Electronic Voting at the National Convention
TJ Ferreira
All,
Purpose:
The purpose of this email is three-fold:
1) to communicate to the membership that the Convention Oversight Committee (COC) intends to make electronic voting available to the delegations at the national convention;
2) to describe the interpretation of our rules that make this possible with the expectation that there will be disagreement and discussion around that interpretation; and
3) identify some additional voting concepts which may come up at our convention when using electronic voting and offer my opinion on how to handle them based on our Convention Special Rules and RONR.
Why now?
I find it necessary to start this discussion because the COC must make sure their selected electronic voting system can accommodate the will of the delegates which is not known until during the convention. Therefore, if delegates have suggestions or concerns, we can make sure the system has options to handle as many scenarios as possible.
References:
At the end of this email, I have provided highlighted sections from the Convention Special Rules and Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 12th edition. In attempting to make this email readable, I will use paraphrasing of the terminology included in the references. Even with that… this is going to be long. Sorry, not sorry.
Three ballot types:
There are three forms of ballots used during this (non-Presidential) convention:
1) Ballots for the elections of single winner races (Officers).
2) Ballots for the elections of multiple winner races (At-Large and Judicial Committee).
3) Ballots (tokens) for platform deletion.
Written and Signed Requirements:
If done with “computer readable ballots”, ballot types 1 and 2 are required to be written ballots which are signed and provided to the delegate chair. After which, tellers appointed by the Secretary review the ballot. Ballot type 3 is required to be signed and provided to the Secretary.
Interpretations:
“Written” is being interpreted as the ballots can be printed out to a common file format (pdf) or directly to paper but do not have to be hand-written.
“Signed” is being interpreted as including any identifier that confirms the ballot came from a registered delegate (or alternate) who is allowed to vote.
Ballots are not secret:
Ballots are either auditable back to the voter or they are anonymous (secret). RORN highly suggests secret ballots, but our bylaws require a signature, which means the ballots can be audited back to the voter and therefore are not secret. This is different from what most delegates are accustomed to. Ballots normally do not require a signature and therefore are secret. It is important to note that this is not imposed by the technology of the computer readable ballots. Rather this is due to a bylaws requirement when using computer readable ballots. Our bylaws do not mention who can see the ballots beyond the state delegation chair, tellers, and Secretary. However even if it were just limited to that list… this could be at least 3, but more likely many more people who will know how delegates voted. This has always been true for platform tokens where signatures are required even with paper ballots.
Ballots can be cast from outside the room (or not)
As currently planned, if a delegate has physically checked in with the credentials desk, then their ability to vote will be enabled. Unless the delegation chair (or they themselves) pauses that ability, the delegate will be able to vote from wherever they reside when a question is put. It would be incumbent on the delegation chairs and their delegations to monitor themselves regarding who can vote for any given question.
However, there is a way to force physical presence in the room by combining paper receipts with electronic voting. After a vote is electronically cast, the system can provide a short (6 character) code which the voter would then write on a slip of paper and turn in like a ballot. The state chairs and tellers would then validate only the votes associated with the codes provided on the slips of paper. This would be slower than a pure electronic vote but would be many times faster than the manual tally of a pure paper vote.
Delegations will no longer have a choice in how they conduct balloting (or they can)
As currently planned, all the delegations would use the same electronic system for collecting and submitting their ballots to the delegation chairs, tellers, and Secretary. Historically, each delegation could use whatever method they wanted, as long as it resulted in ballots that conformed to the needs of the tellers and Secretary.
If at least one delegation does not want to use the system provided, then others could still use the system, but the final tally across the delegations would need to be outside the system. For example, the tellers would transfer paper ballot results and electronic ballot results into a tally spreadsheet which would provide the results. This would be slower than a pure electronic vote but would be many times faster than the manual tally of a pure paper vote.
Next steps:
At this time, I don’t think there is any action to be taken by the COC or the LNC. If any members have questions, comments, or concerns, then I will make myself available (email address below) to collect this correspondence and provide updates to the COC and LNC. Depending on the volume and nature of the correspondence, adding an agenda item to a future COC meeting or calling a special LNC meeting might be in order. However, it is too soon to determine the appropriate course of action.
In Liberty,
Tim “TJ” Ferreira
Region 4 Alternate Representative
LP SPECIAL CONVENTION RULE 3: POLLING PROCEDURE
1) The State Chair shall serve as chair of his or her delegation, unless that delegation selects another of its members to serve as its chair and so notifies the Secretary.
2) In cases where a roll call vote is required, polling shall be by state. The Secretary will ask for the vote from each state in alphabetical order, and the chair of each delegation shall report the vote for that state. The convention seating will be by state delegation. If someone challenges the vote reported by any state's chair, the Secretary shall poll the delegates from that state individually.
3) In cases where computer readable ballots are used, each delegate must sign the ballot and submit it to the delegation chair. After verifying that the number of votes cast does not exceed the number the state is entitled to, the chair of each delegation shall submit the ballots to the Secretary. During the period of time allotted for such votes, the business of the convention shall continue without interruption.
LP SPECIAL CONVENTION RULE 5: DEBATING AND VOTING – PLATFORM
1) After the adoption of the convention agenda, the convention will vote whether to delete planks from the existing platform. This will be accomplished as follows:
a. The Credentials Committee shall issue five signature tokens to each delegate.
b. Tokens shall only be issued to delegates. Delegates are responsible for transferring possession of unused tokens to their alternates if necessary.
c. Each delegate may cast each token as a recommendation for deletion of one plank by noting on the token the plank to be deleted and signing the token.
d. A delegate may cumulate recommendations by casting any number of tokens for deletion of the same plank.
e. Delegates will be given until one hour prior to the scheduled start of the platform report to mark their tokens and deliver them to the Secretary.
f. Prior to the scheduled start of the platform report, the Secretary shall review the tokens received and tabulate and report the tokens submitted for deletion of each plank.
g. As its first item of platform business, the convention shall vote whether to delete each of those planks that received a number of tokens for deletion equal to 20% or more of the number of credentialed delegates. Such votes shall be cast without amendment or debate.
LP SPECIAL CONVENTION RULE 8: ELECTION OF OFFICERS AND NATIONAL COMMITTEE
1) Nominations for Party officers shall be from the floor. The election shall be conducted in the following manner:
a. For each office, a majority vote will be necessary for election.
b. Each delegation shall tabulate its total vote, and the delegation chair shall deliver a written total to the Secretary. When all delegations have submitted their votes, the Secretary shall declare the voting closed.
c. In cases where no candidate receives a majority, runoff votes will be held, dropping the candidate with the fewest votes after each ballot.
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:
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.
b. Each delegation shall tabulate its total vote, and the delegation chair shall deliver a written total to the Secretary, along with the ballots cast.
c. When all delegations have submitted their votes, the Chair shall declare the voting closed. 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.
LP SPECIAL CONVENTION RULE 9: ELECTION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
Nominations and elections for members of the Judicial Committee shall be conducted in the same manner as specified for at-large members of the National Committee.
LP SPECIAL CONVENTION RULE 10: VERIFICATION OF DELEGATION VOTE TOTALS
For each vote in which subtotals are submitted by delegation, each delegation shall conduct its vote by written ballot. After each delegation has tabulated its own vote totals, before submitting the totals to the Secretary, tellers approved by the Secretary shall review the ballot tabulation for accuracy and cosign the delegation totals. After the Secretary has recorded all delegation submissions, the state-by-state delegation totals for each candidate or choice shall be displayed on a projection screen for each delegation to review for accuracy.
RONR 45:18 Voting by Ballot. Voting by ballot (also known as secret ballot) is used when secrecy of the members’ votes is desired. A ballot vote is a vote taken by instruments, such as slips of paper or electronic devices, by which members can indicate their choices without revealing how individual members have voted. On a ballot vote in an election or other vote involving multiple possible choices, members are able to write in or fill in a vote for any eligible person or choice and are not confined to voting for or against candidates that appear on the ballot.
RONR 45:21 When a vote is to be taken, or has been taken, by ballot, whether or not the bylaws require that form of voting, no action is in order that would force the disclosure of a member’s vote or views on the matter. Applications of this rule arise with regard to voting on motions to Postpone Indefinitely (30:5) and the reconsideration of motions that have been previously voted on by ballot (30:7). Likewise, a motion to make unanimous a ballot vote that was not unanimous must itself be voted on by ballot; even a single negative vote in such a case defeats the motion.
RONR 45:23 Unless another method is specified by an appropriate rule or motion (see 45:42–43 regarding electronic or machine voting), a ballot vote is taken on slips of paper on which the voters mark their votes and is subject to the rules below.
RONR 45:42 Electronic or Machine Voting. In many organizations—especially in those comprising hundreds of voters—the process of verifying and counting votes is greatly simplified by the use of electronic or mechanical voting devices, such as handheld keypads or standalone voting machines. The use of such devices to conduct voting may be directed by a special rule of order or convention standing rule or, for a particular vote, by a motion relating to methods of voting and the polls. Their use to fulfill a ballot requirement in the bylaws may be directed in the same manner, provided that the devices meet the criteria for a ballot vote as stated in 45:18. Members must be able to indicate their choices without revealing how they have voted. If the devices are to be used for an election, provision must be made to allow voters to cast write-in votes. If the devices are to be used to conduct voting on several questions or several independent offices simultaneously, then they must be programmed to allow the number of votes cast for purposes of computing the majority to be tallied independently for each question or office (see 45:36).
RONR 45:56 Absentee Voting. It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that the right to vote is limited to the members of an organization who are actually present at the time the vote is taken in a regular or properly called meeting, although it should be noted that a member need not be present when the question is put. Exceptions to this rule must be expressly stated in the bylaws. Such possible exceptions include: (a) voting by postal mail, e-mail, or fax, and (b) proxy voting. An organization should never adopt a bylaw permitting a question to be decided by a voting procedure in which the votes of persons who attend a meeting are counted together with ballots mailed in by absentees. The votes of those present could be affected by debate, by amendments, and perhaps by the need for repeated balloting, while those absent would be unable to adjust their votes to reflect these factors. Consequently, the absentee ballots would in most cases be on a somewhat different question than that on which those present were voting, leading to confusion, unfairness, and inaccuracy in determining the result. If there is a possibility of any uncertainty about who will be entitled to vote, this should be spelled out unambiguously and strictly enforced to avoid unfairness in close votes.
Robert, III, Henry M.; Honemann, Daniel H; Balch, Thomas J; Seabold, Daniel E.; Gerber, Shmuel. Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 12th edition (p. 463). PublicAffairs. Kindle Edition.
Joshua Smith
Richard Longstreth
At Large Representative
Libertarian National Committee
richard.l...@lp.org
931.538.9300
Sent from my Mobile Device
Erin Adams
Joshua Smith
Richard Longstreth
At Large Representative
Libertarian National Committee
richard.l...@lp.org
931.538.9300
Sent from my Mobile Device
Erik Raudsep LNC At-Large
I want to interject with some facts here and everyone can take it
as they see fit.
3/17/21
JBH and CAH are guests at the meeting JBH asks that the COC to
continue to look into scrantron and digital voting for the
convention as a directive from the Executive Committee. CAH adds
that digital voting is the future and we should have already have
some sort of digital voting in this party we should be ahead of
everyone else.
Erik is tasked with looking into digital voting and there is a
reach out to Ken as he has worked on scantron before.
5/12/21
Ken presents on the APP and the Scantron voting system makes a
causal comment that it will take 3 maybe 4 conventions to pay for
it. Question is asked will the total be paid up front or can this
be dispersed. Upfront payment is going to be needed to be done by
COC or by LNC but that is a budget question. This is more than
what COC is able to do and internal vote is made no objection to
rule out scantron as it is too costly at this time and there is no
budget line on LNC to pay for it and it is unfair to go to board
to ask for the money 40 - 80 K
Erik starts contacting electronic voting companies none have geo
location ability to ensure no absentee voting other method that
can be contacted for questions.
Erik starts to look at kiosk voting using 50 - 100 kiosks this is
possible but with changing votes this may become difficult keeping
all of the equipment on the correct ballot and hard to stop from
double voting with the technologies that are available it is
possible to use qr pre scan or RFID dongle but then becomes an
identity issue and with individuals with multiple qr codes or
dongles too many questions no real answers
Issue kind of dies on the floor of the COC
TJ makes a presentation for Porcupine on 12/22/21
This can help with Credentaliing
Microphone Ques
Motion text
Time Keeping
Nominations
Pre Loaded Motions
and voting
It is brought up the requirements in the Conventions Rules and
Bylaws
TJ will come back with more information
TJ is back with more information about Porcupine 1/26/22
Confident that we can limit voting to in person only using QR
code, Intranet connection, One time use codes, or a combination of
these items.
One member of the COC is concerned if delegates vote to allow
remote participation can that be integrated quickly or once a
choice is made it is locked TJ says no problem that is a simple
check box it really would only be harder for state delegation
chairs
Only those with proper credentials can vote very easy for state
chairs to hot swap
votes can go to state chairs to verify and then submit to sec as
required in bylaws
TJ has more questions on needs this reflects Credentials and
Secretary needs
we direct TJ to talk with Hogarth and Wilford and bring back
information as the COC will not speak for Credentials or the
Secretary.
That is the COC's involvement with this
There has been no vote to send this to the LNC
We have not heard back from TJ after discussion with Credentials
or Secretary
We are absolutely mindful of the Convention Rules and with the
Bylaws and it has been our backbone as a committee since the
beginning.
If we were going to bring forward any electronic voting system it
would have to be approved by the LNC as only a suggestion from us
but we have not voted to do so in any capacity and of course the
Delegates would have the ultimate say in Reno. We have talked
with TJ and he has worked very hard to answer all of our questions
and all of our hypothetical situations he is an amazingly hard
worker but a decision to move forward has not occurred by the
Committee.
This is true of all members of the COC both previous and current
to my knowledge.
Erin Adams
Erik Raudsep
Whitney Bilyeu (Former)
David Sexton (Former)
Jeinay LeBlanc
Jim Turney
Anglea Pence (Former)
Susan Hogarth (Former)
Rich Bowen
Alex Flores
Romo Hallahan (Former)
-- Erik Raudsep Libertarian Party USA LNC At-Large Member Web: www.LP.org Cell: (919) 720-1530 E-Mail: erik.r...@lp.org
Erik Raudsep LNC At-Large
As a point of clarification and addition
CAH and JBH did not advocate for Porcupine or for this convention
to be digital only that further research be done and that if a
mature option be found that it be brought for consideration this
included an investment in scantron
the COC has also discussed using porcupine for only the functions
of
Microphone Ques
Motion text
Time Keeping
Nominations
Pre Loaded Motions
and not to include voting or Credentialing in this convention
I would also like to clarify personally that while I have been
very involved in digital voting research over the last year and a
half that I personally do support porcupine for the future I think
having a tool that is designed by us for us is great and very
important also one of the only methods that will comply with all
of our rules and bylaws. I do support using porcupine for some
features but not voting or credentialing for this convention. I
have seen no system through my research that will fill all the
needs of the convention that can be procured for a value that is
reflective of its benefit nor that would have the support of the
delegates. I do believe in time that porcupine can fill that need
but to roll it out prematurely again would be the death of
porcupine for all time.
-- Erik Raudsep Libertarian Party USA LNC At-Large Member Web: www.LP.org
TJ Ferreira
I agree with Erik's assessment that no final decision was made by the COC regarding electronic voting. I used the word "intends" carefully in my first bullet point, but maybe I wasn't careful enough. I hope the current and former COC agrees with the statement that they intend to go forward with electronic voting if it can be done in an acceptable manner. I also hope that they would agree that there was a lack of forward progress. I did not use the term porcupine in my description because we may find a different method/system that meets our voting criteria and cost constraints. Right now, the only system we have found which does this is porcupine. However, I wanted to open the discussion up to a broader audience before making any assumption regarding the availability of a system to meet our needs. That starts with a discussion around our needs and our constraints.
In a separate email chain (Libertarian Transparency Caucus) a number of criteria around good software development practices were shared and I agree these are the types of questions we should be asking and the things that we all expected the Convention Voting Process Committee to explore on our behalf. Sadly, that committee did not accomplish its goals and I think they announced at our last LNC meeting that they disbanded.