and as I’ve said numerous times in the past, I believe that both sides were wrong in what they did — but it is over. I will be lobbying my delegation to vote against substituting the Oregon delegation. It is over. End it. If they still want to sue each other then let them deal with it in Oregon.
I hope that Mr Wagner will not react negatively to this posting, since I believe he understands that I do not mean it to be taken as adversarial, but merely to indicate that we did have a good discussion in which he gave a much more detailed explanation of what he believes was justification under state law than he did three years ago to the LNC. We both certainly agree that it is over and that the delegates should not be asked to substitute his delegation.
If this does come to the floor it will set a hostile tone to the convention that will affect what has started out in today’s “pre-game” as a very calm and friendly event. I would urge any supporters of the alternate delegation reading this to consider both the immediate and long term affect of asking the convention to debate who should be seated for Oregon.
On another note, the party in Mr Sarwark’s suite was a lot of fun. There were a lot of people, many of them supporters of his but also others who came to ask his views on issues within the party to help them determine who they will support. The party is still going on, but I’m heading to bed. It is clear that campaigning for chair is starting out as a very non-hostile event from all sides. The vice-chair’s race is also off to a non-hostile start. I’ve had pleasant conversations with all the candidates for chair and vice-chair. Two years ago, candidates who didn’t think I was supporting them were openly hostile. The candidates running this time are not.
It is good to see people who would sometimes be considered to be “opposing factions” of the party supporting a common cause of re-energizing the elected leadership of the national party.
*facepalm* What a bunch of selfish jerks! They’ll waste the time of the delegates from 49 other states for their own power struggles. I still don’t get why they’re pursuing this. Their goal–to be the beloved leaders of the Oregon Libertarian Party–ain’t gonna happen.
I predict the author of Wes Wagner’s biography will devote at least a full chapter to the next 48 hours of history, vividly painting the scenes, as each comes into focus and blooms, much like a nuclear mushroom cloud, as his favorite, most fondly remembered LP convention. Wes, however, will likely downplay it in the autobiography.
Paulie said:. “I don’t think who the official LP would be up to the national convention, would it?”
No, it wouldn’t be, but that’s why I asked. Who knows what that other group thinks? They still think there’s something to win.
Paulie, re: Oregon. You have got to be kidding me. How late could someone call?
What delegation to seat. I don’t think who the official LP would be up to the national convention, would it?
No, but there are a lot of promotional materials which don’t make the fact that you don’t have to pay at least the 50 bucks minimum package at all obvious. If you already know, you can insist on it, but if you don’t you would probably assume that there is a 50 dollar floor fee based on the written descriptions I have seen.
What will Burke take to the floor? What delegation to seat, or who the “official” Oregon LP is?
8-1. Burke will take it to the delegates on the floor. My informal polling is that it may be close.
Thanks for the updates Starchild and anyone else who can help. I will provide updates as much as I can but will not be able to do it all the time.
I can, but probably won’t have time to get into a lot of detail until after the convention and travel to wherever I am headed next.
Paul Jones also made it in the 5th. Some candidates made it very narrowly. Some net yet known as far as I know. 9th is the only one I have heard that definitely did not.
Iowa. Lee Hieb.
Geoff did say it will be up at LP.org tho. Procedural/time issues, I think. Visek would not accept it as a friendly amendment, time expired, no second to extend time.
Tatiana Moroz is playing at the reception. Sarwark has a party in his room later.
We just adjourned. Next, off to the Platform Committee meeting…
Sam Goldstein announced that Region 3 selected new representative Dr. Mark Feldman, and new regional alternate, Brett Bitner.
Arvin and I both felt that the policy itself may need changing, but we shouldn’t be creating arbitrary, last-minute exemptions.
Dianna Visek moved to modify request to make it conditional on individuals not running for party office. Main motion passed 13-2-1? (Dianna and I voted against, Arvin Vohra abstained).
Sam Goldstein requesting (on behalf of Convention Management Committee chair Nancy Neale) exemptions from the LNC Policy Manual ban on delegates receiving compensation, for two individuals (an opera singer and an MC) who are delegates from Ohio, to allow the singer to be paid up to $500 and the MC to be paid up to $250.
Dianna Visek’s motion, amended by Brett Pojunis, passed 14-1-1 (Mark Hinkle against, Geoff Neale abstained) to require Convention Management Committee and staff to prepare, by Oct. 1, certain information on the 2014 convention including, but not limited to:
(1) package sales/count
(2) expenses by category
(3) number of rooms booked
(4) full profit and loss statement (Pojunis added)
(5) listing of volunteers and how much compensation each received
I wanted to make sure we added the information to LP.org, and included the contract with the hotel, and compensation of speakers, but Geoff Neale wouldn’t let me finish my motion when we ran out of time, and the LNC wouldn’t vote to extend time.
Geoff talking about office now. Says additional modifications, purchase of furniture, etc., largely completed. People can still make donations to get their names on the wall.
Paul Frankel now reporting on ballot access in Alabama. The state authorities are causing problems for some candidates, says we may have good basis for a lawsuit. Paulie can presumably give more details here later.
Bill is recommending we help the LP candidate for governor in Idaho if she needs help, because if she gets 2% then the LP will be ballot-qualified in that state for 2016. In 2012 it was a problem.
Bill Redpath now giving ballot access report. Said Rob Sarvis certified for ballot in Virginia.
Brett Pojunis asking Robert Kraus about implementation of Audit Committee report. Robert complained about rule requiring receipts for all reimbursed expenses, such as parking meters.
Now on Audit Committee report — Aaron Starr presenting. Makes good suggestion regarding more detail on budget, having “natural categories” such as “rent”, “salaries”, etc., instead of “administrative expenses”. I couldn’t agree more.
Thank you, Jill! I’m not super keen on it, but will in all likelihood run for at-large representative again. Certainly appreciate your support.
A whole bunch of old minutes were approved. Now on staff reports. Operations director Robert Kraus is here filling in for executive director Wes Benedict who could not be here due to personal illness.
Now voting on approving old minutes.
I tried to amend Tim’s motion to list the information about staff salaries in our budget (net income for each staffer) that our Federal Elections Commission consultant Paula Edwards said earlier today (by phone, in response to my question) are included in our FEC reports.
Chair Geoff Neale ruled my motion not germane and out of order.
The motion passed 14-1-1 (Norm Olsen voted no, I abstained).
Starchild, I sent you a text yesterday. I hope you got it. If not, I just wished you luck, and I hope you’ll be running for At-Large again.
I read through the commments quickly, but certainly didn’t see much that I’d consider “rude”. Ms. Mattson just have surprisingly thin skin.
LP Treasurer Tim Hagan is moving to amend the budget to reflect increased revenue from hat/t-shirt sales, several other adjustments to reflect changed revenue/expenses.
I just tried to add additional time for public comment during the meeting after each general section or category of business (up to 1 minute per person, up to 10 minutes per section total). I noted that we have just started the meeting, but already have more than usual number of observers at the meeting (15 at present). Arvin Vohra seconded, but I think everyone besides he and I voted no. I heard Sam Goldstein and Mark Hinkle specifically object to hearing more public comment.
The LNC meeting has now begun. We’re in the Fayette Room on the 2nd floor of the Hyatt in Columbus, Ohio.
LNC meeting starting in a few minutes.
Apparently what the committee voted to do is redact specific names and swear words (this was Jeff Orrock’s substitute motion to taking all the comments down).
As I’ve previously noted (and pointed out again in public comment to the Bylaws Committee before they adjourned), the bigger problem with these surveys are two:
(1) Surveys being sent out in a biased manner (arguments/rationales in favor of the committee proposals, but not against them)
(2) Survey results not being made equally accessible to ordinary party members as to members of the committee
Excuse me, that was the *summary* of the comments. Here’s the detailed comments (sorry about the formatting, or lack thereof, as well as the length — this is a direct copy and paste):
85
76
# Comments:
1Bylaws changes in the past, which have received heavy support, have been problematic.
2It help the flow of business if no opposition exists. It provides each committee delegate the option to
oppose something they absolute dislike. It provides a mechanism to discuss and approve each
recommendation separately if necessary
3with the provision that delegates are sent the proposals/changes a minimum of 30 days prior to the
convention, so that they may, if so desired, read them in their entirety. this process might even help reduce
further the time spent discussing these matters from the floor.
4More than 2 minutes should be allowed.
5This would speed up proceedings for non-controversial items
6As Libertarians it is important that each person has their say on each and every issue. Moreover, if the
bundled proposals are simple or technical it should not take much time.
7bundling rules and laws has caused many problems in our judicial system. one item at a time lets the poor
ones be deleted with out problem
8I agree with this change, so long as the commitment to a minimum of an hour to review before regular
business is followed. The Congress has shown that procedures which should ensure that a bill will be
submitted at least a full day before a vote can easily be bypassed.
9I would support this, but would recommend it be limited to amendments which are simply “technical
corrections.” For more substantive changes I think each should be considered separately.
10I would make it “at least three hours before”. That would give the person more time to study the
recommendations.
11I would support a “consent calendar” to simplify motions for delegates. However, it would be prudent to
bring the “consent calendar” up for recommendation/ amendment periodically as changes may be
necessary or delegates change.
12Too much power resides in the committee member that objects to a recommendation.
13Not sure I understand it correctly but ten minutes seems like a lot of time spent on a recommendation that
was voted down.
14I approve the principles of combining recommendations and voting separately for any recommendations
that are not unanimously approved. I feel strongly that 8 minutes of discussion for a recommendation
(combined or to be combined) to be far too limiting, since one long-winded or poorly-spoken verbal
commenter can effectively prevent all comments following him//her. Discussion(s) of any type, for any
purpose, should be limited to precisely x (perhaps 8) minutes per person, without repetition of speaking
opportunity, transferable (yielded) in whole or part to any other person who has not yet spoken. Any
rewording by the discussion leader in charge of a spoken recommendation must obtain the verbal approval
(from a yes or no response) of the recommender to make that reworded recommendation an item put up
for vote.
This recommendation I am making should be explicitly understood and implemented to allow a substitute
speaker to read or speak a proposal that originates from a recommender with a limiting speaking difficulty
or disability, and the approval of rewording should, in such case, be allowed with a verified hand or head
signal from the recommending party, with verifying signal and person to be noted.
15Change should come slowly and bundled legislation is one of the major flaws of our government today. As
libertarians we should consider each issue thoughtfully and cautiously even if it does try the patience of
some.
16I wouldn’t require unanimity from the committee, but recommend a 90% threshold.
17Saving time is important.
18I support the general idea here. The worder is strange nad I think this may better be put as a seperate rule
than trying to fork it into this one.
Particularly this same phrase one after another is confusing:
“…then each recommendation shall be considered separately. Each recommendation shall be considered
and adopted separately…”
19You are hogtying yourselves with the same bureaucratic entanglement of rules and details that lead to ever
bigger and more complex government. You’ll end up just like the other two ruling parties. Simplify!
1. Would you support or oppose this proposal?
Binary Comments:
5-choice Comments:
20If it’s debatable it’s worth consideration.
21Any discussion that is in direct or indirect opposition to a US citizens rights of just freedom will be deemed
for investigation as part of a cover-up and or conspiracy as is usually the case.
22This looks to have the potential to create rider recommendations similar to bill amendments in congress.
While this may not be an issue in the near future, should the party grow too large in size it could have
potential negative ramifications.
23Anything that simplifies, I’m for.
24Each recommendation should be given individual consideration rather than placing commitee members
into a position where to gain one vital change, the committe may be forced to also accept a less desirable
change as part of the bundled change package.
25itemization of the items of unanimous consent will allow for objection to specific items without slowing the
process for debate. We can’t simply ignore objections in the interest of speeding up the process. Otherwise
I am in support.
26no opinion
27Each recommendation deserves separate consideration. An ever-increasing number of rules and
regulations seems contrary to libertarian values and principles. Be careful!
28One hour before is not enough time to digest ten recommendations. Three days minimum, a week would
be preferable. Otherwise, I support the proposal.
29Any measure taken to expedite our internal mechanisms would serve to get us to the more pressing
matters of our platform and public relations.
30Perhaps a mechanism to remove any By-Law from the slate should there be a valid objection to it so it can
be debated separately. Otherwise, it seems that this proposal can be a time saver, allowing more time for
other maters before the Party.
31This is a good time-saving idea!
32Unsure if groups of 10 gets good recommendations tossed because of “poison pill” recommendations
33This seems a fair way to quickly get through 10 recommendations at a time, yet still alows each to be
debated as necessary.
34The option of “None of the above” is for some reason not allowed? If I have to make a decision on the
matter, I would vote for support, but don’t really care. If I continue to run up on this problem, will simply
cease to fill this out.
35There should be an undecided button on this survey
36I have never believed in consent calendars. This is often a way to sneak something in. Each item should
come up separately. If no one wants to debate it, the chair can go right to the vote.
37The last added sentence is unclear. Suggest you change it to: “If the consent recommendation is not
approved by the Convention, then each recommendation within it shall be considered as a separate
recommendation.” I also suggest you move the entire added wording to the end of the rule.
38Saves time and is SAFE for any recommendation.
39nothing new
40Each recommendation should be voted on separately. It is too easy to slip one bad one in with nine good
ones and get a passing vote. Also, I don’t like one Committee member being able to stop any
recommendation going forward.
41Debates are important and all issues/concerns etc. need to be addressed in a proper manner.
42Any delegate should be able to move to divide the question, i.e. take one or more of the bundled
amendments out for a separate vote.
43This seems more wasteful, if one recommendation is challenged the bundle falls apart. Each
recommendation must then be considered separately @ 8 minutes max each?
Just give the recommendation, take the 2 minutes and have the vote.
44Technical amendment could be grouped but substantive issues should be voted on separately as opinions
vary on these.
45Many delegates would oppose one amendment but approve others. Need to keep them separate except
for technical issues that could be grouped together
46We need single item bills in Congress. If a proposal is good it should stand on its own.
47Last sentence of proposed change should change for “If it” to “If the recommendation is not…”
48makes sense, if no one objects, move on quickly. as long as everyone gets the chance to see whats being
proposed prior to the action and enough time is given to review it prior to the action. overall the idea makes
sense
49One hour is not enough time in many cases to evaluate a proposal. One week is the minimum I would
consider appropriate for any announcement of a consent agenda.
50More time should be given to debating and voting on amendments to bylaws and platform planks, and less
time to speakers, entertainment, lunches, and frills.
51Rather involved but workable
52offering something repetitive and redundant (for what it’s worth) here:
for thoroughly clarifying after then words “…..the single consent recommendation” … additionally insert
parenthesized (i.e. the compressed condense slate)
53This will lead to “compromise” which generally leads to the degradation of rules.
54Concise expression is the essence of good communication.
55Not enough time to review.
56Each change in our operations or rules should be reviewed by the delegates.
57This will significantly enhance the ability to the delegates to prioritize those issues which need discussion.
58i think this will save some time.
59Ever hear of the “one subject at a time” Act? Same concept.
60I’ve been a delegate to four National Conventions and often hurt myself by stumbling into things I couldn’t
see because of glazed-over eyes.
61Too lengthy/time consuming.
62If lumped together, should they not all be considered a package deal, so that if not approved together they
all are struck down? If then considered seperately the whole process could take longer than before.
63I’d support either way. Not important to me.
64I’d like the recommendations to be made available at least 24 hours prior to business.
65changes should be voted on individually. If there are too many, that means, there are too many.
66One hour is not enough time
67Remember the big picture. Don’t sweat the small stuff.
68If the recommendation fails, why do you want to recommend an additional 10 minutes? If it fails, move on
to the next proposal.
69I oppose this for the sake that one hour prior is too short of notice. It should be 24 hours if not 48 hours
prior. Conventions and the time surrounding is very hectic for all involved and especially traveling
delegates. We should make sure everyone has had the opportunity to reach over everything and come to a
knowledgable and rational decision.
70This proposal could potentially give too much power to a committee. For instance, if a Committee is
proposing something desirable to the larger body of delegates and they want to push through something
that they know will be offensive to the larger body, they could adjoin the two to force their idea through. This
proposition has great potential to limit the free will of many in favor of the ideas of a stalwart few. In my
assessment, it is in direct opposition to a Libertarian Political Philosophy.
71this would allow “pork” legislation
‘
72I think each issue should be considered independently and not bulked together as Congress does allowing
issues to become currency of trade. This would lead to more trading of support OR sacrificing one issue
for another.
73I’ve seen enough bylaws debates to know that such a slate will never pass, so this would just be a waste of
time.
74more efficiency is good as long as it’s not violating anyone’s rights. That’s sort of our point, right? 🙂
75I cannot express strongly enough how much I support this!!!
76Streamlining is a good start
77This is what is wrong with politics and what allows things to be slipped by a lazy electorate. If delegates
don’t like debate they should join another party.
78I support debate among and between th parties. I register to vote so I dont need voter I.D. thanks C.P.
79As long as there are safeguards against stuffing the rollup
80We’ve done this in the past as a suspension of the rules, mostly to take care of trivial housekeeping
matters.
81There are too many ways “technical corrections” can have unintended effects, and these need to be
debated.
82Riders can very easily pass with this process, slipping in potentially bad language.
83Sounds logical and efficient.
84Overly wordy and very confusing.
85Sounds like a useful timesaver
# Comments:
1It would allow the convention to operate more efficiently.
2Those details, specific words, down to every comma can be manipulated by this new insurgent that calls
themselves the Liberal Libertarians.
Leave the details argument alone!
The real players, unlike the amateurs, come prepared for battle and ready to stay as long as it takes.
3Need to highlight any major change.
4Committees such as Bylaws and Platform need to start earlier, conduct their surveys earlier and post their
final proposals online at least 30 days prior to the convention.
5Past delegate twice, good housekeeping change
6Please make it clear to the delegates what the required vote would be to pass the consent
recommendation. I assume it would be 2/3.
7Sacrificing principle for expediency is not acceptable. The minority should have their time.
810 at a time is too cumbersome. Committees are notorious for getting wrapped around the axle. No more
than 5 recommendations will keep them busy & out of trouble.
9If there was no substantial opposition, no one would debate them.
10How do you define “significant” opposition?
11Would like to see “..at least one hour..” struck, and replaced with; “..at least twenty four hours…”.
12This smells like a railroad
13One hour prior is not enought time. Make it one week and I would strongly support this.
14Just ask yourself one simple, yet extremely guiding, question. How would the California State Bar
Association vote on this issue? Then, vote exactly the opposite way. That way, you’ll be sure to be on
track every time!!!
15I believe even some small things still need to be debated to see where the party stands, but for the most
part have no problem with this proposal.
16Clearly we want proceedings to be both efficient AND effective. It sounds like things have gotten inefficient
in pursuit of ensuring effectiveness. Critically this change must not be allowed to swing the pendulum too
far the other direction. This change appears to strike a reasonable balance.
17As long as the decisions are unanimous I have no issues with allowing the technical details being voted on
simultaniously in order to speed the process up.
18keep it simple – so it doesn’t turn me off
19To me, ten is too many to include at once. Maybe a token system would work for this. Provide five tokens
for voting and group the 5 most voted for bylaw changes together for a single vote on the floor. Possibly
allot a second set of 5 if there are really that many necessary changes fully supported by the committee.
20This can get a little dangerous, it seems to be a work around to get massive changes with possible “riders”
attached.
21Bylaws are laws! We are Libraterians, we support no Laws unless there is a Damaged Party!!!
22I support this proposal because the more information the better. A lack of information leads to a lack of
transparency, understanding, and communication between the Rules Committee and the party as a whole.
BRAVO, I applaud the change.
23I believe that the 1 hour time frame is too short to allow for proper review. In my opinion this should be
increased to 24 hours.
241 hour is deficient. I have worked at several different conventions, there is never sufficient time once at a
convention to review recommendations. It should be no less than 1 day.
25There are already time limits imposed. If something requires debate, it is something that should be brought
up separately.
26Place a limit on number of times to reopen for amendment.
27too much debate and you go nowhere
28Bylaws are annoying things to obsess over, but it must be done.
29It may make things go faster when the recommendations are not controversial.
30The 8 minute option should be 10 minutes instead with an optional yielding of alloted time to other
members if a recommendation is supported
31One hour is not sufficient notice for anything. I expect to see this stuff 30 days before the convention, along
with a lucid justification for the requested change.
32Seems like this gives the committee a lot of extra power, for instance: if one of the amendments was
slightly unacceptable, it might not noted as quickly by the voting membership.
33Not in our state bylaws, but we effectively did the same thing with proposed changes at our state
convention. Someone suggested taking all proposals as a slate, a vote to suspend the rules to allow this
was taken.
34If this passes, it would not go into effect until the next convention. But a motion to suspend the rules would
allow us to utilize this procedure immediately.
35efficiency is key in the success of the party but i’m a little concerned about the clause that states “No
recommendation shall be placed into the consent recommendation if there is an objection from any
member of the committee.” this seems authoritarian by nature and I think as a party which is trying to lead
america in the exact opposite direction of that, our bylaws should reflect as such. committee opposition is a
very poor reason to disregard a recommendation. we’re already limiting debate time greatly by a type of
consent calendar. we don’t need someone to be shot down because of a pissy committee member. if it
does not fit within the guidelines of recommendations then there is no need for it to have the opportunity to
be opposed by any member of the committee. there needs to be some kind of filtration process before the
committee is presented w any material.
36Any recommendation which saves time without restricting the delegates should be supported.
37Sensible!
38Moves the easy ones out of the way and saves time.
39My only question concerns the number 10. Why not 7 or 15? My point being isn’t this just a bit arbitrary?
Say for example there are 16 recommendations that meet the criteria, would they be submitted in two
batches of 8 or one of 10 and another of 6? Just asking.
40I like the proposal very much, but 1 hour is not nearly enough time to review and consider a combined set
of up to 10 recommendations, unless each recommendation had already been known ahead of time with a
much longer timetable. If that is the case, then I would support.
41I would rather see electronic voting for each proposed amendment rather than bundling a big package. It is
more efficient but it just like big government.
42why should the committee be unanimous? Perhaps majority would be more appropriate
43Must be in keeping with the basic principles low taxes and smaller government.
Should not knock other people. Reagan was the Capitan when we lost 24l marines , 3 soldiers and 18
sailors the French Lost 75 troops.
44Recommendations must be in keeping with our stated principles.When you do not have a case you attack
the character of the individual not the issues. Benghazi and Beirut , were not on anyones radar ,.
Hindsight is the only exact science known to man. Past President we had/have thought/ think their
philosophy and judgment were sound . That is why we have politics to see whose values shall prevail. We
have a sound message no need to attack the charter of our opposition. We are all salespeople, a
succesfful salesperson ,says” , you have a point but.”
45You must be able to give up the idea to leglazie drugs
46CHANGES TO BASIC RULES SHOULD BE ARDUOUS. WHILE REPUBLICANS AND SOCIALIST NOW
GIVE LITTLE ATTENTION TO LIBERTARIANS, THE TIME COULD COME WHEN THEY COULD LOAD
COMMITTEES WITH “UNDERCOVER” PEOPLE WHO HAVE SPENT YEARS DEVELOPING POSITIONS
IN THE PARTY.
47Maybe allow more than one hour to study the proposals?
48Really! we are doing what we most dispise, micro legislation! lets do it to our selves!
49Saves monster time.
50Reword the 2nd to last sentence.
51I remember the 88 convention – 45 minutes and 7 amendments deep into whether the proposal should be
discussed another 5 minutes, certainly there must be a better way to convince the public that libertarians
are rational people.
52I don’t think that the correct solution is an easier path to approval. Open debate should always be
encouraged and supported. The challenge within that venue is leadership, This seems to be treating the
symptom and not the cause.
53Very sensible proposal to cut through the red tape and keep things moving.
54EVERY ONE HAS SOMETHING TO SAY!
55One hour notice is insufficient.
56No reason to limit it to 10 recommendations – remove “up to ten (10)”.
Should be in the packet when registering rather than “at least one hour”, but language could remain in case
there are last minute changes.
57A better option is to limit the number of bylaws proposals considered at each convention.
58We have to insure items are stated properly or they can be misinterpreted, I have no issue with taking the
extra time to insure everything is properly worded or punctuated.
59http://newjerusalemcalendar.com/NJC.pdf
60I don’t like bundling. Rational decision may give way to expedience.
61The whole point of the Bylaws Report is for the membership to consider each proposal alone on its own
merits. This proposal would remove power from from the membership and could allow a bad proposal to
be snuck in with the rest.
62If the committee get along well, this good be a good idea but if the committee get along like the other
polictical parties it could be bad. I really don’t know how else to comment.
63This will certainly save time. However, you should increase the minimum to 4 hours.
64It is more important to get it right.
65Bundling proposals like this could result in members being forced to vote for something they oppose, in
order to vote for something they support in the same single consent recommendation.
66The less paperwork the better.
67Allowing just 1 committee member to veto might be inviting ego problems.
68Alloted time is rather lengthy. Five minutes should be sufficient.
69You indicate the benefit is “This would save a significant amount of debate time.” If there were a significant
amount of debate time, the debate would bring to light issues/benefits/considerations that may affect the
voting.
70The amount of time for the discussions should also be broken down to how much time each individual
inputs so that the total time is not hogged or wasted. If a discussion should include more than a single
person, the discussion time should have an opportunity to be extended by a certain amount of mins with a
limited amount of times to do so by vote. This way important matters can be discussed in better detail,
allow questions, all while maintaining an order and moving things along smoothly.
Advise, also include a time deadline for when votes must be submitted. As well what counts as a vote pass
(majority) or fail. Also mention how debate can continue with out all party members as long as chairs and
important roles are present at the fairly scheduled time. This all should also keep motions moving timely
with out delay.
Lastly, specifically mention how to re-address separate recommendations.
Only thing I disagree with is a recommendation being turned down by just one opposing vote or opinion. I
believe the chosen recommendations should be up for discussion with in a certain time frame, and voted
on by fair majority / minority vote pass or fail in order to be submitted. The voting process should also be
short and able even with out all party members as long as it was scheduled in advance with everyone
71You have built in enough other safeguards to remove the arbitrary slate limit of ten in my opinion. There
should be no restriction on the number of recommendations that can be handled in this manner.
72Good idea but it starts down the road to our current system, with bills covering a myriad of topics and which
are impossible to define and take a stand on.
73If this passes I suspect I will be voting no on the consent agenda. I’ve seen too many sloppy bylaw
changes present with a high level of approval by the committee
74Vote on each item individually.
75One hour may not be long enough to review up to ten amendments; twelve to twenty-four hours would be
better allowing delegates to discuss them amongst themselves and form opinions regarding them before
the meeting begins
76The floor should have the ability to delete single items separate from accepting them in mass.
33
37
# Comments:
1I support it generally, but would like to know the concerns if any of the Secretary.
2I’m concerned that this proposal dilutes political accountability for the delegate credentialing process.
The existing bylaw allows the Secretary to delegate the delegate credentialing to the Credentials
Committee, but remain accountable for that delegation.
The proposed bylaw would give control of delegate credentialing to the same committee that has in recent
conventions been controlled by the Shenanigans Crowd, which acted in contravention of the Judicial
Committee’s ruling on the Oregon LP.
Perhaps if the Credentials Committee were populated as is proposed in Proposal #11 (add per-capita
measure) I could get on board.
3Are there procedures within the Credentials Committee for certification? Unanimous or majority?
4more eyes on keeps slip ups to a minimum
57b. It might be a good idea to leave “Secretary” Credentials Committee in this section. Otherwise, the
Secretary wouldn’t be provided with a list of delegates?
7a. The strike out of Secretary should work in this section perhaps.
6This new procedure for credentialing needs provisos: All lists of delegates and alternates and all affiliate
party procedures being used must be in hard copy form, annotated with effective/enacted date and time,
which must be safeguarded, and these things may be in digital form as a convenience. The safeguarding
responsibility must be officially assigned to member or members of the Credentials Committee. All choices
of alternate(s) accepted as substitutes must be issued in hard copy form, annotated with effective date and
time, and may be recorded in digital form as a convenience. These hard copies are also to be safeguarded
by the accepted procedures.
All documented decisions by the Credentials Committee, if reproduced from digital copies, must display
effective date and time AND printed date and time.
7It will reflect reality.
8Again, any substitute rule, method, or means of prescribing law or process shall not come into infringement
upon a US citizens rights of just freedoms as Constitutionally and Nationally guaranteed and protected,
under the Supreme Being, and perpetuated by the USA Federal government, and its peoples.
9Drawing lots from what pool of potential delegates. Shouldn’t this be specified?
10no opinion
11This is good. Certification decisions should not be left up to only one individual anyway. This will lessen
the opportunity for ethics violations.
12Must be present.
13Is this sufficient or does power need to be granted to the credentials committee regarding credential info?
14This is a practical, common sense change.
15Being in accordance with reality is generally a good and desirable thing.
16Why make it one or the other? Should be “Secretary and the Credentials Committee” in the first case and
“Secretary, or Credentials Committee when delegated the responsibility by the Secretary” in the second
case. Also, is it really correct to say certification by the Credentials Committee… is it really the Committee
that certifies alternates, or is it “a member of the CC” or “a representative of the CC” ?
17Just as a consideration it may be better to allow the Secretary the authority to delegate to the Credentials
Committee the authority to certify alternate delegates instead of stripping the Secretary entirely of this
authority.
18same old same old
2. Would you support or oppose this proposal?
5-choice Comments:
Binary Comments:
19If the affiliate party has made no provision for filling delegate vacancies, the alternate substitute shall be
decided by drawing lots.
this statement seems to nullify the idea. Either the delegate who is absent planned ahead and registered
with the committee or no one should take the place. the question becomes one of time and authority, how
much time does it take to draw lots, who does it, when and more importantly why if a procedure is already
in place to register with the committee. the statement above makes way for any delegate or substitute who
failed to plan. does not seem to make sense, it creates redundancy.
20Maybe say “Secretary and/or…”
21Ultimate power should not rest with a “committee.” Too much opportunity for mischief.
22Care needs to be taken that this is NOT abused
23In subset paragraph (b) “…..and the Credentials Committee has been provided with lists of the affiliate
party’s delegates and alternates as well as a copy of the affiliate party’s rules governing substitutions.”
*
How likely is it not that this has been predetermined? One word bothers the bah-gee-bees but
nonetheless…. “copy” Consider either specifying such in better detail or another word more general as
verification.
24Sounds good.
25I support the use of common sense in accomplishing the goals and needs of the organization.
26I’d support either way. Not important to me.
27neutral
28Self Explanatory.
29I believe in the KISS principal, Keep It Simple Son.
30dont get proposal!. sorry! C.P.
31A prime candidate for a consent calendar.
32With rules in place this should increase involvement and attendance.
33Leave it to the secretary alone
# Comments:
1It promotes transparency in operations to allow the bylaws to reflect the reality of the situation.
2Seems like the secretary could just provide their list to the credentials committee either way.
3Credentials Committee shall refer to the Secretary in the event of a an unresolvable dispute. In all cases,
decisions of the Secretary, when made, shall have precedence over decisions of the Credentials
Committee.
4You need to be very careful here. Your Progressive counterparts are real good at infiltration.
5Streamlines the process & frees up the sec’y.
6How does the committee determine compliance? Is approval made by a majority vote of the committee?
Are records kept if such votes?
7You are making something more cumbersome for no good reason.
8Makes sense and aligns the Bylaws with real practice.
9Since “Credentials Committee” smacks if have absolutely no personal accountability (much like the U.S.
Senate and House of Representatives), a better solution might be to keep the “Secretary” responsible for
doing this job, but empowering the “Secretary” with liberal powers to appoint “acting secretaries” under him
or her. That was, the accountability would be preserved while the labor of “credentialing delegates” is
divided among several workers.
10Sounds like a good idea. I doubt anyone will have issues with this proposal.
11Seems logical
12Adding unnecessary positions to the payroll just to look over bylaws that should be known by those above
them regardless is not only redundant but als a waste of money.
13are libertarians that different from state to state – that missing a vote could turn the whole damn revolution
on its head
14Is the intention to have these certifications take place at each meeting of the committee? Or would giving
the Credentials chair or his/her designee that power allow these certifications to take place without the
committee meeting?
15Bylaws are laws! We are Libraterians, we support no Laws unless there is a Damaged Party!!!
16This is thoroughly confusing to me BECA– USE you would allow, “affiliate parties” to participate in your
convention? NO! You’re either LP or your not! Period. Full Stop.
17″A Credentials Secretary” would be wiser, since it will prevent a committee from getting into a circular
review discussion. Several of these positions may be created and dismissed as needed.
18sounds good to me.
19More eyes always make for less mistakes and more integrity.
20When you said, “function as a delegate whenever a delegate of the same state. . .,” did you mean “function
as a delegate whenever the corresponding delegate of the same state . . .”?
21We should also standardize the process of determining alternates. In the past, Alaska has always declared
that any member of ALP who shows up is an alternate and can be seated as a delegate if a vacancy exists.
We also have seated alternates from other states. Assuming that this is legal, all states should utilize these
procedures, unless they have elected ordered alternates who are present.
22I believe if one committees to anything they should be there; counter argument may be keeping things lose
will enlarge the party. As an aside , I would let anyone become a member and in joining they may or not
make a donations. Numbers are important. I stop paying for a newspaper long ago, they still
keep sending me the paper. They. need numbers to sell advertising
23This unnecessarily complicates things. If a state has too few or no alternate delegates to fill in for
absences, then tough luck!
24Committee implies more than one person. More than one person implies potential to apply rules differently.
Create a Credentialing Secretary position for each convention to do what you have suggested in the
proposed change.
25show your membership card, verify the dues are paid and be done with it
26Makes sense.
27be flexible; consider “or his appointed representative”. this could be some un-elected committee, or a hired
clerk, or anyone capable of doing the job with honesty and integrity.
28seems very sensible
29This makes sense.
30It makes sense to assign the duties where they are actually getting done. This will also take pressure off of
your secretary.
31This proposal seems to be motivated by a misunderstanding of the current rules.
32http://newjerusalemcalendar.com/NJC.pdf
33It seems more democratic.
34Committee? Invitation to disaster.
35The way PresidentObama and Senate Majority Leader Reid rules, its better to have more than one person
rule instead on a single person.
36Genius solution to a prominent problem! Might add more to the responsibilities of the Credentials
Committee if it more than certifying delegates / alternates. As well who / amount of people the Credentials
Committee consists of and their qualifications to have such responsibilities.
I assume the certification process would remain the same as it did under the secretary- however if a
committee takes on the responsibility, there is an ability to as well change the process to be more efficient.
37A Secretary is one committed person. Committees are several people of various responsibilities. It is best
for one committed person to assume these duties rather than a Committee, which is difficult to get together
at one time AND for all to be knowledgeable of the issue/duty at hand.
81
67
# Comments:
1This will help clarify situations like the one in Washington State.
2Not related to this proposal–but could the font be bigger on these texts? My eyesight isn’t what it used to
be.
3I oppose fusion candidates. Candidates should state clearly who they are standing with and what
Worldview they embrace. You can not be a Libertarian and a Republican, or a Libertarian and a Democrat
at the same time. I would like to see an even stronger statement saying candidates must be registered with
the board of elections as Libertarian, even when all that happens is they get reported publicly as ‘other’ or
‘blank’. When that happens the Candidate can at least swear that they tried to register Libertarian. We
should not be the ‘second chance’ line for rejected Democratic or Republican politicians.
4A great way to build more slow and steady support from partisan voters!
5With the provision that said candidate develops and/or signs an agreement with Libertarian principles so as
not to cloak him/herself in the guise of Libertarianism while using it as a lever to gain election.
6No, a Libertarian candidate should not be considered a “fused” candidate associated with any other
political party.
7I will vote against an amendment that deletes the underlined language.
8don’t think we need to compromise with other parties
9Understand that there is a feeling this would draw more votes to our candidates but this proposal may
muddy the waters. People might ask: “What is the difference between a Libertarian and a Republican?”
Or, phrased another way, “Are the Libertarians no better than the Republicans?”
10This is good until the L. party has enough depth to compete with other parties.
11I am not sure about this one. I see many times Republicans claim they are Libertarians, but when it comes
right down to it they are not. Such as “I am libertarian, but I do not agree we should modify our ridiculous
drug laws”
Or “I am a Libertarian, but we need to get involved militarily around the world to make sure our interests are
protected.”
Either you are a Libertarian or you are not, and if you are, then dissasociate yourself from the Republican
Party (or Democratic Party as rare as that may be)
12I think that this is of great importance
13Two parties are affiliates if either party has the power to control the other, or a third party controls or has
the power to control the both.
this confuses me, who would be able to control our party?
14Needs more explanation.
15I think it is important to support libertarian (lower case “l”) candidates regardless of party affiliation.
16Though this could be helpful (say the Libertarian party doesn’t have someone running for an office, but the
Green Party does and the Green Party candidate would be much more friendly to Libertarian ideas than a
Democrat or Republican), but it also opens up the chance for untrustworthy Democrats and Republicans
(or others from any other party) to try to trick people out of their votes by putting their name on the ballot as
a Libertarian Party member. If there is no one from the Libertarian Party running for a particular office, just
let each individual voter do their homework and pick the one that will fight for liberty the most.
17Do we want fusion candidates? Are they really Libertarians?
18I realize that we are a party that hasn’t had a lot of success YET with “big” offices in our nations
government. Let the Republicans and Democrats cloud the lines of party allegiance…I’m a Libertarian and
not a hybrid or “fusion” supporter.
19In any state where practice by the election officials would prevent a ballot entry to include the vote count
entered under the Libertarian Party line for the first round of vote count reporting, whether combined or not,
with another party count, will be communicated by that state LP party organization, to US LP headquarters
and officers as soon as practical, for communication to the US LP membership.
This suggestion is to prevent obscuring or delaying both the vote count on the LP line AND obscuring the
effect of having a fusion candidate and his/her combined vote count.
5-choice Comments:
Binary Comments:
3. Would you support or oppose this proposal?
20The language still has problems. Consider allowing affiliates to endorse candidates who are bona fide
members of the LP (I’m a life member for example) but are registered in another party; I registered
Republican in California last year because the top two system here results in a dearth of LP candidates on
the ballot.
21I would go further to allow state parties to endorse other party candidates. If the state affiliate is weak with
no candidates, the strongest impact it could make might be the endorsement of someone else. This would
only apply to candates at or below the state level where no county or state LP had a candidate in that
election.
22Fusion candidates should be allowed.
23While i oppose the LNC using Party resources to “go after” the NYLP (or any other affiliate with similar
options) but the idea of fusion candidates is repugnent and is in oppositon to the purpose of the LP as
defined in Article e of the by laws “…functioning as a libertarian political entity separate and distinct from all
other political parties or movements…”
24Unless you know of another party with principles like those of the L party.
25I would support a proposal that clarifies that endorsing fusion candidates is not permitted.
26May dilute Libertarian principals
27If someone wishes to run as a Libertarian, then he or she should run only as such.
I have no objection to endorsing a person who claims affiliation with another party, but I cannot agree that
the Libertarian Party should allow this, regardless of state law.
This is a party of principal; not convenience.
28Any candidate for US governmental position shall be Constitutionally restricted, and bound by the rightfully
and peacefully organized political party platform that does not interfere with the Rights of Human beings,
especially US citizens, in any capacity.
Authorities rest with each individual, in conjunction with mathematical law, that universally respects the
Rights of all peoples.
29run as a libertarian or don’t endorse period.
30Could potentially cause some rifts, I suppose.
31I’d strengthen it to allow for endorsing fusion candidates, period. The LP needs the best guy up at the
plate, and if there is a strong liberty-minded Republican (for example) that wants also get the LP
nomination, we should be open minded about endorsing.
32Why don’t they just run on the Libertarian Party ticket? Why perpetuate the current status quo of two
parties?
33Why would a libertarian candidate on both lines at the same time? That makes no sense to me!
34A horse trying to be in two pastures at one time is only trying to game the system to its own advantage.
35I would like to know whether this would be applicable if the LP had no candidate in the running for that
office and wanted to support a candidate who is on the ballot with another party?
36For the sake of the party’s propagation, it should be strenuously stated that a fusion candidate must identify
the Libertarian Party as his/her primary affiliation whenever and however possible. Otherwise a fusion
candidacy only serves to promote the perception that the Libertarian Party is an offshoot of the other two
parties.
37I do not see enough usefulness in fusion candidates to overcome the potential confusion to the libertarian
brand
38I would merely advise extreme caution when cross-endorsing: I used to be a member of the NY State
Conservative Party, and have seen what careless cross-endorsement policies and procedures have done
to them over the years.
39Not sure I understand this one
40I think there may be a comma missing before the “and” in the amendment.
41This entire article should be stricken. The state party is not beholden to the national party. In my state, the
election laws clearly give no authority to any national entity. The state party is under no obligation to follow
any rules of the national party.
42Libertarians should only support members of their party, not other parties. That is what is wrong with the
Republican party; it has to many Democrats in it who have taken over the party.
43Just a Q: is the term fusion candidate defined elsewhere in the rules? If not, this addition will add rather
than eliminate confusion.
44This is ok, but maybe we should consider endorsing a libertarian candidate in states that don’t allow
Libertarian candidates.
45I’d rather leave it alone. Frankly, I don’t want Republicans or Democrats trying to infect our party by
claiming to be Libertarian. Libertarianism is hard sell – precisely because it is principled. I’ve lost faith in
the blue and red parties…
46We’re more apt to get Libertarian candidates elected with this policy.
47Not really sure of the significance of this. Affiliates should be able to endorse any candidate that expresses
libertarian principles.
48LPCT is about to wage this battle (6/21/14). Our bylaws are silent on this topic, and we may fall back onto
this sword and lose a Libertarian ballot line because of it, and inadvertently help the incumbent who’s
practices have been demonstrated to be anti-liberty.
49complaints will just continue
50more and more Libertarians are running as Repubs b/c it’s easier to make ballot access, planks such as
this remove an opportunity to work w/Repubs (or Dems) that are in line w/our beliefs (Justin Amash for ex)
51I would also like to see the affiliate parties have the ability to endorse candidates of another party IF no
Libertarian Party candidate is on the ballot. Or possibly make a statement of acceptability or preference in
lieu of an official endorsement IF no Libertarian is on the ballot.
52Our candidates are either Libertarians or they are not. The problem with this country is the Democrats and
the Republicans. To fuse with either is a compromise of ideals.
53Libertarian Party candidates should soon be included in primary voting!
54This seems to be a good idea in practice let’s see where it goes.
55″Allows states to support a wider range of libertarian candidates where state election law facilitates this.”
Yeah, sounds quite like benefit there or does it when every actuality be said and gets done?
I cannot abstain in choice to this proposal, though I’d like to here with this survey. If I felt certain as to some
extended fix of what’s termed herein “fusion candidates” and “ballot line,” I’d maybe then support such.
However, I must check (until better reckoning) the oppose feature here at this time.
56Fusion canditates dilute the message and principles of the party.
57Strongly support this issue
58Libertarian should be kept separate. We are special. Not to be confused wit Reps or Dems who both carry
too much of a stigma.
59The more the merrier.
60Must have the LP ballot line!
61If the candidate already runs on the LP line, what difference does the “endorsement” mean? Further, an LP
fusion candidate should be a member of the LP and not a member of another party. LP Fusion candidates
should allow for LP movement into other parties, not other parties movement into the LP.
62this should not be allowed because we are not allowed to endorse another parties canidate. and if that is
the case then another party member could easily try to become a libertarian just to try to get votes.
63We should not handcuff them as long as they don’t contradict our ideology.
64Do not trust the convictions of someone that plays more than one side to increase odds of winning.
Politicians should not hedge their bets. If they win, who has their loyalty? No one, because they have
already proved by their actions they have none.
65I’d support either way. Not important to me.
MUST DEFINE “FUSION CANDIDATES”
66This proposal does not go far enough. Our bylaws should not prevent us from endorsing Libertarian-
minded candidates like Ron Paul even if they do not or cannot appear on the Libertarian ballot line.
67I’m not sure on yhis one, shouldn’t the party endorse other candidates as it sees fit?
68I
69Sure, let’s get a win, and change back if needed.
70Some states do not allow party affiliation when signing up to be a candidate for pubic office. For example:
Running for a city council seat in Virginia, no party affiliation is allowed.
71I don’t understand the concept of fusion candidates.
72I don’t like the idea of fusion anything. Either you are a Libertarian and you espouse Libertarian ideals, or
you’re not.
73Of course I’d like to see added that the candidate must also be a member in good standing of the LP, but I
know the monumential task that would be to get approved…
74I thoroughly support this motion. In some cases, LP goals may be best achieved via “fusion candidates.” It
also allows the LP an unprecedented opportunity to speak to the D and R constituency that a fusion
candidate may already represent. It may allow for focusing and targeting of financial resources toward our
policy goals, and even unify the LP spend with that of the D’s or R’s while campaigning.
75STRONGLY SUPPORT!! As many Libertarians like myself have a more conservative view of how to
implement liberty for all without removing all Egalitarian laws to support large populations and also NOT
over promote a certain way of life that can harm monetary values of personal property, and to protect the
party against atheist bias or deviant bias over the well being of people as a whole and all of their liberties.
76what is a fusion candidate? vote nay until I konow C.P.
77Hooray!
It is very important to allow libertarians to run on other party lines (and primaries), rather than limiting them
to the LP line only. Running in primaries brings allows LP candidates to receive press coverage and
participate in debates during the primary season (usually in Summer), whereas LP petitions are not filed
until AFTER the primaries are over, so that LP candidates are totally ignored until then!
I have done so twice (1998 & 1999), and always successfully encouraged several other LP candidates to
do so.
New York Election Law permits a party to issue a certificate (“Wilson-Pakula”) that allows nomination of a
candidate who is also happens to be a member of another party.
I suggest the national bylaws be modified to recognize this, rather than blocking LP candidates from
running in the primaries of other parties!
78Unless I misunderstand, fusion candidates dilute the Libertarian party. I’m sick of of the political pandering
which has ruined this country. If a candidate wants to be voted in as a Libertarian, they need to be
beholding to the Libertarian party alone.
79Platforms of the other parties are incompatible with the LP. Any candidate who claims to represent both is
lying to somebody.
80Broaden our base and ring in those ready to jump.
81Defies the words freedom of choice
# Comments:
1How do candidates get the LP ballot line? Couldn’t our endorsement be part of it? This language seems to
rule that out since they’d need the ballot line in order to get the endorsement.
2this wording almost encourages affiliates of the LP in states that allow such options to do it. I think that
doing so violates the very idea within the statement of priniples that the Libertarian Party is an entinty
seperate from all other polictical parties and libertarian organizations.
3What states?
4Do not fuse Libertariani candidates with either Democrat or Republican candidates.
5It turns the party into an endorsement organization.
6Candidates of other parties say a lot of things to garner support. Caution here is advised.
7The Libertarian Party and its affiliates should NEVER, EVER endorse or give a ballot line to a member of
the Democratic Party or Republican Party. The Libertarian Party should be strongly and forcefully opposed
to fusion voting. State parties should NOT be permitted to endorse fusion candidates.
8I strongly support endorsing fushion candidates, but in some states it is very difficult for the LP to run
candidates. I support endorsing party members regardless with which party they qualify for the ballot.
9Dr Paul and son
10Looks like an opportunity for great mischief, but I would like to see what happens. We can always change
it back.
11We need to do something to help get at least a few of our folks elected to something of consequence!
12Absolutely needs to be done. We need to get our candidates elected, and this is one step closer to that.
13I initially wanted to select strongly support, but backed off a bit as I thought a bit more… This seems like a
good idea in general – where to draw the boundary of defining a person’s political alignment can be tricky
and clearly there is overlap. What gives me pause is the idea of expediency. In theory this could be used
by someone who isn’t really committed to key Libertarian ideals (recognizing that too has a good deal of
grey in it, not just black & white) to expand their pool of voters – but vigilence in endorsements is always
important I suppose.
14Don’t like the idea of having fusion candidates. either folks are Libertarian Candidates or they aren’t.
15Clarity is always appreciated.
16I like this as it opens the door to an approach I have been thinking about. I would propose that when we
nominate our 2016 Presidential candidate that we include a provision that if a major party would happen to
nominate a highly libertarian minded candidate that we would offer a Libertarian fusion ballot line to this
candidate in lieu of our nominee.
17I don’t want candidates who support rep or dem agendas
18Go big or go home. It almost sounds like the party would be supporting a wavering of principles. If you are
going to affiliate yourself with the LP, then you must adhere to “The Party of Principle” concept, even at the
risk of less votes.
19Bylaws are laws! We are Libraterians, we support no Laws unless there is a Damaged Party!!!
20This is an affiliates or ‘is in line with’ question. NO! You are either LP or you’re not! Period. Full Stop.
21If a position does not have a Libertarian candidate, but a candidate from another party is running that fulfills
the standards of the Libertarian party, then there should be an exception. That means we are not
campaigning against ourselves, but recognizing that another candidate is, by example, fulfilling our
standards. (There are constitutional party members that do fill this description, and the constitution party
does endorse libertarians at times.) However, this is such a rare event, that I don’t expect this to happen
often, but we should have some allowance for it.
22unnecessary and convoluting
23We should be allowed to endorse a candidate of another party in races where the affiliate was unable to
field a candidate. I’m talking about Ron Paul Republicans. Had Ron Paul been successful in wining the
Republican nomination in either 2008 or 2012 what would the national LP have done? You know there
would have been a major push for either Barr or Johnson to drop out and throw the full support of the LP to
Ron Paul. As long as the candidate aspires libertarian principals, this should not be an issue for affiliates.
24fusion is ok
25Principle versus pragmatism, I’ll stay out of this one. We shouldn’t be Working Families, but we don’t want
to be just those crazy Libertarians either.
26The New York State Capital District chapter appears to have endorsed candidates without any guarantee
that they will appear on the Libertarian ballot line. In fact, state law can prevent a candidate from appearing
on independent lines if they are on two or more recognized party lines.
27This may be good. In my home state, New Jersey if you are a registered Libertarian you have no say in the
primary votes.
28Party loyalty requirements are the most self defeating things that we do. The next President, Senator,
legislator, and dog catcher is most likely going to be a Democrat or a Republican. It would be nice it they
could also be a Libertarian. Ron Paul is as close as we got to electing a libertarian leaning Republican.
As a pure Libertarian, he got less than 1/2 of one % of the vote. as a Republican of know libertarian
tendencies, he got up to 27% of the vote in some primaries. Fusion voting is the most likely way that we
will elect Libertarians to higher offices.
29I remember this coming up tangentially in the 2012 convention. Good to see this being addressed.
30This would be a good outreach method.
31I do not support fusion candidates. We should run our own, or none at all. Also, the text “the candidate has
the Libertarian Party ballot line” is unclear. I am not sure what it means.
32Don’t really like the idea of Fusion candidates. Either you are Libertarian and run as one or you’re not, and
at that point you aren’t necessarily espousing Libertarian ideals
33Were it not for the sentence – No affiliate party shall take any action inconsistent with the Statement of
Principles or these Bylaws. I would be strongly opposed. With that sentence I still have reservations based
on my knowledge of how the duopoly has been bought and paid for by corporate interests.
34One can not serve two master effectively. We have a big tent and those keeping our basic principles of low
taxes and small government are welcome
Government has grown under the Democrats and Republicans, Reagan left a large deficit for his time and
raised taxes 10 times. When I was invited to a John Birch Society meeting, then, just plan Reagan spoke of
the terrible debt. When he was Governor he said,” we will not have an income tax withholding, even if they
put hot pokers to my feet.” Shortly their after our state income taxes were payroll deducted. And the
revenue flowed in. I am not for tax invasion. That is not my point.
35anyone running on another party and is a true libertarian is being deceptive. In my opinion it weakens us. It
is a violation of NAP to lie to another person.
36We should not run fusion candidates. Anyway, what about section 6?
37I think we need to join together with other parties to improve our chances of getting somebody into office.
So long as there are no laws preventing this or any fundamental platform differences, why not do this?
38Would we like to have influence or what? Geez, this should be a no-brainer but it probably won’t pass!
39Q
40I don’t really like the idea of having Fusion candidates. It distorts the message. Are they Libertarian or are
they something else.
41in my state, having the party on the ballot line has no meaning, and the term “fusion candidates” does not
exist. please find a way to include us as well.
42Makes sense.
43along this line, the LP should promote the list proportional which carry of votes as a way to vote for the
person rather than a party, also can eliminate need for primaries
44I think that rather than being “purists” we need to focus on what is best for the country. There are
Libertarians on both sides of the current duopoly. I support any effort to infuse our ideals into either major
party. Ultimately it will only legitimize the Libertarian Platform in the long run.
45I believe this proposal would lead to “Oh yeah, I’m a Libertarian too” candidates, seeking votes over
principles.
46The 2 major parties are too corrupt for me to be supportive of fusion
47I support this due to recent events with Gov. Gary Johnson starting out on the Republican ticket and
eventually switching to the Libertarian ticket.
48If they want to ride the fence let em..soon enough the barbed wire’ll make em choose
49Endorsing libertarian Republicans such as Ron Paul (or Democrats, Greens, etc) should not be prohibited
if there is no Libertarian candidate in the race.
For example, the Michigan LP chose not to run a candidate against Justin Amash, who has upheld
libertarian principles as a Republican Congressman. Freedom of choice! We should be able to endorse
any libertarian (small “L”” candidate.
50Youre either a libertarian or not, simple as that
511) what difference if candidate is a member of another party or not?
2) why state this in the negative: “No affiliate party shall …” and then contradict it with “unless …”? How
about stating it in the positive? “Any candidate may be endorsed by an affiliate party of another party for
public office when state election law …”
52Why would we be endorsing another party? If it’s a race in which we don’t have a candidate running… well,
ok.
53We do not support LINOs. Period.
54I would strongly support his if the verbiage was changed to “unless state election laws prohibit…..”
55We already have to many Rinos in both the Democratic and Republican Parties
56ALWAYS support the best candidate for liberty, regardless of party. Otherwise, we become no better than
the Democrats, Republicans, or Green idiots.
57I don’t feel comfortable with the concept of “fusion” candidates. It may imply to some that the LP’s
philosophy is similar to another party on the ballot, so why bother to vote for an LP candidate that is not
“fused”.
58This is a perfect way to enhance more political power for the independent / 3rd parties by gathering more
support by the more prominent Republican and Democratic parties. This should also help publicize the
Libertarian’s platform as that middle ground for being civilly independent, and fiscally conservative- for in
the long run attract more people who desire that compromise the major parties cant hold to promise.
59The libertarian party is not a hybrid or blending or fusion of any other party.
60We are the party of principle, not the party of let’s not worry about who we elect.
61This is BS. Would anyone support a bylaw that a candidate can run with both a Republican and Democrat
ballot line?
62try to get some tea party support
63If i want a republican id vote for one.
64If we are to be a real party we must find candidates stronger than those of other parties willing to run
exclusively on our ticket.
65Support candidate who believe in the a libertarian philosophy and are electable.
66Lets those people steal our ballot line through various tricks.
67This would permit California, Washington, and Louisana to more fully participate by endorsing candidates
who survive a Top2 primary.
49
47
# Comments:
1Not sure
2I would support this if there were additional wording to specify that the two individuals who are not
members of the National Committee are registered with the Board of Elections as being affiliated with the
Libertarian Party!
3No more committees!
4Explanitive nature of the red version should be maintained in any change to preserve clarity.
5Sounds reasonable if volunteers are available.
6I am wondering where is the safeguard that bad, misleading, or incorrect grammar, or change of meaning,
is not proposed by imprecision?
7But consider eliminating this entire Rube Goldberg mechanism. So far as the importance of style, consider
the commas in the Second Amendment.
8A simple majority should be enough.
9I support brinigng this to the floor. However, I for one woudl rather strike it completley from the bylaws and
replace it with nothing.
10I would call it an Editorial Committee. You’re really just talking about proofreading. Speaking of which, in
the text above you have “a majority of who are other than National Committee members.” That should
read, “a majority of whom…”
11″…a majority of whommmmmm…” (No I’m not volunteering for the style committee!)
12Often times, stylistic changes have unintended substantive consequences. As such, all changes should
continue to be treated as per past practice.
13The rule of law, requires all participants are in accord with the Law previous to any opposition, and, any
supposed elected governmental person is held responsible for assuming such authority with and for the
government of the people.
14Do you have folks who would want to serve on the Style committee?
I don’t see harm in this.
15Keep it simple. Committees for committees is the part of our National political problem as it is.
16Waste of time, and focus.
17Committees are like dandelions. Invasive, and unstable.
18I like the 2/3 requirement but not the bureaucracy of another committee
19Another common sense change.
20Too much governing.
21Wow. You mean something this picayune has actually been a matter of controversy?
LOL
22No opinion
Would like the option to have no opinion
23This is too broad. The old rule allowed “making grammatical corrections.” The new rule would
Excuse me, that was the *summary* of the comments.
Here are the survey comments (long message):
Proposal #1:
1 hour notice isn’t enough time. Make it 5 hours, 24 hours, etc. (depends on commenter)
Why limit it to 10 proposals?
Letting 1 bylaws committee member veto gives too much power. Require a lower threshold than unanimous (like 2/3) from the bylaws committee.
Analogies to congress (1 subject at a time act).
There is an interesting token system idea. (5-choice comment #19)
Proposal #2:
Several people commented that there is more accountability investing this responsibility in one person (rather than a committee), who may delegate but will be held responsible for poor delegation.
Proposal #3:
More than half the comments are negative — people who don’t think we should support fusion.
A few say the proposal doesn’t go far enough — that endorsement should be allowed of Republicans and Democrats even without the LP ballot line.
Some thought we should define “fusion candidates” because they didn’t know what that meant.
One guy suggested re-wording the language positive instead of negative. (5-choice comment #51)
Proposal #4:
Many pointed out it should be “whom”, not “who” and thought we were testing them to see if they would be good candidates for the style committee.
Some pointed out this broadened the scope of what a style committee could change too much from grammatical changes to stylistic changes — and said non-substantive was too subjective.
Some said if changes are really non-substantive, only a simple majority of the LNC should be required for ratification rather than 2/3.
Proposal #5:
Several people didn’t like removing the reference to officers voting. But most said this was a slam dunk change.
Proposal # 6:
As presented it was unclear to respondents that there were other clauses not shown (only (c) was deleted), so keeping the phrase “The election shall be conducted in the following manner:” confused them.
Some people were worried about transparency, feeling that hearing each state read their results makes it easier for people to audit the results.
Proposal # 7:
Some people didn’t want the bit about the secretary preserving records removed — but I think that’s covered by the vote being recorded in the minutes of the next meeting.
Many were concerned about fraud (spoofing emails). They suggested digital signatures and encryption, or on using a website login rather than email.
Some thought removing the bit about alternates would change the way email ballots work on the LNC and make it so alternate votes aren’t counted.
Proposal #8:
Many strongly supported the idea of electronic meetings.
A couple people suggested quorum and notice rules be included.
Several suggested in-person meetings are very valuable (face-to-face discussions over dinner and drinks, etc.).
Quite a few wanted committees to be able to determine their own rules rather than the LNC setting them.
A few wanted video conferences rather than just sound — partly to verify that people are who they say they are and partly to see body language.
One wanted it explicitly stated that LP members can observe such teleconference meetings.
Proposal #9:
Some wanted to keep things as is.
Some liked putting the SoP in a stand-alone document.
Some wanted the SoP in a stand-alone document AND in the platform as well.
One guy thought the language “those principles” was ambiguous and should be explicitly replaced with “the Statement of Principles”.
A few people looked at language not touched by the proposal and said it was weird that it takes 2/3 to add platform plans yet only a majority to delete them.
Proposal #10:
Many, many, many people thought 60 days was way too long, suggesting 30 instead.
One person suggested the general membership ought to receive draft minutes at the same time as the LNC.
One person suggested replacing “Convention Secretary” with “The Secretary who recorded the minutes”.
Proposal #11:
Several people wanted “per capita” defined… they wondered if the denominator was total state population, eligible voters, registered voters, votes cast in the last election, etc. (I assume we mean total state population)
Several people though the platform members selected by the national committee in part (c) should exclude affiliates from (a) and (b).
A few people thought the wording in (b) is clunky, but did not have specific suggestions to fix that.
One person thought “excluding those affiliates with the greatest per-capita membership from (a),” was ambiguous (could mean just the largest). Perhaps change to “excluding those FIVE affiliates with the greatest per-capita membership from (a),”.
One person was concerned states that add a lot of members are likely to be those that dilute their principles, so platform committee members would be drawn from unprincipled states.
Another suggested small population states may have high per capita membership, but few people to draw on to serve in the platform committee.
Proposal #12:
A couple people suggested removing the “Regular” in bylaw 12.1 and rule 1 (as it was struck everywhere else).
One guy suggested removing the “once” before the already removed “every two years” in bylaw 8.2.c.
One person suggested the “or” in the bylaw 8.7 addition “or until there is an intervening Regular Convention” creates ambiguity.
Many people didn’t like 4 year LNC terms.
Many people thought the proposal was too complicated.
A few people said we tried alternating platform and bylaws in the past, then went back to every convention.
A few people were worried midterm conventions are poorly attended, so 4 year term officers should not be selected by that smaller crowd.
I think perhaps this proposal could be broken up into 2 different proposals which would be more digestible and stand a better chance of passing:
1) alternating platform and bylaws
2) 4 year LNC terms
Proposal #13:
Many people asked what happens if 5 candidates don’t achieve a majority (e.g., NOTA is popular).
Many people said they favor ranked choice, IRV, or single-transferable vote to approval voting.
Many people were concerned that NOTA was being given the shaft.
A few people suggested 5 separate seats for at-large, candidates choose which seat they seek.
A few suggested voting for double the number of seats instead of as many as you want.
One person pointed out 2.c should say “ballots cast”, not “ballot cast”.
A couple people pointed out approval voting leads to “non-thinking-touchy-feely-heads” or “acceptable candidates” rather than strongly preferred candidates.
Proposal #14:
There was a suggestion to add a proviso that this doesn’t take effect immediately — because regions are already pretty much formed.
A few people were confused after seeing proposal 12 that language in later proposals wasn’t congruous.
Many people suggested the reasons articulated for shrinking the LNC would disappear if we pass the proposal allowing electronic meetings.
Some thought the current size of the LNC is fine.
Others wanted to reduce the size of the LNC even further than this proposal.
A few people thought it was important to have an odd number of LNC members (less tie votes).
Proposal #15:
One person speculated who this proposal was aimed at, adding some colorful language.
Many, many people didn’t see the need for the proposal and were worried there might not be enough volunteers to serve if overlap was not allowed.
A few people pointed out the benefit that bylaws, platform, and credentials could meet at the same time without worrying some committee members were missing a meeting they were supposed to attend.
A few people suggested limiting people to only serve on 2/3 of the committees as a first step before limiting them to only 1/3 of the committees with a future bylaws change if that works well.
Proposal #16:
Many, many, many people said they were opposed to any sort of floor fee.
A few said the fee should be capped so as not to allow imposition of a $1,000 fee. Some suggested capping it at the actual rental fee for the room. Others suggested a modest cap of $50 or $75. Others suggested a maximum percentage it could be raised convention to convention.
One suggested rewording that he said was simpler: “A vote of the National Committee shall be required to authorize and fees for a credentialed delegate to attend the business portion…”
Proposal #17:
Some people didn’t want any dues.
Others wanted dues raised (e.g., to $50) due to inflation.
Some people suggested tying membership to voter registration.
Some wanted the convention to set dues rather than the LNC.
A few people were worried about deletion of the language concerning life membership (ability to offer, must honor past and future).
One person suggested changing “an amount prescribed by a two-thirds vote of the National Committee” to “a non-zero amount prescribed by a two-thirds vote of the National Committee”.
One person was concerned about dues being raised retroactively (ex post facto).
A couple people were concerned about the language “or have had donated on their behalf”, worried that a rich donor could buy delegates.
Proposal #18:
Several people liked the proposal, saying it was absurd people not members of national could vote on national business.
Several people wanting to keep letting state affiliate members be delegates — as a check on national going rogue or just because they believed in bottom up governance rather than top-down.
A few people suggested state and national membership ought to be merged — join one, join all.
Some people wanted delegates to be members of BOTH state and national.
A few people said the reason some delegates don’t want to join national is because of the pledge.
Some people want delegates to be SUSTAINING members rather than just members.
Others said they only support the proposal because you don’t need to be a sustaining member, so it’s not much of a burden.
A few people were worried their states would interpret required dues as a poll tax.
Proposal #19:
Some people were confused: they thought the proposal said prospective presidential candidates must sign 6 months out (rather than the contract being published 6 months out).
Some were worried this would prevent last minute candidates (who would have to speed read the contract and sign it on the convention floor). One possible solution was to make them sign before voting begins instead of before nominations are closed.
Others wanted the candidates to be able to individually negotiate contract terms.
One guy was worried that the line “the Party and the Presidential and Vice-presidential campaign shall assist and support each other.” implies the campaigns are merged, when in fact before nomination they may be two separate campaigns. Perhaps change “campaign” to “campaigns” or to “candidates”.
Another person suggested “The Chair shall sign on behalf of the Party” be changed to “The Chair shall contract on behalf of the Party”.
A few people were worried that there wasn’t any sort of enforcement mechanism for the contract once executed.
A few people were worried the process was too favorable to the LNC and would allow the LNC to control the election by putting terms in the contract that would exclude certain candidates they disfavor.
A few people wanted the LNC to be able to waive the requirement by super-majority vote to account for exceptional circumstances — e.g., a contract is published 6 months before but no candidate wants to sign it, so we might have no candidates.
Some people wanted to leave this decision to the delegates — let anyone be nominated, candidates could disclose whether they signed a contract or not, which may be one of many considerations in which candidate to nominate (rather than lack of signing being an outright disqualification).
A few wanted to see a sample contract before they debate this proposal on the floor.
Proposal #20:
One guy suggested changing “by members” to “for members”.
Many people were worried this gives too much power to national, which would abridge the autonomy of state affiliates.
Many people explicitly references Oregon (no commenter seemed to pick up that the bylaws committee was really obliquely referring to Nevada).
The comment binary-11 is very interesting. He says the amendment is too vague:
“Generally this is a good idea, but as written it is far too vague. To avoid vagueness this should be a right of appeal subject to right of JC to refuse to hear a case, and only if appeal to national JC is recognized by the affiliate’s bylaws or the case is voluntarily submitted by all parties to the dispute.”
Proposal #21:
Some were confused that this conflicted with proposal 16.
Some didn’t know what “other convention events” meant.
Many people liked prohibiting floor fees.
Many others said delegates should pay for the business session.
A few suggested states should pay a delegation fee, then decide whether they wanted to charge their delegates or pay from state party general funds.
Proposal #22:
A lot of people strongly supported this proposal in comments. Many were outraged by the $40k example.
A lot of others said this was unnecessarily limiting: as free market advocates we should attract and compensate good talent accordingly.
Many suggested transparency was sufficient — or requiring a supermajority vote of the LNC –, a prohibition goes too far.
Several did not know what “related party” means.
A few suggested paying all LNC members a stipend.
Proposal #23:
Many people thought the proposal was too broad.
Many were concerned it abridges affiliate autonomy — they reason if an affiliate accepts money for ballot access, suddenly it is subject to the complete control of the national party. (Note that the explanatory text mentions affiliates, while the amendment text does not.)
Some suggest this should apply not to those authorized to use national resources, but rather those who actually use national resources.
A few people want to know what problem this is trying to solve (a specific example of where this would have been helpful).
General comments:
People liked the survey in general.
A lot of people who took the binary version complained that they wanted a way to take no position.
Several people wanted the ability to leave the survey part way through and come back later. Other suggested breaking this up into 2 or 3 smaller surveys.
There were many complaints the survey was too long.
Here’s the link — http://www.chuckmoulton.org/libertarian/bylaws/bylaws_survey_comments.pdf
Tell Alicia there will be many more rude things said about her. If she wants people to say nice things about her she should strive to be a better person.
Alicia Mattson seeking to have the comments removed IMMEDIATELY from online — so go and see them now quick, in case they get removed!
Chuck Moulton says the comments from the survey are posted on the Bylaws Committee blog, albeit anonymously.
Alicia Mattson objecting even to this level of transparency, says some people used comments to say rude things about people.
I’ve been sitting in the Bylaws Committee meeting. They are debating in what order to present their proposals. I think there should be minority reports on the proposals, but I don’t know that there are any plans for this.
Aaron Starr comment – “We’re talking about marketing here” – Wants to put forward the proposals with most support first, so that people are more kindly disposed to vote yes on more controversial stuff.
Rich Tomaso saying that if we have all the unanimous stuff first, and then the proposal to allow consent agenda items after that, in order to sell it by saying, see how much time we could have saved on this if we’d had this consent agenda proposal in effect.
Geoffrey Neale
Jun 25 (1 day ago)
to lnc-discuss, statechairs, Convention
We are getting a special taxi rate from Orange Cab. Last night Nancy and I tried to use it, and found out that one VERY important instruction was not communicated to us. You have to call Orange Cab. You cannot just go to the taxi stand and get in an Orange cab.
The information is on the website at: http://lpcon2014.org/ground-transportation/
C&P:
* We have negotiated a reduced rate with Orange Cab Company (614-414-0000) for a fare of $18 from Columbus (CMH) airport to the Hyatt, and $15 from the Hyatt to the airport.
Upon arrival, once you have your luggage, you must call them at 1-614-414-0000 and let them know you’re with the Libertarian Party National Convention. They will pick you up on the Arrivals level, curbside – not from the taxi stand. They are dispatched from outside the airport, and just a few minutes away.
Call the same number when you depart the Hyatt to go to the airport.
Please take note, and pass this along.
Geoffrey Neale
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
_______________________________________________
Lnc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-discuss_hq.lp.org
Daniel Wiener
7:06 PM (17 hours ago)
to LNC
Thank you for that information, Geoff, it turned out to be very helpful. I find that there’s always value in learning from your mistakes, especially when it’s your mistakes.
Dan
_______________________________________________
Lnc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-discuss_hq.lp.org
—
“In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” — Richard Feynman
_______________________________________________
Lnc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-discuss_hq.lp.org
[email protected]
10:17 AM (2 hours ago)
to Independent, iprtwo, Andy, LP, LP, lpusmisc, LP, Lib
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Geoffrey Neale wrote:
We are getting a special taxi rate from Orange Cab. Last night Nancy and I tried to use it, and found out that one VERY important instruction was not communicated to us. You have to call Orange Cab. You cannot just go to the taxi stand and get in an Orange cab.
The information is on the website at: http://lpcon2014.org/ground-transportation/
C&P:
* We have negotiated a reduced rate with Orange Cab Company (614-414-0000) for a fare of $18 from Columbus (CMH) airport to the Hyatt, and $15 from the Hyatt to the airport.
Upon arrival, once you have your luggage, you must call them at 1-614-414-0000 and let them know you’re with the Libertarian Party National Convention. They will pick you up on the Arrivals level, curbside – not from the taxi stand. They are dispatched from outside the airport, and just a few minutes away.
Call the same number when you depart the Hyatt to go to the airport.
Please take note, and pass this along.
Geoffrey Neale
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
[email protected]
10:18 AM (2 hours ago)
to LNCRegion7
Cisse Spragins
11:16 AM (1 hour ago)
to Geoffrey, Convention, LP-State, lnc-discuss
The pick-up is in a special spot just in front of the regular cab line. If you use this service, note that they won’t let you share a cab if two people have called in separately and then are waiting there at the same time for pick up and you know the person and decide to share. Another Missouri delegate showed up just after I got in my cab, and they would not let us share because he had supposedly called in as well. The guy wouldn’t let me out of the car… You’re better off sharing a regular cab in that instance. It isn’t very far…
_______________________________________________
Statechairs mailing list
[email protected]
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/statechairs_hq.lp.org
Gary Johnson (TX) is running for Secretary as is Chuck Moulton. Gary told me Alicia is also running, contrary to earlier rumors. I haven’t asked her personally yet. Overheard Sam Goldstein say he is running for Vice Chair if I heard him correctly. He was not talking to me but I was in earshot. My apologies if that was supposed to be a secret. I am supposed to be part of a panel right now but Brett Pojunis is on before us and he is not done yet.
Kevin
We should connect tonight … perhaps it will be even more constructive than our hallway conversation in Vegas now that there has been another two years to reflect.
Wes
M Carling attempted an Oregon substitution at the credentials committee. He was shut down hard. He resigned.
Kevin, I know you’re just trying to be funny, but I certainly hope there’s no drama at this convention. Just think how much you can get done if there isn’t–
Bylaws Committee meeting commencing at 11:00 am in Nationwide. LSLA stuff going on now in Marion and I think Madison rooms on the second floor.
All I care about is they keep the “right to alter or abolish government” in the platform. And not put an statist crap in. And not give more power to the party archs. And not do some embarrassing nationally publicized right wing statist thing I’ll have to rant and rave about for weeks…. If the LP remains pretty good, I’ll pay slightly overdue dues next debit card deposit…
I am here. I brought popcorn and meds for my front row seat. LOL
People misinterpretted that. IIRC it struck clause (c) and retained clauses (a), (b), (d), etc. (but I’m on my phone now).
Thank Chuck! Looking at the numbers, if you take the five answer surveys and add up the Strongly Support and Support answers, the only question that doesn’t have 2/3 is Question 6, which only has 64.6%. Based on the comments, it looks like most of the problems were due to the wording of the proposal, which struck out how elections should take place from Rule 8 and replaced them with… nothing. If passed, the particular Rule will look like this:
Question 14, meanwhile, which would reduce the LNC from 18 to 15 members if it passed, earned 67.5%, which is close enough to the 2/3 threshold to be interesting. Also, Question 23, which would make Judicial Committee rulings binding on any LP-related organization, only had 68.8% support, which is interesting. I suspect that, during floor debates, this bylaw amendment will be hotly contested.
We’re about an hour out now. Will see you at the ByLaws meeting. That will be much more interesting to watch than the LSLA.
Information on the bylaws committee meeting and the survey:
http://lpbylaws2014.blogspot.com/2014/06/bylaws-committee-survey.html
I have arrived in Columbus at the Hyatt. Getting together with some people for dinner later at a local brew pub. See here for the Facebook event for people getting in today.
Just about at the South Carolina/North Carolina border on our way up from Charleston.
I agree that the delegates who choose to attend should help pay the cost. The old “no free lunch” argument still has merit.
I think that just about everyone in the SC delegation bought an E ticket.
$50 per person is a reasonable request to help defray expenses, so I gladly paid it and urge all other delegates who are financially able to do so as well. Such course of action is particularly warranted in light of the fact that there are many delegates for whom cash is tight and this way those who can and choose to pay the requested floor fee pay it and those who cannot are not disenfranchised in any way.
No. There is a delegate package one can purchase to defray the costs of convention space and materials, but it is not required for access to the floor as a delegate.
There is also a bylaws proposal to expressly prohibit floor fees.
Is there an “upward redistribution of wealth for surrounding circuses” floor fee this year?
I’ll be in transit tomorrow so most likely will not be online. If anyone needs to get a hold of me call me.
Nick, I believe I am on the Utah delegate list; I have not seen your postcard yet.
Six?
See Paulie? Last Minute.
“So You’re Saying there’s a Chance? 😉 OK, I’ll stop now. Just hoping I guess.
It’s pretty common for at-large to be announced last minute. Often people who do not get elected to officer positions will throw their hat in for at-large. Kudos to Pickens for announcing at least four days early.
I just saw on Facebook that C. Michael Pickens of Washington will be running for one of the six At-Large positions on the LNC. This is the first I’ve heard of anyone running for At-Large.
I am actually at my snail mail address, which is fairly rare, and haven’t seen anything.
I asked this on Facebook as well, but if any readers here receive my postcard, can you please post a comment? The mailing service I used appears to have mailed them later than initially estimated and I want to get a sense of when they are actually showing up in mailboxes.
Andy–
Sorry you cannot make the LSLA seminars, especially mine as you are an expert on petitioning and I am just a customer and lack your knowledge of what happens on the streets.
Hope to see you at some point this w/e.
I will be at the convention.
Kevin–
In response to your seating chart, I hope Michigan trounces Ohio State at their next meeting.
(A low blow, I admit, but politics can be very dirty business.)
That’s a comment on RR’s debate video, BTW.
Paulie-
Glad you are feeling better. Hope you’re able to make the Convention and LSLA before it.
Pls let me know either way.
Mark (currently on assignment in the casserole state approx. 2 hrs north of Columbus)
When I see people at public gatherings pledge allegiance to the flag, I remember that I am totally out of touch with a large number of Americans.
“Roger Roots June 23, 2014 at 10:53 pm
I apologize for the fact that I will miss my first LP National Convention since 2004. I am campaigning for U.S. Senate in Montana. Last week, I debated the Republican and Democratic candidates, and I think I handed it to them pretty well. (See the video above.) I was nervous at the beginning, but I got better as the debate went on. Have fun in Ohio everyone; I will miss you.”
Cool. Good luck in the race.
That’s as valid as reasons get, right there.
Roger – too bad you can’t make it. At least you have a valid reason.
I apologize for the fact that I will miss my first LP National Convention since 2004. I am campaigning for U.S. Senate in Montana. Last week, I debated the Republican and Democratic candidates, and I think I handed it to them pretty well. (See the video above.) I was nervous at the beginning, but I got better as the debate went on. Have fun in Ohio everyone; I will miss you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNZF2q7q54o
Guys, I can’t make it to Ohio either.
Well, at least garlic does not have that problem.
Well, there is this —
http://www.kare11.com/story/entertainment/television/programs/kare-11-extras/2012/11/08/cell-phones-found-with-more-bacteria-than-toilet-seat/3756705/
Losty, not sure what that means but as far as Paulie seeking or accepting any position on the next LNC….
http://youtu.be/Zf0ZyoUn7Vk
It’s not that new. I have had it for a few months now. Eating a lot of garlic seems to have helped.
paulie @ June 22, 2014 at 10:05 pm
“I seem to be better now.It’s the health effects of getting a new phone!”
perhaps it is the health effects of getting a new phone?
Your health is better? Good to hear, Think you can ask Paulie if it will be ready for what some people would want if it were legal for others: Four More Years?
I seem to be better now.
paulie @ June 22, 2014 at 11:14 am,
Don’t look at it as “quitting” so much as “going Galt!”
🙂
joe
Mine is 205-534-1622. I haven’t set up voicemail, but you can leave that on my old phone, 415-690-6352…however the old one only works when it is plugged in and the buttons are worn down on it.
For those of you who will be in Columbus, if I haven’t talked to you on my new phone yet, text me your number or post it here.
Jill
Thanks for the concern but I haven’t had a cold in a while til now.
I also may have discovered the cure. Ate a whole bunch of garlic and suddenly feel much better.
I generated a set of interesting messages from the May 2014 LNC-Discuss digest as leaked to the membership and others.
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/lpusmisc/conversations/messages/1020
It’s about 9000 words. I would post it here, but there is a word limit fr comments. Any editor is welcome to repost it for me.
The file as supplied to me is, Heaven preserve us, 790 pages long. Ihad to read the whole thing to find excerpts worht quoting. It took a good part of a day. Most of teh LNC does not understand the concept of cropping messages, so there are enormous bits of repetition. You can read it here:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/lpusmisc/files
I have been doing these summaries for a considerable number of years, and conclude that I will not be very interested in doing many more of them. The effort is time consuming and close to pointless. There are a very few LNC members who say sensible things on the list. If you are looking for actual work that would advance the party, there are very slim pickings.
I am grateful to my many anonymous sources, none of whom were identified correctly by the usual suspects.
+100
Paulie, you haven’t felt well much of the past year, and that worries me. Maybe you should have a complete work-up by a doctor.
We lost one of our best activists last year (Steve Collette) because he didn’t see a doctor soon enough. Just, be careful.
Probably going to Columbus. I have a hard time seeing myself backing out, no matter how irrational I am being.
Olsen warns Annual Report Financials are Incorrect.
As forwarded to my magazine from LNC-Discuss
“(Norm Olsen)
Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 18:55:59 -0600
Subject:
[Lnc-discuss] Libertarian Party – 2013 Annual Report
Hello All . . .
With regard to the financial information presented in the Annual Report and
the latest LP News:
I received the initial 2013 financial results (actually labeled End of
Month, December 2013) via e-mail on 2 Feb 2014. In response to this
information, on 3 Feb 2014 I posted the following message on the
“lnc-business” list:
Some questions with regard to the EOM Financials:
1. My rudimentary knowledge of accrual accounting and GAAP tells me
that, operationally (i.e. sans restricted funds and expenses), in 2013 we
spent $83,082 more than we received. Would the Treasurer please confirm
this result in a rather clear definitive manner? I got this number by
subtracting what appeared to be restricted funds from the revenue side and
restricted fund raising expenses from the expense side. ($143,404 – 247,319
+ 20,833) Please advise what the real 2013 operational bottom line is.
2.
3.
This information presented in this post elicited a single lonely response;
from the Treasurer. The response was also posted on the lnc-business list (4
Feb 2014) and here is what he had to say:
On the Standard Statement of Operations (page 5 of the financial reports),
the rows that are restricted revenues and expenses are 25-Project Program
Revenue, 37-Building Fundraising Expenses, 58-Campus Outreach, and
90-Project Program Other. If you don’t include these amounts, then the
totals for unrestricted funds are:
Support and Revenues: $1,046,303.81
Cost of Support & Revenues: $ 243,131.32
Program Expenses: $ 866,526.53
Thus, the operational deficit for 2013 was $63,354.04.
(1046303.81-243131.32-866526.53)
So, I believe that the “Net Operating Surplus (or Deficit)” bottom line of
the 2013 financial statements is in significant error. Instead of being
$143,403 in the black, it should be $63,354 in the red.
Please note that I, the Treasurer, and both subject distributed documents
all include the word “Operational” in the title for the bottom line.
Examining the Annual report and the financial information in the LP News, I
was very disappointed to see the original, incorrect, financial information
reported to our members in both publications. I am also disappointed that
no one else on this committee took the trouble to follow up on this issue.
Norm”
I really, really hate to be a quitter but I am starting to take the idea of not going more seriously. The cold is not showing any signs at all of going away. I have a pathological tendency to continue doing something I’ve started or planned even after it has become far more than abundantly clear it is time to back out or stop. The hotel is the least of my worries.
“paulie Post authorJune 21, 2014 at 11:39 pm
I’m sure plenty of people would want the room. Actually I wonder whether they would give someone the key if I am not there or not. I am more interested in advice on whether I should still go if I don’t get over the cold. I’ll probably go but it will put a big damper on things and could be something I will really regret if I get worse as a result.”
If Libertarian doctors are anything like Libertarian attorneys, I would not expect any help or advice.
That cold sounds like a problem. Your first priority should be to get well. If it starts to clear up, you can always change your mind and come. If you can’t, I’m sure that your package cost can be recovered. Being ill is not the same as someone who just doesn’t show up and wants a refund.
Paulie,
It was meant as a tribute along the lines of Mark Twain drank here (saw that in New Orleans) or George Washington slept here. By this time two months from now, Cindy and I will be empty nesters. That means FOUR Guest Rooms are now available in our “Bed and Fast” — we prefer guests who cook US breakfast.
🙂
You’re welcome back any time; as is Stewart; as are most travelling folk who can recite either the NAP and Self-Ownership Principles and/or Galt’s magic phrase to get into his bed/lab/power plant, whatever.
Maybe the fresh air here would do you some good? I’ll be driving out to Indiana around July 17th, so no plans to go out to Ohio now . . .
joe
Get well, Paulie! Hopefully you’ll get better in time for the convention.
I’m running for secretary of the Libertarian National Committee. I’d appreciate your vote at the Libertarian National Convention in Columbus, Ohio.
I’ll post campaign materials in the next couple days. In the interim, here are vote records from the last LNC term.
http://www.chuckmoulton.org/libertarian/2014/voting/
I’d appreciate it if an IPR writer would post the vote charts link as an article. There is plenty of fodder for discussion in there.
As for the hotel, you should still be able to get a refund.
Well, don’t you have another couple of days to decide?
I’m sure plenty of people would want the room. Actually I wonder whether they would give someone the key if I am not there or not. I am more interested in advice on whether I should still go if I don’t get over the cold. I’ll probably go but it will put a big damper on things and could be something I will really regret if I get worse as a result.
“paulie Post authorJune 21, 2014 at 11:16 pm
More TMI:
I’m considering backing out of going to the convention. I have a cold which has not gone away after a week.”
I hope that you feel better and can make it to the convention, but if for some reason you can not make it, let me know and I will take over your hotel room. I could get one or two other people with whom to split the room. I probably have one lined up already.
Any advice?
More TMI:
I’m considering backing out of going to the convention. I have a cold which has not gone away after a week. Going to the convention with a cold will not be fun. My colds have a nasty habit of turning into asthma attack and/or bronchitis due to a combination of chronic lung problems and deviated septum, with mucus dripping into lungs. That sets off the asthma. It can get really bad, last for weeks and lead to hospitalizations and near death experiences. The cough turns dry in the meantime. This one seems to be following the same pattern. The plan was to go out to the convention then head out to a job. Right now the plan seems to be unravelling.
Problem is I already paid for the convention package and a room. But I am considering taking a loss and just not going after all.
If I get worse due to the travel I will miss out on the job, and the asthma attacks have the potential to be fatal. I tend to lose consciousness from coughing fits, cough up nasty looking stuff and so on. Nothing quite that bad yet this time but it seems to be following the same pattern.
Quite possibly.
Paulie, I believe we have just entered the land of Too Much Information.
Given the particular circumstances, sealing off the room would have been better.
At least he didn’t seal off the room. A plaque…maybe add some candles or one of those flames like the on at the tomb of the unknown soldier…
Ouch.
The major parties have their national conventions every four years. Yet, the LP has a convention every two years. And yes the non-POTUS LP conventions have their typical lower delegate counts. I am torn on having a convention every four years and electing LNC members (staggered terms for officers and At-Large) to four year terms. I only wish we can push the ball forward and have less deck-chair moving with bylaw changes. Our mission should be to elect people to office, especially at a local or state district level.
Kevin
“ATBAFT June 20, 2014 at 5:01 pm
Andy’s circumstances, in general, apply to thousands of faithful and long time LP members.
There really ought to be a method of casting absentee ballots or providing proxies to those you trust. Many organizations provide for proxies, why not the LP?”
I don’t know about proxy voting for conventions, but I do favor reducing the number of in person LNC meetings and having most of them done via phone conferencing or videoconferencing. The LNC could still meet in person once a year. The in person meetings would be at the national conventions and the state chair conventions.
“Stewart Flood June 20, 2014 at 9:31 pm
Hmmm…ok it sounded to me like he was complaining about losing money if he went to Ohio. If he wasn’t then he wasn’t. I’d still buy him a beer, if for no other reason than the hassles from uninformed and unfriendly law enforcement officers that he, Paulie and the rest of the petitioners have to deal with.”
I wasn’t really complaining, so much as I was just stating my current situation. Thanks for the beer offer.
“Stewart Flood June 20, 2014 at 9:45 pm
Dave,
That’s the problem with having a convention every two years. It isn’t cheap, even if you live in the host state.
I think that there are things that can get done. We aren’t winning elections, but in some parts of the country we are influencing policy to a minor extent. I have been in the LP for a little over nine years. ”
This July will mark 18 years as a Libertarian Party member for me.
“Joseph Buchman June 20, 2014 at 7:58 pm
Stewart,
‘Andy’s complaint falls on deaf ears’
I didn’t hear complaining, just someone sharing what’s so for them and an invitation for brainstorming/ideas.
No hint of it should be different somehow. . .”
I was not complaining, I was just stating the predicament that I’m in for attending the convention. It would have been better for me if the convention had been held a few months ago, but I understand that these things have to be booked well in advance, and nobody is going to book it around one person’s schedule.
I am probably going to attend, but I probably won’t get there as early as I’d like to, which would be whenever the first day of it is. I was trying to decide if I should leave Wednesday or Thursday. I wanted leave on Wednesday, but I’m now leaning against that due to the fact that I will miss a few hundred dollars in opportunity costs.
If I had put a bunch of money into Bitcoins when I first started following the price of it in early 2012, I’d be rich right now, so money would not be an issue.
Stewart,
On behalf of those who wish we could do more to support the petitioners, THANKS!
If you’re ever in Utah, look me up. There’s a brass plaque over the “PAULIE slept here” bed.
🙂
joe
Dave,
That’s the problem with having a convention every two years. It isn’t cheap, even if you live in the host state.
I think that there are things that can get done. We aren’t winning elections, but in some parts of the country we are influencing policy to a minor extent. I have been in the LP for a little over nine years. I see the same internal issues and same unaddressed opportunities. But each convention sees a few more delegates saying “wake up.” Maybe this will be the convention where we finally start to open our eyes.
That is one of the reasons why I will be voting for, and will be encouraging other delegates to vote for Mr Sarwark for chair.
Hmmm…ok it sounded to me like he was complaining about losing money if he went to Ohio. If he wasn’t then he wasn’t. I’d still buy him a beer, if for no other reason than the hassles from uninformed and unfriendly law enforcement officers that he, Paulie and the rest of the petitioners have to deal with.
Stewart,
“Andy’s complaint falls on deaf ears”
I didn’t hear complaining, just someone sharing what’s so for them and an invitation for brainstorming/ideas.
No hint of it should be different somehow. . .
Every choice has opportunity cost. Attending LP conventions is no different, no matter how gently we treat delegates. A national convention, more or less out of necessity, is going to take more than a weekend to run. Some people work on weekends. Some people can’t easily get to Ohio, or anywhere else for that matter.
If you’re interested in going, go! If you’re not and find the opportunity cost too high, stay home. Personally, I’m staying home – losing a week’s worth of vacation time isn’t worth it for me. That said, I know several good people who have chosen differently and I respect that decision. I wish them well and hope they find what they’re looking for there.
Or we just all accept the fact that regardless of what party you are in, you have to pay to play.
This is my “busy season”, so with lots of projects in the queue I estimate it will be about $4K between travel costs and “lost” revenue to go to Columbus next week. Some delegates may lose more, while others will lose less. All of us either give up vacation or lose out on work opportunities, so Andy’s complaint falls on deaf ears. I can certainly understand his dilemma, but that’s just life.
Those with families have an even harder time, since they’ve also got to deal with children that either have to be brought along and taken care of or have to be handed off to relatives for the duration. And of course there’s always the case of the delegate with a spouse who just doesn’t understand why he/she does this every two years…
But if Andy shows up, I’ll buy him a beer or two.
Proxy voting can really be abused.
Andy’s circumstances, in general, apply to thousands of faithful and long time LP members.
There really ought to be a method of casting absentee ballots or providing proxies to those you trust. Many organizations provide for proxies, why not the LP?
There goes my idea of letting you take over for me on the panel if I am still sick then.
Mark Axinn was on here talking about the LSLA Conference, which I believe he said was going to be held on Thursday, and that he and Paul are going to get up and give a presentation on ballot access. I would like to be there for that, and I would gladly participate in the presentation, however, right now I’m leaning toward not arriving in time for that. Why? Because of my opportunity cost. each day of work I miss could cost me hundreds of dollars.
If I attend the convention, it is going to cost me a lot of money, when you factor in travel expense, hotel expense, food expense (food prices in and around convention venues tend to be jacked up), and miscellaneous expenses. This will easily set me back more than $1,000. I’m not currently staying near a major airport, which means that I will have to drive to a major airport, and then I’ll have to pay for airport parking, which means more money spent on gas and parking.
Then there is the time involved, which means opportunity costs from not being able to work those days. I don’t know exactly how much money I’d earn each day, but for the sake of discussion, let’s just say that I could earn $300 per day. If I’m gone for 5 days, this is $1,500 in lost earnings. If I averaged $400 per day, this would mean if I’m gone for 5 days that I’m out $2,000. Let’s just say I only earned $200 per day, I’d still be out $1,000 if I was gone for 5 days.
Now given the nature of ballot access work, I can not really “make this money up,” as petition drives have deadlines, and once the petition drive is over, you can’t make any more money, plus, the work is up and down, so sometimes there is nothing going on, or the stuff that is going on sucks, as in it may not be paying much, or it may be something that I do not want to work on for philosophical reasons, or it may be something that has poor working conditions (although this relates to pay, because the pay can be increased to make up for poor working conditions). So any work days I miss can not really be made up later.
Ballot access drives have deadlines, as I mentioned above, and the current stuff I’m working on wants to be finished before the deadline, as in not pushing it to the last minute, so any days I’m not working detracts from the goal of being finished early, which puts the job at risk.
So, my cost for running off and dicking around at some expensive hotel for a convention is pretty significant, as in I am looking at more than $1,000 in expenses, plus opportunity costs that could easily be $1,000-$2,000 or higher, and I can not recoup these opportunity costs, plus my leaving puts the job that I’m working at risk of not achieving its goal of making the ballot, and of making the ballot in advance of the deadline.
I would still like to attend the convention, but if I go I’m leaning toward not arriving in time for the LSLA meeting. It would be nice to attend, but I’m just wondering if it is really worth the extra hundreds of dollars it would cost me.