providing for candidates for delegate / party office to be rated

[Joe Dehn]

I believe the basic idea of this is that members/delegates could benefit from having more information about the people running for party office, including to be national delegate, and that this might be provided as part of the election process, by associating some kind of rating with their name on the ballot.

Candidates for major positions, like the state party officers, typically campaign with some sort of printed literature, or online equivalent, and there are few enough such offices and candidates that a member could study that material for each, and potentially ask questions to try to get additional information, before voting.  But when people are asked to vote for 35 or so people to be national convention delegates, they may know almost nothing, perhaps actually noting, about some of the people listed on the ballot. And there may be a somewhat less extreme version of that problem for other multi-person positions like state EC at-large or Judicial Committee.

This idea was brought up by Starchild, and he is a member of this committee so perhaps he will want to elaborate.

But some questions that occur to me are: (1) What information would actually be useful to have about people being considered for such roles? (2) If it relates to their adherence to libertarian principles, what is a reasonable way to measure that? (3) If any such measure is based on a self-assessment (e.g., filling out some version of the Nolan chart questionnaire) what assurance would anybody have that the person was answering "honestly"? (4) Even if this kind of information were widely seen as useful, is it necessary for the party organization to collect/distribute it, or could the same result be achieved by independent means (e.g., endorsements or ratings by caucuses or committees set up for this purpose)?

[June Genis]

I  agree with all of your concerns, Joe. Ratings are in the eye of the person or procedure doing the rating. Instead we should just try to make it easier for all candidates to distribute information about themselves prior to convening. This is one of the circumstances where knowing who planned to attend could help limit the traffic to only those who need it.

June

Virus-free.www.avast.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LPCalifornia Bylaws Committee Discussion" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lpcalifornia-bylaws...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lpcalifornia-bylaws-discuss/f344a1da28f50d097a2c0270ef02828b%40dehnbase.org.

[Mimi Robson]

I agree with both of you.  Having someone fill out the Nolan quiz really doesn't tell you much, as it's easy enough to know how to answer the questions.  I think that for state positions (ExCom, JC) most people that run do use social media prior to the convention, and hand out literature at the convention, but all of that should be left up to each individual who's running.  In the end it's up to the members to decide by whatever method they want.

As far as national delegates, it's true that everyone doesn't know everyone else.  And although each member typically gets to vote for about 35 people (the number changes based on the number of delegates California gets), there's nothing that says they have to vote for that many (they just can't vote for more).  So if someone isn't particularly well known, they may want to pass out literature for this (I've seen people do this).

I just don't feel like any of this should be required in the bylaws.  If the members themselves want to ask candidates about their Nolan score that is certainly their right.

Mimi

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lpcalifornia-bylaws-discuss/CAOCnFCC2hL%3DYVhAgCE2rOL%3D9fvGbGKM2%2BB%3DXrMk7CFVtKCKwtA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Starchild]

I’ve recopied my previous message on this subject below, for reference and elaboration.

 A few additional thoughts in light of the comments below from Joe, June, and Mimi…

1) Having someone’s Nolan Chart or similar responses on file tells us a lot more about their ideological beliefs and public policy views than NOT having that information at hand.

2) Candidates are free to put whatever they want on their informational pamphlets and brochures, if they put out any such materials at all. Few prospective convention delegates bother to do so, and even many candidates for party office do not. Of those who do, often the information they choose to disseminate is non-ideological (resumés, goals for office, endorsements, and the like) and provides little or no information about their political views.

2) Could someone blatantly lie about their beliefs when filling out a Nolan Chart type quiz? Certainly. Would many people do this? I highly doubt it. Remember that the idea is for the information to be displayed publicly (preferably on the LPC website), so if someone were seen voting or expressing opinions or what-not in a manner clearly at odds with their written responses, there’s a good chance of someone noticing and calling them on it, which could be rather damaging to their reputation in the party. People would also be disincentivized to lie based on the fact that publicly declaring oneself to hold certain positions is effectively a kind of vote in support of those positions – and who wants to cast a public vote of support for positions they don’t actually agree with?

3) Yes, useful information about the views of Libertarians seeking positions of responsibility in the party can be gleaned from caucus questionnaires and reviews of candidates, people’s posts on social media, etc. But again this method is scattershot at best. And someone seeking to hide their true views would have a much easier time evading accountability through such means, by simply not disclosing accurate if any information about their views on social media, or in response to caucus or other inquiries, than they would evading a mandatory disclosure requirement in the party bylaws. If the Libertarian Party were much bigger than it is, with more established caucuses having longstanding practices of thoroughly reviewing candidates for party positions, etc., there might be less need for an official practice, but even if that were the case, I think having ideological disclosure requirements cemented in the party’s bylaws would add value.

4) One of my mantras is that we as a party should mirror the kinds of policies, structure, and culture we want to see practiced in actual government, so that the public can see they have reason to trust Libertarians with their votes, based on the fact that they can see us already practicing in our own organization what we promise to do if elected to public office. It is often a practice for official voter ballot information to contain information from candidates, and about ballot measures. While the information presented to voters in this manner  is often far from ideal, would Libertarians really want to see it eliminated, or left even more to the discretion, initiative, and ability to come up with the necessary funding, of individual campaigns? I for one find it highly helpful to have factual descriptions of ballot measures officially provided, for each candidate to get a certain amount of space to include their own statements in voter handbooks, and for proponents and opponents of ballot measures to have equal space to make the case for their positions in an official capacity, and to rebut each other’s statements (this is the practice for ballot measures in San Francisco, anyway; I’m not sure how common it is elsewhere). I would not want to end these methods of informing voters about their choices in an official and relatively even-handed manner; indeed I would like to see them strengthened and expanded.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

LPC Bylaws Committee member

(415) 573-7997

On Oct 8, 2025, at 3:43 AM, Starchild <sfdr...@earthlink.net> wrote:

Joe,

I agree that calling our gatherings “conventions” is appropriate, and by a similar token I have no problem with calling those who vote on party business at these conventions “delegates”. Those who choose to show up and vote are effectively serving as representatives of the party’s broader membership, even if they are a self-selecting group and there is no formal representation mechanism at present. 

I would support returning to our former system of having convention delegates selected by their county central committees if that were the only alternative on the table, but would prefer a different mechanism for screening prospective delegates. 

Specifically, I’d like to see us adopt a bylaw requiring anyone seeking to serve in a party leadership role including as a convention delegate, or to be nominated or endorsed by the party for public office, to take a Nolan Chart type quiz, the results of which would be kept on file by the organization for as long as a leadership role was being sought or held, and made available to members (perhaps posted in a special members-only section of the website). I would like it to include a provision requiring persons holding party office to re-take the quiz annually, in case their positions have changed, for as long as they remain in office.

 I'd also like to see us adopt a separate bylaw requiring that the individual votes of each convention delegate on each question be recorded and preserved, as befits representatives.

These two bylaws changes, I believe, would both enhance organizational transparency, and help keep our party sustainably libertarian. I think they would do more to ensure the latter than simply requiring people to sign the Non-Aggression Pledge or pay dues in order to be voting party members, as we do now, since the former is fairly broad and could be open to claims of differing interpretations, and the latter provides no information about an individual’s ideology or beliefs whatsoever. 

As an LPC convention delegate, I’ve often been presented with a list of names to vote on to select national convention delegates, without knowing anything at all about many of the listed individuals. Sometimes I even know little to nothing about candidates for party office. And I’ve heard others say the same thing over the years. It’s hard to know everyone, even if you try to attend every LPC convention as I do. The result is that it is currently very easy to inadvertently elect individuals whose beliefs do not reflect libertarian values into positions where they can have a real impact on our party’s policies, messaging, etc.

I welcome your thoughts or suggestions on these proposals, particularly if you have any ideas on specific wording, or what if any other language in our current bylaws you believe would need to be modified in order to adopt them without running afoul of other provisions.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

LPC Bylaws Committee member

(415) 573-7997

On Oct 21, 2025, at 11:11 AM, Mimi Robson <hmro...@gmail.com> wrote:

I agree with both of you.  Having someone fill out the Nolan quiz really doesn't tell you much, as it's easy enough to know how to answer the questions.  I think that for state positions (ExCom, JC) most people that run do use social media prior to the convention, and hand out literature at the convention, but all of that should be left up to each individual who's running.  In the end it's up to the members to decide by whatever method they want.

As far as national delegates, it's true that everyone doesn't know everyone else.  And although each member typically gets to vote for about 35 people (the number changes based on the number of delegates California gets), there's nothing that says they have to vote for that many (they just can't vote for more).  So if someone isn't particularly well known, they may want to pass out literature for this (I've seen people do this).

I just don't feel like any of this should be required in the bylaws.  If the members themselves want to ask candidates about their Nolan score that is certainly their right.

Mimi

On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 10:54 AM June Genis <june...@gmail.com> wrote:

I  agree with all of your concerns, Joe. Ratings are in the eye of the person or procedure doing the rating. Instead we should just try to make it easier for all candidates to distribute information about themselves prior to convening. This is one of the circumstances where knowing who planned to attend could help limit the traffic to only those who need it.

June

[Joe Dehn]

On 2025-10-21 21:23, Starchild wrote:

1) Having someone's Nolan Chart or similar responses on file tells us a lot more about their ideological beliefs and public policy views than NOT having that information at hand.

 

2) Candidates are free to put whatever they want on their informational pamphlets and brochures, if they put out any such materials at all. Few prospective convention delegates bother to do so, and even many candidates for party office do not. Of those who do, often the information they choose to disseminate is non-ideological (resumés, goals for office, endorsements, and the like) and provides little or no information about their political views.

 

I agree with both of these observations.  I have from time to time had the same sort of uneasiness in voting for somebody for party office, of not having any idea whether their ideological orientation is consistent with mine, or whether I might be voting for somebody who will end up using their position to turn the party against what I see as its purpose.

HOWEVER, it is not clear to me that putting the party itself, through requirements in the bylaws, in charge of addressing this problem is the best approach.  I see a theoretical problem with this, in the balance of between centralized authority and individual responsibility.  And it seems contrary to some of our positions on similar issues, e.g., whether the government should regulate news media or campaign finance. We traditionally have even opposed the "Australian ballot", in favor of letting voters and parties define "who is a candidate". But even if we assume that the party itself has some responsibility for providing fair or adequate information to its members as a consequence of other features of our election procedures (e.g., that we provide a printed list of candidates for national convention delegate), that still leaves us with a host of practical problems.

Who decides what information is most important for delegates to have?  Some kinds of information are relatively "objective" and easy to represent and verify, some are extremely messy to gather and represent. Is this a case where "the more information the better", or do we risk making things more difficult for our delegates by asking them to look at it all, or possibly deflect their attention from other things about a candidate (personality, speaking ability, appearance) that actually might be more important for a particular office?  If it's going to include anything like a Nolan chart questionnaire, who comes up with the questions?  Where/when does this information get delivered to the delegates?

And while putting information on a web site sounds like it might answer a lot of these objections -- there is basically infinite "room" on a web site for anything anybody might want to consider -- that still leaves questions like why does it have to be "the party's web site", and how many delegates are going to actually bother to look at it?  And when --sometimes candidates don't even decide to run until they get to the convention.

Do you have specific ideas in mind for what information would be most useful to post, if we were to do it that way -- post it on the party's web site? Perhaps if we look at a concrete proposal that would help us understand to what degree these issues could be addressed.

[June Genis]

A thought just occurred to me. Has anyone tried doing a Google or AI chat search on any of the people who are currently seeking our endorsement for office either within the party or as a candidate for public office?

Virus-free.www.avast.com

[Mike Van Roy]

We've all taken the World's Shortest Political Quiz. We all know how to game it to get the most libertarian spot on the Nolan Chart.

I'm actually not against a litmus test per se. In a way we already have one. You can't join the party unless you have $25/50 and check off the NAP pledge. It's ineffective as an actual screener, since many people check the box without actually thinking about what the NAP means and how to apply it, but it exists,

But if the litmus test is based on self-reporting then it's irrelevant.

So my litmus test is seeing what things people advocate for and how they conduct themselves when the pressure is on. That says more about their values, character and commitment than a self-reported test that can't be verified anyway.

Mike Van Roy

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LPCalifornia Bylaws Committee Discussion" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lpcalifornia-bylaws...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lpcalifornia-bylaws-discuss/CAOCnFCDn0ZLhHT5T5ebUtR-Vcah-5i90S2bQ_Ot2d0%2B6Q_6o5w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Starchild]

The difference is that the Non-Aggression Pledge is vague and general. People unfamiliar with the Non-Aggression Principle may not properly understand it. Asking people “Who should decide, you or the government?" on specific issues, as the Nolan Chart quizzes generally do, is more reliable and testable. Sure, people can lie. But they’re less likely to do so when questions are unambiguous. If members have quiz answers on file on our website, then if a Libertarian Party office-holder or candidate is observed taking a position at odds with libertarianism, other members can readily check it against what they said on their quiz responses, and if it clearly contradicts what they said, that can be specific grounds for further action.

This admittedly wouldn’t be a perfect system, and it will be important in any case for individual Libertarians to use their personal judgment about the values, character and commitment of those who represent us, but I think something putting party representatives and decision-makers on record with their views, above and beyond signing a pledge that is not specific and leaves much room for misunderstanding by those not familiar with libertarianism, is needed.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lpcalifornia-bylaws-discuss/CjGscWL8Ls1IXCiZDqyQtMF41Ri424ax2MSU8pyb-fw_rsf88gtU8mfMmJa3zLNHM93daYQVdGoHdAf1MajbbFbdOh7CwwV0fb4rHZm0JrU%3D%40protonmail.com.