Reconsideration of LNC Structure Changes

[Paul Bracco]

Colleagues,

I believe that if we do not include an LNC restructuring proposal in our report that it is a near-certainty to be moved from the floor. I would like to avoid this if at all possible as the bylaws section of the convention will already be pressed for time and dealing with an attempt to propose something from the floor will spend time we will be ill equipped to spend.

Additionally, in our October 5 meeting I was sympathetic to Mr. Rowlette's proposal but I wasn't comfortable voting for it without an alternative to approval voting included in the proposal. With that in mind I've largely borrowed the language from Mr. Rowlette's proposal while also including changes to Convention Rule 8.2 to specify that cumulative voting is to be used to elect at-large members of the LNC. Please note that the existing (and in my proposal unchanged) language of Convention Rule 9 will mean that the Judicial Committee elections will also follow this format if this proposal were to be adopted.

I'd like to submit the attached draft proposal for review by the committee, especially the added language in Convention Rule 8.2, and any suggestions for language improvement would be welcome. After the committee has gotten a chance to comment on the language and I'm able to make any adjustments I think are necessary I do plan to officially move this proposal, but I do want to clarify that I'm not yet moving the proposal at this time.

While I will be unable to reply to your comments promptly for the same reason that I will be unable to attend our November 2nd meeting, please be assured that I will read through any replies when I am able to do so.

Sincerely,

Paul Bracco

Vice Chair - Libertarian Party of Virginia

[Secretary LNC]

I actually do not believe at this point there will be anything from the floor.  If there were six hours for bylaws perhaps.  But not with four.  There is not going to be 2/3 to suspend the rules.

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

--
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/U0PlCA4MCtH-GazC9lGfZAgty2W8Bt02UUqLhNTCss_EnC2ViY-vhDTwoateWkkJDhOu__KRHg4X5t6HM9dN1nkLTykqnmNdreZr2mhrcZE%3D%40protonmail.com.

[Paul Bracco]

Colleagues,

I'd just like to bring this back to everyone's attention. Please let me know if anyone has any thoughts on the attached proposal, I'd like to get it ready to go soon as I know we're trying to wrap up new proposals in the very near future.

Sincerely,

Paul Bracco

Vice Chair - Libertarian Party of Virginia

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9Wnekp0Znvn5kwYFZrK1_7zGBPGcrFk5tubArY87yjpm4Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tom Rowlette]

I'm in favor, although I think that instead of a period after the words cumulative voting, there should be a comma and the words "in which" or "which means" or something similar.  The reason being that it's not plain to someone who isn't well versed in different voting methods that those two sentences don't set up two different things.

Also, I think this should go at the end of the things we discuss, and if we don't get to it we don't get to it.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/lPiJC9vA0Ghp-cUJzzn5PTly7wy5jGHQbwcewmBBU2jaIsKDZzHzrvma6UGNkAE69QfIwJXR3JdLGSijVyhpVvzESqbzZBuDtPh3d-h6ThE%3D%40protonmail.com.

[Paul Bracco]

Thank you very much, I've made the change you suggested in the attached version.

Paul Bracco

Vice Chair - Libertarian Party of Virginia

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CA%2B6WXgUtY_FZXHU7wJCMrnh9BOKbitfKaCtaoCg-KMEKaVF7mg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

So is this formally submitted or not?

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/UhLQJzIgSzeBE773k51Ap17-spRxPDCnMH7KiQerLmjFyjNIkvm7rzIMZZK5HwFgPjC7LeAK5XekBhsbnCSPDWUyQ7Im2XZ8kShLMHvwPl4%3D%40protonmail.com.

[Paul Bracco]

Madam Chair,

Yes, please consider the most recent version submitted.

Sincerely,

Paul Bracco

Vice Chair - Libertarian Party of Virginia

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9W%3DW10AQibou%2BtQLzM3%2BFOyu%3D4Ofqx8uXcZN_%3DvWK9LG2A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Paul Bracco]

Madam Chair,

I have a parliamentary inquiry. In RONR 37:35 it lists three differences between reconsideration in a meeting of an assembly and a meeting of a committee.

I'm specifically referring to the third difference, which states "Unless all the members of the committee who voted with the prevailing side are present or have been given reasonable notice that the reconsideration will be moved, it requires a two-thirds vote to adopt the motion to Reconsider."

My parliamentary inquiry is two-fold. First, would a motion to reconsider on this committee that has been given reasonable notice require a majority vote or a two-thirds vote? Second, if yes, does this email thread or the presence of this motion/proposal on the agenda constitute reasonable notice? If not, what would constitute reasonable notice?

Sincerely,

Paul Bracco

Vice Chair - Libertarian Party of Virginia

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/N8WxzJkLKRT0xV5aJfpi9y3cfO2mZSrn6B6PXffCnDRbdBKCKvq9WYeCqMsgtWNfv4F5AwQLzY3EAr5FlqJdRcusGHrvBw2YvJYdAJ0pFtQ%3D%40protonmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

It would require majority vote with notice.  Reasonable notice would be a clear indication on the agenda, if it is out at least several days in advance, notification at least several days in advance on this email list, or announcing the intent at the previous meeting.

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/cA8f33dQ50HLCGUf_TGqbc1qq0hF8Mg3J12YZACosJqnQaeATmc_rcYIeqVgQolX9W2VLKbXO1kGFzH26Fr6WdpO43Rvl-KvSsPpaw9xHiQ%3D%40protonmail.com.

[Paul Bracco]

Madam Chair,

When this agenda item comes up in our next meeting I would like to move the attached proposal. The only difference between this and the prior document is to add a small piece to the language in Article 15 to explicitly authorize cumulative voting.

Paul Bracco

Vice Chair - Libertarian Party of Virginia

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9WnCppVPGrgL0%3DXZnjH0Cb2tpxy6WsSy6vPhZc%2B5ehta0Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

I have concerns with how none-of-the-above works here.  It can knock off people who DID get a majority which defeats the purpose and becomes a weapon to knock off the minority candidate for which people are voting.  Someone really needs to do math on this.  I don't think none-of-the-above plays well with cumulative voting.

IOW a large majority who has one preferred candidate shouldn't be able to NOTA all of the minority candidates out of running so that either they get another shot at their second preferred candidate or their favored LNC gets to fill the vacancy.

I think they should be able to EITHER cast multiple votes in any combined they want, and ONE none of the above vote.  They can choose to cast just the one none-of-the-above vote if they really hate everyone.

I cannot vote for this as is.

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/zLRWtN8VzU8rzCkda-PrJVf7T2ElgVkO8UFEwjaKxOHm5Gw-xfFShfxKW7iF0881DSsb-F_6jvPcBdXI5iGk92HuFXOlLsV4Hja0iTNFKto%3D%40protonmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

Unless that is what you meant, I am confused reading this. 

If you meant what I said above, I will shut up.  LOL, I am still very flu fuzzy.

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

[Mike Seebeck]

Normally in a block vote without a majority requirement any candidates who earn less votes than NOTA aren't elected and not enough candidates are elected, there are vacancies. In cumulative it is possible to have a candidate earn a majority but less than NOTA.

I would think that if that case happens, then only the candidates who earn the majority get elected. If more candidates than slots, top ones get in. If less candidates than slots, then the remaining slots are considered vacant and get filled by either another election or by a later appointment or some other means. 

At least that's how I would do it, such that NOTA acts as a cutoff for slots to fill.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9WkthmEVO7o-yORrG%3Dwz0Ju%2BZREuvV9mXzggZvAL3OPtcQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

I think this is going to require live discussion.

NOTA cannot be stacked and have any meaning and not be a nightmare.

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGasu4TV4S54vBu8ga93GSOkwOsde0j4H3T0_XSaCSMvS2DqWg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mike Seebeck]

Sure it can. There are only these differences between NOTA and a human candidate:

1. NOTA is automatically nominated.

2. NOTA is never removed from the ballot.

3. If NOTA wins in a single-seat race, the seat is vacant.

4. If NOTA wins in a multi-seat race, then any human candidate getting less votes loses and any human candidate getting more votes wins.

5. You can't vote for both human candidates and NOTA; that's a spoiled ballot.

For the purposes of vote tallies, NOTA is treated the same as any human candidate. 

For example: Electing 5 LNC At-Large seats. To be elected, a human candidate must get a majority of the votes cast and be in the top 5. Assume only 1 round of voting and not multiple rounds with human candidate drops, although this could apply to each round in that case, too.

• If 6 or more human candidates get a majority but not NOTA, the top 5 get elected.

• If 5 human candidates get a majority but not NOTA, they get elected.

• If 1, 2, 3, or 4 human candidates get a majority but not NOTA, they get elected and there's vacancies.

• If no human candidates get a majority regardless of NOTA, nobody is elected and there's 5 vacancies.

• If any number of human candidates and NOTA get a majority, the human candidates get elected if they had more votes than NOTA, and do not get elected if they didn't, and there's possible vacancies.

• If NOTA gets the most votes, nobody is elected and there's 5 vacancies.

The only difference between regular voting and cumulative and approval is tabulation, but the election scenarios are the same.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9WmXOcnF5KywPEW2%2B%3Dp0FjfzVPPXE6gfDQEaO5%2BTW7yZ8w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

I need convo.  Following text hurting brain today.

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGasu4T%2BtS3K3MqHieSZN5T3NrZOiUpbWoUe7eRStos1V0sdXg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rob Latham]

Am not sure if this is correct, but throwing it out for illustration and discussion:

...

HYPOTHETICAL LNC AT-LARGE MEMBER ELECTION USING CUMULATIVE VOTING

Seven seats to fill

1000 delegates

7000 possible votes

10 candidates (A-J) and NOTA

A=1000 votes

B=950 votes

C=900 votes

D=850 votes

NOTA= 800 votes (3640 left)

E=750 votes

F=700 votes

G=650 votes

H=600 votes

I=550 votes (3250)

J=390 votes

Are candidates A-D elected and all other candidates defeated?

Under this formula

1000 x 4

—-------- + 1

7+1

4000
—------- + 1 = 501
8

Translated for LNC purposes:

X = number of votes needed to elect a majority of at-large members

S = total number of voting convention delegates

N = number of at-large members to constitute a majority on the LNC (4 for a 7-member board)

D = total number of at-large members (assume a 7-member board)

...

Next iteration will be without NOTA for comparison.

In liberty,

Rob Latham

[Secretary LNC]

The rule says nota will be disregarded if it includes a candidate.  Your example is impossible.

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

--

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/CAOKuKGnR2VcRt-ycwB1i9hzuA25m8pVN_QHTxUNfCc02H_Kdpg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rob Latham]

Thank you for noting that.

Here's an hypothetical with some delegates voting for NOTA and no other candidate based on this rule (8.2.a.):

Each delegate may cast a ballot with a vote for either none-of-the-above or one vote per candidate for any number of candidates. Every ballot with a vote for none-of-the-above or one or more candidates is counted as one ballot cast. A vote for none-of-the-above shall be ignored if the ballot also includes a vote for any other candidate.  

*Which raises an interesting question: Should a delegate be able to "plump" all of that delegate's votes for NOTA? I'll run two scenarios in which votes are and are not plumped.

HYPOTHETICAL LNC AT-LARGE MEMBER ELECTION USING CUMULATIVE VOTING (NO PLUMPING FOR NOTA)

Seven seats to fill

1000 delegates

7000 possible votes (but all 550 votes for NOTA make it 3150 possible non-NOTA votes)

10 candidates (A-J) and NOTA

A=600 votes

B=580 votes

C=570 votes

D=560 votes

NOTA= 550 votes (2860 left)

E=540 votes

F=530 votes

G=520 votes

H=510 votes

I=500 votes (260 left)

J=260 votes

Are candidates A-D elected and all other candidates defeated?

Under this formula

1000 x 4

—-------- + 1

7+1

4000
—------- + 1 = 501
8

Translated for LNC purposes:

X = number of votes needed to elect a majority of at-large members

S = total number of voting convention delegates

N = number of at-large members to constitute a majority on the LNC (4 for a 7-member board)

D = total number of at-large members (assume a 7-member board)

===

HYPOTHETICAL LNC AT-LARGE MEMBER ELECTION USING CUMULATIVE VOTING (PLUMPING FOR NOTA ALLOWED)

Seven seats to fill

1000 delegates

7000 possible votes

10 candidates (A-J) and NOTA (100 delegates plump their seven votes for NOTA)

A=900 votes

B=850 votes

C=800 votes

D=750 votes

NOTA= 700 votes (3000 left)

E=650 votes

F=600 votes

G=550 votes

H=500 votes

I=450 votes (250 left)

J=250 votes

Are candidates A-D elected and all other candidates defeated?

Under this formula

1000 x 4

—-------- + 1

7+1

4000
—------- + 1 = 501
8

Translated for LNC purposes:

X = number of votes needed to elect a majority of at-large members

S = total number of voting convention delegates

N = number of at-large members to constitute a majority on the LNC (4 for a 7-member board)

D = total number of at-large members (assume a 7-member board)

[Secretary LNC]

"A" vote means only one vote for NOTA allowed.

I cannot support with NOTA plumping.

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

--

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/CAOKuKGnH89BbJgKNqRWyec5H7hAmt695BvLTA%3DG1_bC%3D8wR-ig%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

Also board isn't  7, you forgot 4 officers.

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

[Secretary LNC]

I'm becoming convinced NOTA doesn't work with cumulative or works directly opposite to the way it does with preferential and becomes nonsense.

I know Mike will hate me for this, but I'm no longer a fan of NOTA at all except single winner.  It makes no sense in others.

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

[Rob Latham]

The hypothetical board for these examples is just to illustrate using cumulative voting for the at-large member (and theoretically also Judicial Committee) elections, assuming seven at-large members per Proposal RR. 🏴‍☠️ 🦜

[Rob Latham]

HYPOTHETICAL LNC AT-LARGE MEMBER ELECTION USING CUMULATIVE VOTING (WITHOUT NOTA, FOR ILLUSTRATION ONLY)

Seven seats to fill

1000 delegates

7000 possible votes

10 candidates (A-J)

A=875 votes

B=850 votes

C=825 votes

D=800 votes

E=775 votes

F=750 votes

G=725 votes

H=700 votes

I=675 votes (25 left)

J=25 votes

Are candidates A-G elected and all other candidates defeated?

Under this formula

[Paul Bracco]

Colleagues,

I would like to refer to the language that I used:

2. Nominations for the at-large members of the National Committee shall be from the floor. The election shall be conducted in the following manner: 

1. The election shall take place using cumulative voting, which means that eEach delegate may cast a ballot with a vote for either none-of-the-above or one vote per elected positioncandidate for any number of candidates. Every ballot with a vote for none-of-the-above or one or more candidates is counted as one ballot cast. A vote for none-of-the-above shall be ignored if the ballot also includes a vote for any other candidate. 
2. Each delegation shall tabulate its total vote, and the delegation chair shall deliver a written total to the Secretary, along with the ballots cast. 
3. When all delegations have submitted their votes, the Chair shall declare the voting closed. The candidates receiving the largest vote total, provided that vote total is greater than or equal to the majority of ballots cast, shall be elected. The top five candidates receiving a majority vote of the ballots cast shall be elected. Tie votes affecting the outcome shall be decided by lot. 

Under this framework, a vote for NOTA is one ballot cast with zero votes for any human candidates, while a ballot where the delegate chooses to cast votes for human candidates can include up to 7 votes. I would like to emphasize that the vote total that a candidate needs to be overcome to be elected is the majority of ballots cast NOT the majority of votes. Given this, a faction would need to control a huge supermajority of the delegates (far more than the 2/3 required to suspend this rule) in order to successfully execute a strategy of NOTAing minority candidates.

Consider a situation where three factions of delegates exist within a pool of 1,000 delegates:

• Faction 1 controls 700 delegates
• Faction 2 controls 150 delegates
• Faction 3 controls 150 delegates

Faction 1, having not done the math and believing themselves to be in a controlling position, casts all 700 ballots for NOTA in round 1 in an attempt to disqualify the strongest candidates of the minority faction. Factions 2 and 3, knowing they are a small minority, each run a single candidate in round 1 in an attempt to rally the support of their entire faction behind that single candidate and overcome the Faction 1 supermajority.

The results of the round 1 election are as follows:

• 1,000 ballots cast
• 1,050 votes for Faction 2's candidate (150 faction members * 7 votes each)
• 1,050 votes for Faction 3's candidate (150 faction members * 7 votes each)

Both Faction 2's candidate and Faction 3's candidate are elected, as they both receive far more votes than the majority of ballots cast (501 votes). Faction 1, despite having an enormous supermajority has not blocked anyone from being elected and likely ushered in an over-representation on the LNC by Factions 2 and 3, who, having each elected their preferred candidate in round 1, will now be able to strategically concentrate their votes again in round 2 with a new slate of candidates attempting to fill the remaining 5 at-large positions.

Given the majority of ballots cast structure I don't think there is any meaningful risk of a majority faction strategically NOTAing minority candidates. Assuming the 1,000 delegates, the three factions, and that Factions 2 and 3 split the non-Faction 1 delegates, Faction 1 would need to control over 85% of the delegates (858) in order to be guaranteed of successfully NOTAing minority candidates. Under these circumstances (and with a far smaller majority) the superior strategy for Faction 1 would be to suspend the rules and return to approval voting for this election which would allow them to handily sweep all 7 at-large positions.

In fact, this might be too lenient of a bar, if anything. I would be willing to change the language from the majority of ballots cast to the number of ballots cast. I would appreciate it if the committee members who feel strongly please let me know their thoughts on that change.

Sincerely,

Paul Bracco

Vice Chair - Libertarian Party of Virginia

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9WkK25SeLRi9z2b7PRA_OjaXQyYFnsO9%3DzBo9T4ZJRHfrw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rob Latham]

My current sense is that NOTA can play well with cumulative voting, given examples by Mr. Bracco and I, but remain open to more information.

I don't favor allowing plumping for NOTA either, but see the rationale for allowing it under the "NOTA as a candidate, not a concept" argument"). And as the example I used shows plumping NOTA wouldn't crash the election, but probably would increase the administrative burden somewhat.

And I also favor preferential voting over cumulative voting, but without electronic balloting in place preferential STV is also challenging to administer by hand (although others and I will be demonstrating a hand-counted preferential STV mock election using the Andrae method at the upcoming national convention).

In liberty,

Rob Latham

[Tom Rowlette]

I prefer the current language of needing to pass the threshold of majority of ballots cast rather than needing to at least equal the number of ballots cast.  It'll cut down on the number of voting rounds needed, and also needing 1000 votes total might not be realistic among people with even broad, strong support.  In the past we've had somewhere between 20-30 candidates for at-large, and my guess is that under cumulative voting those votes will be spread pretty thin in the first round at least.  Also, we very, very often don't have time to get to a second round.

I don't see NOTA causing a big problem with this.  The only stumbling block is that I'm guessing some people will spoil their ballots with NOTA and other candidate votes, but that's a problem I'm willing to live with.

I'm glad that Bracco put Latham's changes into his proposal.  My question now is does it make sense to do the same thing in reverse?  In other words, do we want to incorporate the Bracco "explanation language" into the next proposal?  I'm in favor of it.

Another question we might want to ask is that since these two proposals are fairly similar, do we want to have them as two separate proposals, do we just want to combine them into one?  I'm in favor of that too.  Currently the differences between the two are that Latham's doesn't affect LNC structure and also doesn't include the explanation language.  The only reason to have Latham's proposal separate that I can see is as a failsafe for cumulative voting in case delegates don't want to restructure the LNC.  I think I prefer only putting forward the package deal, but I could be wrong about that.

--
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/CAOKuKGkUFoJgKYOfpZ3QqsBemFRrz0QQ2-ECz-4T%3D1iFq7QROg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tom Rowlette]

Now that I'm thinking about it I have a question.  If this passes is there a mechanism to do a second round if the first round doesn't fill the at-large spots?  For that matter, does that exist now?  I thought it did, but maybe I'm remembering poorly.  I know there was at least one time where votes for at-large weren't done before the convention adjourned (and a few more than one if I'm right), but is there even supposed to be a second round if the at-larges aren't full?  Whatever the answer is to that, JC works the same way.

[Secretary LNC]

Yes you do second round just like the first round.

I'm also toying with different proviso though not a deal killer.

I'm also would like the proviso to eliminate alternates immediately.  I can advise region 4 this is proposed so any proposed alternate they elect can know avd perhaps they can pass a resolution if this passes the ExComm will appoint that person for vacancy - that's their business though.

Alternates are a nightmare.  This prepares the structure to function differently.

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CA%2B6WXgW7hz56k9fgo9EMsm8v-KE63GmfViSHvTdcOvnoPBMcMA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tom Rowlette]

My immediate reaction is that the proviso would complicate an already complicated proposal, though I'm friendly to the sentiment of it.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9Wk96npvbccVKNPja4T719OLYd73GQhOH36W%2BAiH%2BTzoyw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rob Latham]

I can attempt to combine the restructuring and cumulative voting proposals, but this week it's a bandwidth issue. Not sure if I'll get to it before Thursday's meeting.

And I have gone back and forth on favoring the separation of both proposals or combining them. I'm currently leaning in favor of keeping them separate, as my support for the restructuring proposal hinges on the implementation of at least a semi-proportional electoral method like cumulative voting.

A call to divide those questions, if combined, is likely anyway.

Also, my sense is that the cumulative voting proposal should be taken up before the restructuring proposal because it is less of a lift.

In liberty,

Rob Latham 

On Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 5:49 PM 'Paul Bracco' via Bylaws Committee 2024 <bylaws-com...@lp.org> wrote:

Colleagues,

I believe that if we do not include an LNC restructuring proposal in our report that it is a near-certainty to be moved from the floor. I would like to avoid this if at all possible as the bylaws section of the convention will already be pressed for time and dealing with an attempt to propose something from the floor will spend time we will be ill equipped to spend.

Additionally, in our October 5 meeting I was sympathetic to Mr. Rowlette's proposal but I wasn't comfortable voting for it without an alternative to approval voting included in the proposal. With that in mind I've largely borrowed the language from Mr. Rowlette's proposal while also including changes to Convention Rule 8.2 to specify that cumulative voting is to be used to elect at-large members of the LNC. Please note that the existing (and in my proposal unchanged) language of Convention Rule 9 will mean that the Judicial Committee elections will also follow this format if this proposal were to be adopted.

I'd like to submit the attached draft proposal for review by the committee, especially the added language in Convention Rule 8.2, and any suggestions for language improvement would be welcome. After the committee has gotten a chance to comment on the language and I'm able to make any adjustments I think are necessary I do plan to officially move this proposal, but I do want to clarify that I'm not yet moving the proposal at this time.

While I will be unable to reply to your comments promptly for the same reason that I will be unable to attend our November 2nd meeting, please be assured that I will read through any replies when I am able to do so.

Sincerely,

Paul Bracco

Vice Chair - Libertarian Party of Virginia

--

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/U0PlCA4MCtH-GazC9lGfZAgty2W8Bt02UUqLhNTCss_EnC2ViY-vhDTwoateWkkJDhOu__KRHg4X5t6HM9dN1nkLTykqnmNdreZr2mhrcZE%3D%40protonmail.com.

[Paul Bracco]

Mr. Latham,

I've attached a cut-down version of my proposal which includes only those changes dealing with cumulative voting. I've only edited the proposal language and proviso though, so the rationale at the top remains the same as the main RR proposal.

Sincerely,

Paul Bracco

Vice Chair - Libertarian Party of Virginia

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAOKuKGmGHcKx4OnRR%3DneT9HMde_nAN%3DmdrCdO%3DrkJEu4rrfkyg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rob Latham]

Two questions:

1. What is happening to that part of the restructuring proposal to replace regional representatives by expanding the number of at-large members?

2. With this proposed language -- "The candidates receiving the largest vote total, provided that vote total is greater than or equal to the majority of ballots cast, shall be elected." -- the way I interpret that proposed language using the 1,000 voting delegate hypotheticals above is that candidates receiving 501 or more votes would be elected, despite receiving fewer votes than NOTA.

Is anyone else reading it that way?

Perhaps candidates below the "NOTA line" -- despite receiving a majority of ballots cast -- would not be elected given this language in Article 10.7: " Should "None of the Above" be selected for any Party office, that position shall be declared vacant and none of the losing candidates for that position may be selected to fill the vacancy for that term of office."

That issue could use more clarity.

Either option can work. My sense is that we just need to make a policy choice.

In liberty,

Rob Latham

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/J31KNNTbixUVb9U59VaNIoVtymTXwdqTXg96uKsW-JbaO3kM0jjw0cS6PHefiztMf4_qIdZs6lUwPMnvFovfqgkuZhILsX6n_NTaZXjPc_w%3D%40protonmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

That was my entire concern and how NOTA could be gamed.

I will not support cumulative votes for NOTA.

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAOKuKGmLhELjt3rt0YOWzHEUNXp_6dMQc8C2GmYzWECPEMjt7A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Paul Bracco]

1. Nothing on that has changed. I was just providing you the subset of language that was directly relevant to your proposal.

2. This is mostly correct, however “get more votes than NOTA” is not a concept. In my framework NOTA is effectively a ballot cast with no votes for human candidates. NOTA votes make it marginally harder for candidates to exceed the vote threshold by adding 1 to the denomination and 0 to the numerator.

If you were to count “votes” for NOTA as 7 votes and require candidates to exceed the NOTA vote total then that system is easily manipulated by a simple majority faction. It would be worse than approval voting in that it would get to the same result (majority sweep) but spend a lot more time getting there.

Paul Bracco

Vice Chair - Libertarian Party of Virginia

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAOKuKGmLhELjt3rt0YOWzHEUNXp_6dMQc8C2GmYzWECPEMjt7A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Paul Bracco]

Even if we were to create a perfect voting system any faction with more than 2/3 of the delegates could suspend or amend that system and replace it with something they can manipulate to their advantage.

With that in mind, do you agree that if manipulating a voting system requires a majority greater than 2/3 to successfully execute, then we shouldn’t worry about that manipulation?

Paul Bracco

Vice Chair - Libertarian Party of Virginia

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9WkA8xBs%3DKjjn4Ts76FQks_RfuHxBkypMOdoxvf%2B7rwgnA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

No.

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/SZq526APvs2cetMJRaCkQaO5K3ocZo52ACXOeQijJEALwghnp145jOPYJinkOTPAvc1ZdADjE-JaiZwHpWddoxSqnSQx2SFTYzB6heXHeKM%3D%40protonmail.com.

[Rob Latham]

Thank you, Mr. Bracco.

On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 12:59 PM 'Paul Bracco' via Bylaws Committee 2024 <bylaws-com...@lp.org> wrote:

1. Nothing on that has changed. I was just providing you the subset of language that was directly relevant to your proposal.

Thank you for clarifying, and on balance I'm supportive of that language. 

Note from the Working Copy of Amended Bylaws that one or more proposals that have passed this committee replaces current language in Rule 8. So, that will likely need reconciliation. (And the cumulative voting proposal (Proposal SS) proposes to delete a lot of that Rule 8 language as surplusage; hence my use of "on balance" in the previous paragraph.)

 

2. This is mostly correct, however “get more votes than NOTA” is not a concept. In my framework NOTA is effectively a ballot cast with no votes for human candidates. NOTA votes make it marginally harder for candidates to exceed the vote threshold by adding 1 to the denomination and 0 to the numerator.

If you were to count “votes” for NOTA as 7 votes and require candidates to exceed the NOTA vote total then that system is easily manipulated by a simple majority faction. It would be worse than approval voting in that it would get to the same result (majority sweep) but spend a lot more time getting there.

Paul Bracco

Vice Chair - Libertarian Party of Virginia

I kind of grok this, but ask for someone to use the equation I posted above -- and using the 1000 hypothetical voting delegates casting ballots ... including a fair number of votes for NOTA ... to fill seven at-large member seats to illustrate the point (i.e., how votes for NOTA affect the numerator and the denominator).

In liberty,

Rob Latham

[Tom Rowlette]

My read is that if you have a majority of votes over ballots cast, but you didn't beat NOTA, you would not be elected.  Seebeck went over it earlier and I completely agree with his reasoning.

But let's say that someone thinks NOTA is still a problem in this scenario.  The solution isn't to scrap the proposal and resign ourselves to regional representatives and approval voting.  The solution is to provide clarification language.  I don't think we need it in this case, but I'm willing to keep an open mind.

--
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/CAOKuKGmLdbFt9Sw%3DSgH5%3Ds%3D%2BKAJT4cdZxz%3DZ0e1%3DjCnHY-SywQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rob Latham]

I support that outcome, but would like to make the language more clear that such an outcome is intended.

(So, in my prior hypothetical, it would be just candidates A-D who were elected. The remaining candidates would not be elected because their votes were below the NOTA threshold, even though their votes exceeded the majority threshold; but that hypothetical is pretty unlikely because it envisions more than half of the 1000 voting delegates voting for NOTA.)

Also want to note that in these 1000 voting delegate hypothetical scenarios, 72 delegates could theoretically elect one at-large member by plumping all of their votes for one candidate. (If a majority of votes is 501, 72 delegates could cast 72 x 7 or 504 votes.)

Here's proposed clarifying language (in purple in the attachment): 

Candidates receiving more votes than "None of the Above" shall be elected in the order of most votes received to least votes received until all seven seats are filled. Candidates receiving equal to or fewer votes than "None of the Above" shall be defeated and ineligible to fill an at-large member vacancy for that term of office. The process may be repeated until all seats are filled.

In liberty,

Rob Latham

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CA%2B6WXgVVNfbj1%2B9kvWHUXGoPg38Son5G_iQ%2B84pAeXdVoQ_WMg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tom Rowlette]

I like your language Mr. Latham, but was it your intention to allow people who did not receive a majority to be elected?  The NOTA issue is cleared up nicely, but I think it replaced some necessary language.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAOKuKGn0mLM0VrjuNs9uQnkN2B%2Bb_kYTostsbokbB1LfgRkE5A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rob Latham]

No, good catch.

Revision attached, added language highlighted, although I did resolve ties in a different direction: candidates with a vote total that ties NOTA do not defeat NOTA.

I can see arguments made in the other direction, and have been made in this discussion thread.

There is also the existing language: "Tie votes affecting the outcome shall be decided by lot." which raises a new question: Should candidates tied with NOTA be afforded the opportunity to "roll for it"?

In liberty,

Rob Latham

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CA%2B6WXgWR0XpbOD6dDyr1d71KtHtQ%3D_GrLfuiKq6h9BgCRVtTFQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mike Seebeck]

"Also want to note that in these 1000 voting delegate hypothetical scenarios, 72 delegates could theoretically elect one at-large member by plumping all of their votes for one candidate. (If a majority of votes is 501, 72 delegates could cast 72 x 7 or 504 votes.)"

That's EXACTLY why I don't like cumulative voting; it can make one person's vote 7x more than another.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAOKuKGn0mLM0VrjuNs9uQnkN2B%2Bb_kYTostsbokbB1LfgRkE5A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

That's the purpose though to allow minority voices. 

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGasu4TJ%2BHuq8V_jaNE0UWASL279BuG_hTzad9M3OMtewOyhFQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

I will not vote for this if NOTA can be gamed.  I think the original proposal takes care of that and I plead with us to not have this die the death of a thousand cuts.

But I am a hard no on plumping NOTA.  If that is where this is going I would rather stay the way we are.

I don't think Bracco wants plumping NOTA and is getting frustrated by all this talk that his proposal doesn't cover but he can speak for himself.

I am more convinced than ever that regionals are of the devil and if I had my way, this would be effective THIS convention.

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 10:24 PM Tom Rowlette <trow...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CA%2B6WXgVVNfbj1%2B9kvWHUXGoPg38Son5G_iQ%2B84pAeXdVoQ_WMg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rob Latham]

My sense is that no member of this committee participating in this discussion thus far supports a delegate's ability to plump NOTA.

I was concerned about a delegate's ability to plump NOTA until existing bylaws language was pointed out to me. That existing language gives a vote for NOTA a "weight" of one vote, not seven.

Mr. Bracco's example of a voting constituency casting its 700 votes for NOTA in an initial round shows how trying to strategically use NOTA to suppress minority voices can backfire by resulting in the under-representation of that 700-member constituency.

In liberty,

Rob Latham

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9WkkHWW9OvLqW4wdg_9BKTr9QsJcu_RcNqLGK837YyT-Wg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tom Rowlette]

I'm pretty comfortable with this.  Tieing with NOTA is the kind of corner case which should happen very rarely, and I think it's already covered anyway (candidate is defeated in that case).  Also, for NOTA to have that effect anyway, it would have to recieve 501 votes out of 1000, which I anticipate will never happen.

Language is good, issues resolved, and it's a definite improvement over the status quo.  I'm glad we all did this on the list instead of in meeting :)

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAOKuKGna7wuG%2BX45gj_Brv2yQdeBSR8X_bpJ97Jy_BvCa3QhcQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rob Latham]

Please replace my last third substitute with the attached version, which adds the language to the third "If Adopted, Will Read" column.

Also, consider the hypotheticals below exercises in trying to find the equivalent of a Droop/Hare quota for cumulative voting in this hypothetical scenario, i.e., what is the lowest number of votes needed to win a seat? Win a majority of at-large members? Elect all at-large members?

One may also consider these hypotheticals “stress-tests” of these concepts to identify potential points of failure (my initial take is that the proposed cumulative voting language holds up pretty well).

Also contemplate this existing bylaws language: “Tie votes affecting the outcome shall be decided by lot.”

Should that language be clarified to: “Tie votes affecting which candidates are elected shall be decided by lot.”?

HYPOTHETICAL A: LNC AT-LARGE MEMBER ELECTION USING CUMULATIVE VOTING (NO DELEGATE VOTES FOR NOTA)

Seven seats to fill

1000 delegates

 

7000 possible votes

 

7 candidates (A-G) and NOTA [election is run to see if NOTA defeats any candidate, but in this hypothetical no delegate votes for NOTA]

A=143 delegates, 1001 votes

B=143 delegates, 1001 votes

C=143 delegates, 1001 votes

D=143 delegates, 1001 votes

E=143 delegates, 1001 votes

F=143 delegates, 1001 votes

G=142 delegates, 994 votes

…

 

HYPOTHETICAL B: LNC AT-LARGE MEMBER ELECTION USING CUMULATIVE VOTING (NO DELEGATE VOTES FOR NOTA)

Seven seats to fill

1000 delegates

 

7000 possible votes

 

8 candidates (A-H) and NOTA

A=128 delegates, 896 votes

B=127 delegates, 889 votes

C=126 delegates, 882 votes

D=125 delegates, 875 votes

E=124 delegates, 868 votes

F=124 delegates, 868 votes

G=124 delegates, 868 votes

 

H=122 delegates, 854 votes

 

…

 

HYPOTHETICAL C: LNC AT-LARGE MEMBER ELECTION USING CUMULATIVE VOTING (NO DELEGATE VOTES FOR NOTA)

Seven seats to fill

1000 delegates

 

7000 possible votes

 

14 candidates (A-N) and NOTA

A=72 delegates, 504 votes

B=72 delegates, 504 votes

C=72 delegates, 504 votes

D=72 delegates, 504 votes

E=72 delegates, 504 votes

F=72 delegates, 504 votes

G=72 delegates, 504 votes

H=72 delegates, 504 votes

I=72 delegates, 504 votes

J=72 delegates, 504 votes

 

 

K=72 delegates, 504 votes

L=72 delegates, 504 votes

 

 

M=72 delegates, 504 votes

N=64 delegates, 448 votes

In liberty,

Rob Latham

[Secretary LNC]

I charge now $5 per substitute ;)

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

--
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/CAOKuKGn%3D9jqrv-g2%2BAMPYjSHu2B0eKA9jryBpdjXWPU93MRnUA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mike Seebeck]

Cheapskate!

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9WmJXCtmzdpPw9MhHbYe8UZ_%2BKJsUuSisp1XMwhiGi2PyA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sylvia Arrowwood]

Do take and save your Confederate Money.  The South

will rise again.

---

From: "Mike Seebeck" <mike.s...@gmail.com>
To: "bylaws-committee-2024" <bylaws-com...@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2024 3:40:17 PM
Subject: Re: BYLAWS-COMMITTEE Reconsideration of LNC Structure Changes

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGasu4R-3mi%2BQq4Wh4TbT8vbMnoXbaPadzButqg%3DF_b6AVon2w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tom Rowlette]

Huh?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/2006332316.31958846.1704317999283.JavaMail.zimbra%40homesc.com.

[Tom Rowlette]

I hate to point this out, but the 3rd substitute has funky formatting.  a. should become c.

[Rob Latham]

No worries; easily fixed.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CA%2B6WXgViXjjrttMeMyQNmPK02VyQ8JAbhyP%2BzVnc_2X%2BNghF1A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Chuck Moulton]

I still think $1 per LNC discuss list email would be the best fundraiser in the history of the party.

In liberty,

Dr. Chuck Moulton

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 3, 2024, at 2:04 PM, Secretary LNC <secr...@lp.org> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9WmJXCtmzdpPw9MhHbYe8UZ_%2BKJsUuSisp1XMwhiGi2PyA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

We actually don't email much this term which has hatched a great conspiracy.

We instead have monthly meetings.

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/999DB0CF-71AC-48B0-A630-25B82A78DE1D%40moulton.org.