Delegate Allocation Formula - Sustaining Membership Only

[Paul Bracco]

Colleagues,

I'd like to put this proposal out there to allow for other to review it, but please place it further down on the rolling agenda as I think it would be best dealt with at one of our later meetings.

This proposal would remove the language allocating delegates based on presidential vote share by state and instead derive delegate allocations solely from sustaining membership share by state, but also apply a floor of at least 3 delegates for each affiliate. I've set the initial proposal to one delegate per 0.09725% of sustaining members with the intention of the delegate count output ending up at roughly the same numbers as currently exist (1045-1055).

I've also attached a comparison spreadsheet showing the effect of this change if its formula were used to determine delegate allocation for both the 2022 convention and a hypothetical 2023 convention (using the Oct 2022 membership report). The comparison also provides the allocation at different thresholds ranging from one delegate per 0.097% of sustaining membership up to 0.09725% of sustaining membership, in increments of 0.00005%.

Sincerely,

Paul Bracco

Vice Chair - Libertarian Party of Virginia

[Secretary LNC]

I'll leave it to you to let me know when you would like it added.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bylaws Committee 2024" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bylaws-committee...@lp.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/475d8448-71a9-4e87-bd6a-9f7e5c1fd022n%40lp.org.

--

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

[Secretary LNC]

Just standardized the form formatting

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

[Paul Bracco]

Does anyone have thoughts on this? I don't want it to get lost so if not I'll be putting it forward soon.

Paul Bracco

Vice Chair - Libertarian Party of Virginia

------- Original Message -------

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9WmGDq%3DzrVfpYuQ5bNa6G_JoT2eVthsM2mQ_VMG%3DaENFfQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dean Rodgers]

Here’s a thought:

The two delegate allocation methods represent internal vs. external control. 

External: the constitution sets the proportions. No internal manipulation possible. 

Internal:  the party sets the proportions by manipulating the actual percentages, changing the definitions and types of membership, and being forced to continually readjust the shifting proportions each year as the vagaries of membership counts play out. 

So the question presented seems to be does one want control or stability?

Dean C. Rodgers

(540) 649-6489

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 17, 2023, at 20:40, 'Paul Bracco' via Bylaws Committee 2024 <bylaws-com...@lp.org> wrote:



--
Committee members, download the Proposal Form here: https://tinyurl.com/2024Bylaws-SubmissionForm
---

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bylaws Committee 2024" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bylaws-committee...@lp.org.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/idlEfSqPOzMAwcDxClDEdvbU6marnAQHWjYywEILXLXbQid1eV138hENc8ihqWMODRAk1ZAqh_zzL7VuW668Lf6H7FQ8RfEH1oBVFdZQBeI%3D%40protonmail.com.

[Paul Bracco]

Mr. Rodgers,

I'm not sure what you mean here.

The delegate allocation methodology is set by the party bylaws, both now and if my proposal were to pass. Neither the LNC nor this committee has the ability to unilaterally change the delegate allocation methodology, nor can either entity unilaterally change the definition of "sustaining member". A change to either would need to be approved by the delegates at convention with a 2/3 vote.

With this in mind, can you please elaborate on what you mean by "internal manipulation", why it is a concern, and what you are proposing we do about it?

Sincerely,

Paul Bracco

Vice Chair - Libertarian Party of Virginia

------- Original Message -------

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/IA1PR10MB6052AB47885CCF4935F22832D8C79%40IA1PR10MB6052.namprd10.prod.outlook.com.

[Dean Rodgers]

Hey, Paul.

 

Of course, any rules can be changed at any time using the proper process.  I wasn’t taking a position, just sharing a perspective.

Another way to distinguish between the two ideas is that one is fraught with variability and the other stability.

I think a more fundamental way to look at the proposal is whether control (via delegation size) should be based on the party’s internal membership size or whether it should be based on a state’s electoral college size.  I.e., should the states with larger LP membership have larger delegations or should the states that have more influence with electing a president have a larger delegation?

 

I think the answer lies in what one thinks the LP exists for:  satisfying its membership or getting the right people into public office.  Opinions can differ.  Membership counts will vary over time and one could argue that the states that are more successful in growing their numbers should be rewarded for their effort with a larger delegation.  Conversely, how much does it matter if Delaware or New Hampshire can gin up lots of members if, in the grand scheme, there is no impact on the ultimate goal?

 

Dean

Last Alternate 😊

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/ksT9iB_ylk50OSEWIXGf-L-_3MXD-IuXy7Bez73r-1yWXhXwzyAVFjv2h1zRsxK68wxG64hePXTWYObDBeJgrJCp09MNEoBtPP7UEbr4mLo%3D%40protonmail.com.

 

[Paul Bracco]

I'd like to formally make the attached proposal.

Paul Bracco

Vice Chair - Libertarian Party of Virginia

------- Original Message -------

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/IA1PR10MB605286293AA7C560ACD5340CD8C79%40IA1PR10MB6052.namprd10.prod.outlook.com.

[Rob Latham]

Am leaning in favor of this proposal.

Question (and my sense is that Ken Moellman may be able to answer it in light of a prior proposal): What is the needed adjustment to get the delegate count at or under 1,000 so that conventions could be sited at a larger number of venues?

Rob Latham

[Rob Latham]

Well, I'm leaning against this proposal for now, but it's because I'm seeking additional information.

I looked at the spreadsheet and thought left side was showing what happened under the existing formula and the right side showed what would happen under the proposed formula, but it appears that both sides are showing what would happen under the proposed formula.

What would be helpful to me is to see a spreadsheet showing the difference (Delta) between the allocations the existing formula generates and the allocations that the proposed formula would generate.

What such a spreadsheet would hopefully illustrate is how removing the allocation for presidential candidate vote totals would affect an affiliate's overall delegate allocation.

Hopefully my request for information makes sense.

Another problem I perceive with this proposal is that it appears to remove an important incentive for affiliates to support ballot access for the Party's presidential candidate. The current allocation formula incentivizes affiliates to support ballot access for the Party's presidential candidate because having the Party's presidential candidate on the ballot in that affiliate's state increases that affiliate's delegate entitlement.

Rob Latham

On Wednesday, January 18, 2023 at 12:22:12 PM UTC-7 Paul Bracco wrote:

[Mike Seebeck]

Throwing this out for discussion only.

Frankly, speaking as a mathematician, computer scientist, bylaws expert, and an actual rocket scientist, which are many of my hats, I find the whole formulaic thing in the Bylaws to be approaching the problem backwards. Algorithms are part of processes, not organizational structure. They help structure data, not an organization or its operations.

It would be FAR simpler to set the maximum number of delegates and alternates at 1000 total for each, calculate the percentage of sustaining members for each state on Jan 1 of a convention year, proportionalize allocations based on that 1000, with each state guaranteed a minimum of 3 delegates and alternates each, then notify the states of their allocations. Tracking of numbers is a simple CSV dump from CRM, I believe.

The advantages are this: the convention oversight committee knows in advance the needed venue size for the business sessions; to adjust the size only one number be amended; the states know their numbers going into their conventions and incentivizes them in off years to boost sustaining member numbers; it satisfies the desire to have all delegates and alternates be sustaining members, and it makes the logistics of convention planning straightforward all around at all party levels.

The disadvantage is that to adjust the number, the Bylaws would have to be amended and take effect on adjournment sine die.

But this is just for discussion. I have no proposal at this time.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/e0299765-8876-4278-8c6a-085004e84080n%40lp.org.

[Secretary LNC]

The convention oversight committee always know the venue size. Our delegates are always between (I don't have the manual in front of me so this are "close" between 1040 and 1070).  Anyone can make any arguments fir changing things, but making one that says anything about helping them no size is not really a factor with one exception.  It's crazy that all affiliates get alternates but reality is they are the same people who'd likely go anyway.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGasu4SGfVbrHwSS0Q8YeYYgBKM0RCZNH%2BO_%3D-7fsio1v6EfEw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mike Seebeck]

The 2010 convention refutes that contention as they had to add over a hundred seats at the last second, which threw the entire schedule of the convention out of whack.  Not to mention having to add spare seats in Reno.

And none of that refutes the overall premise either.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9W%3DNovoxQ7AW6yBoFUZqvBpsMC9QgdUq%3DpPJE8YZH8ttBQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

I cannot say what happened in 2010 but that is not a problem of the bylaws.  The number is what it is.none of the things you mention have a thing to do with the bylaws.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGasu4RALKo9xJwfnhq-UZBxcP8Kf52bAq59vW2RWL4sUBkSeg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Paul Bracco]

I'll address two items of concern that have been brought up.

Mr. Latham - Here's the layout of the spreadsheet (I've attached it here too). and what each column means:

• Columns A - B
• A is the state name
• B is the state code
• Columns C - I: All calculations are based upon the Delegate Allocations provided in October 2021 by former LNC Treasurer Tim Hagan, the report can be found here.
• C is the current delegate formula. This is the "actual" delegate allocation by state for the Reno 2022 convention. Based on your question I believe this is the information you're looking for.
• D is the proposed amendment, but with delegates being granted for each 0.097%
• E is the proposed amendment, but with delegates being granted for each 0.09705%
• F is the proposed amendment, but with delegates being granted for each 0.0971%
• G is the proposed amendment, but with delegates being granted for each 0.09715%
• H is the proposed amendment, but with delegates being granted for each 0.0972%
• I is the proposed amendment. Delegates are granted for each 0.09725%
• Columns J - P: All calculations are based upon the October 2022 Membership Report provided by LNC Operations Director Robert Kraus, the report can be found here.
• J is the current delegate formula.
• K is the proposed amendment, but with delegates being granted for each 0.097%
• L is the proposed amendment, but with delegates being granted for each 0.09705%
• M is the proposed amendment, but with delegates being granted for each 0.0971%
• N is the proposed amendment, but with delegates being granted for each 0.09715%
• O is the proposed amendment, but with delegates being granted for each 0.0972%
• P is the proposed amendment. Delegates are granted for each 0.09725%

If you wish to see the difference between the proposal and the current allocation formula this would be either Column I minus Column C (for the October 2021/Reno numbers) or Column P minus Column J (for the October 2022 numbers).

Mr. Seebeck - I'm open to alternative proposals, though my purpose here isn't to change the number of delegates. The intention of this proposal is to separate the delegate allocation formula from potential ballot access concerns so that state parties are not "punished" by the formula because of their particular state's terrible ballot access laws (see New York state).

Paul Bracco

Vice Chair - Libertarian Party of Virginia

------- Original Message -------

[Mike Seebeck]

Thank you for proving my point:  The formula doesn't need to be in the Bylaws.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9Wkg2ejmhoqgH94qETVrFTP%3DURH9F5owxr2jQmx5TX9MRw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mike Seebeck]

Frankly, delegate allocations should not be tied to ballot access at all; just sustaining memberships, which is independent of ballot access.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/nJ3gUec4UX_9mAT7Ayi9hUIYSeCzpE9tJeabX24eIEBHhYoab_eGubszYiQLoVEFl88Go4QUCX5aqjdSpqb7yVkUF7250S2m-Bu4qpetRQU%3D%40protonmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

What?  Yes it does.  It is a "membership requirement" for what makes up the membership of convention.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGasu4Sqd9yFGo98eWUe_6G2f0xi5bPcJmuoM8e7XUaiGGr8jg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mike Seebeck]

No, it is not a requirement.  It is a data calculation.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9Wm7Ku%2BsYt%2BKBZOWjX-y4Zg0d_nqnMSknNJ59QmBaoecDg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rob Latham]

Thank you, Mr. Bracco.

That does help (although I'm curious how these numbers were generated without the formulas in the cells, but that's a separate question about working with spreadsheets ;-) ).

I created a version showing the difference between the current column and the last columns for the Oct 2021 and Oct 2022 numbers to show how affiliate delegate allocation may be affected. 

In liberty,

Rob Latham

[David Roberson]

It does seem that we are delving too deeply into detail with some of these bylaws. By-laws, in my experience, are best as a skeletal framework to guide and suggest rather than to precisely and limitedly define exact actions.

#twocents

David

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 22, 2023, at 1:11 PM, Mike Seebeck <mike.s...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGasu4QDwfK_eDqnN_9_r-rXqyuczE0auLTNr83xeLF0gmcRFw%40mail.gmail.com.