having state convention delegates selected by the county organizations

[Joe Dehn]

For most of the LPC's history, delegates to the state convention actually were "delegates", selected by local organizations (counties, or multi-county or sub-county "regions").  The current system, where anybody who meets the definition of "central committee member" can attend and vote at the state convention, wasn't adopted until 2007 (and first used for the 2008 convention).

This would be a significant change (back), but it wouldn't necessarily require a lot of work to draft the wording, because we could borrow from the wording that was used previously.

The important questions are, I think, (1) Is there enough interest among the membership to make it worth presenting such a proposal? (2) What are the pros and cons of the two approaches, and could we come up with something that somehow combines the advantages that people see in both approaches?  (3) If we were to propose something that allocated delegate spots to the county organizations, what variables and coefficients should we propose as part of the calculation?

As a reference point, the 2006 bylaws allowed each county to send their county chair (or a substitute) plus one more delegate for each 0.33% or fraction thereof of the statewide membership. So every county could send at least two, and the total allocation to counties would have worked out to more than 300, although of course many of these positions were never filled. In addition, members of the state EC and elected public office holders were ex officio delegates, not counted against their county's limit.

Note also that such a system would be (and was) similar to how state affiliates are allocated national convention spots. (That calculation is currently based on a combination of dues-paying membership and votes for our candidate in the most recent presidential election.)

[Mike Van Roy]

The language we currently use for our existing structure works, but the real issues are 1) whether we like that structure and, assuming we do, 2) whether there is better language we can use for it. The first is the most important.

Having an assigned number of delegates per county prevents large counties from monopolizing the convention. That's good for counties with not many members. Many county affiliates still have the language for selecting state delegates in their own bylaws. They probably shouldn't but they do.

But it also disenfranchises unorganized or disorganized counties from ever having representation since there would be no way for them to select their delegates. For members in these counties the opportunity to serve as a delegate may be their only avenue for involvement.

For this reason I suggest sticking with our current structure.

Now for the language. What we have works if we accept that our definitions for "delegate" and "convention" differ from the RONR definitions for these words. We can get around that by defining our meaning of these words in the bylaws. We probably already do that.

But our structure more accurately resembles an "annual meeting" with "attendees", some voting and some not, than delegates and conventions. i could get behind a proposal to change the wording for what we do. It's better to change the language that describes the structure than twist the structure to fit the language.

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/c81f280603ac7974a11a6c4fb71384b7%40dehnbase.org.

[Joe Dehn]

On 2025-11-19 10:12, 'Mike Van Roy' via Bylaws Committee wrote:

The language we currently use for our existing structure works, but the real issues are 1) whether we like that structure and, assuming we do, 2) whether there is better language we can use for it. The first is the most important.

 

Having an assigned number of delegates per county prevents large counties from monopolizing the convention. That's good for counties with not many members. Many county affiliates still have the language for selecting state delegates in their own bylaws. They probably shouldn't but they do.

 

Preventing monopolization by "large counties" is not the only consideration. And even if we went back to limiting county delegations the way we did for most of our history, those allocations were always based on the size of the county (in terms of membership), so there would still almost always be more delegates from the largest counties than from the small ones.

 

Other important functions that limiting the number of delegates by county serve:

 

* Reduce the bias in representation that results from the location of the convention, so we don't have the convention dominated one year by people from San Diego and the next year by people from the Bay Area.  Unless we make the allocations small enough, or the membership grows enough, it will still usually be the case that there will be a better turnout from nearby counties, but this prevents any one county from totally dominating, just because they happen to be nearby.  This in turn reduces the drama involved in picking the locations for the conventions, because it will be one less thing for the EC to worry about.

 

* Makes any sort of "takeover" significantly harder -- whether by a "caucus", the campaign of a particular presidential candidate, forces associated with a rival political party, or any other special interest group -- because to control a significant fraction of the convention votes they would have to organize statewide, rather than just get a whole bunch of people in one county.

 

Note also that the traditional system did not just limit the number of people from each county -- it also empowered the county organizations to decide who they should be.  This kind of dependency of the state organization on the county organizations is usually considered a good thing, in that it creates incentives for the two levels of organization to pay attention to and care about what the other is doing.

 

 

But it also disenfranchises unorganized or disorganized counties from ever having representation since there would be no way for them to select their delegates. For members in these counties the opportunity to serve as a delegate may be their only avenue for involvement.

 

 

I agree that this is a legitimate concern. However (1) it's not true that they were totally disenfranchised under the old system, because there was a provision for a limited number of such people to be appointed separately by endorsement of EC members, and (2) I think we could come up with a better way to allow even more participation by people for the unorganized counties without losing the benefits of by-county selection for the organized counties.

[Mimi Robson]

So, a long time ago I submitted an amendment that would put us back to having an actual convention of delegates, which is attached.  I am not sure if I still agree with this, and some of it would have to be revised due to other amendments since this was proposed so the existing text is probably different, but thought I would provide it just in case.

Mimi

[Joe Dehn]

Here is the language that was in our 2006 bylaws, the last version when this approach was used:

The following state central committee members may become delegates to the convention:
A. Each holder of an elective public office who is registered to vote as a Libertarian shall be a delegate. Central committee
membership shall not be considered to be holding of public office.
B. Each member of the Party Executive Committee, at the time the convention is held, shall be a delegate.
C. Each chair of a county central committee or a person appointed by the chair of that county central committee who is
otherwise qualified to be a delegate under Rule 3.
D. One delegate for each 0.33% or fraction thereof of the total number of state central committee members associated with
a county central committee. An active county central committee shall select these delegates as provided in its own
bylaws. Any delegate or alternate to a Party convention must be a current member of the state central committee at the
meeting at which delegates are selected. Any delegates from inactive county central committees shall be selected by the
appropriate state Vice-Chair. Any delegate may be replaced by an alternate from that county with the consent of the
county delegation. Certification of delegates and alternates selected for each county shall be submitted to the Party
Secretary at least two weeks prior to the opening session of the convention by the person presiding over the meeting at
which the delegates were selected. Failure by a county to submit certification at least two weeks prior to the opening
session of the convention shall cause no delegates to be registered from that county central committee.
E. The state convention itself may add any number of additional delegates and alternates with the approval of three-fourths
(3/4) of the already-registered delegates present on the floor.

Note that this system both limited the number of delegates from any given county and gave the county organizations the power to select who they would be.  However, it also provided a mechanism for members living in inactive counties to become delegates, by giving the vice chairs (at that time we had a Northern Vice Chair and a Southern Vice Chair; those offices no longer exist, but similar functions are now part of the job of the three "area coordinators" we have today) the power to appoint them. There were also several categories of ex officio delegates, and one of those categories -- being a holder of elective public office -- might plausibly apply to someone living in an inactive county.

One potential problem that this language did not address was that somebody might find themselves in a county was was theoretically "active" but which didn't take its responsibility for delegate selection seriously enough -- if the county organization failed to fill its quota, somehow failed to ask or notice which of its members might be interested in serving, or possibly failed to do anything about this at all -- there might be people left out that would have been able to become delegates but who did not get selected through no fault of their own. (But such people did, at least potentially, have recourse to that final provision for the convention itself adding pretty much anybody who might show up with a reasonable story.)

Note that applying that formula from 2006 to our current situation would not provide much protection against any of the dangers typically cited as arising from some counties being over-represented at the convention -- because our conventions have gotten a lot smaller than anybody imagined back then. Note that giving each county a quota based on 0.33% of the total membership statewide implies a total allocation of over 300 delegates!  (More like 325, because of the "fraction thereof" wording). And that's not including the ex officio delegates, who could theoretically have added another 70 or so. Ironically, one of the arguments made at the time for getting rid of this system was that it was limiting the size of our conventions!  We should want as many people as possible to show up, they said -- more people at the convention means more revenue to support convention expenses like bringing in impressive speakers, and of course more targets for fundraising at the banquet!  But as we now know dropping this system did not result in more people showing up -- our conventions are now even smaller than they were when this system was in place.

To provide any such protection, and also to make the process of selecting people at the county level interesting, the limits need to be small enough so that somebody who might want to be a delegate does not get selected -- and right now we don't have enough people interested in any of our counties. Looking at the most recent convention, the highest number of voting delegates reported by the Credentials Committee was 97 -- about 1/4 of the theoretical maximum under the 2006 rules. I am pretty sure that my own county, Santa Clara, had the largest delegation this year, somewhere around 26, accounting for about 1/4 of the total. Does this mean we were "over-represented"? Not necessarily.  We had a relatively large turnout for a combination of at least three reasons:we were relatively close, geographically, to the convention site, we were pretty active in encouraging our members to attend, and we are one of the largest county organizations in the state.

So since membership was the basis for allocation for decades, and what at least some of us would like to see as the basis for any future version of this, let's look at that factor specifically.  As of the most recent membership report, Santa Clara County had 67 central committee members out of a statewide total of 475 -- that's 14%.  (Which is the second-highest percentage in the state -- only Los Angeles County has more members -- and also significantly higher than our fraction of the general population, about 5%).  And the formula was intended to allow larger counties (measured by membership) to have more delegates.

So what happens if we plug current numbers into the 2006 formula?  Well, since Santa Clara County has 14% of the central committee members we would have been "limited" to 42 -- far more than we actually had. By that standard, we were not "over-represented" -- the only reason we appeared to have such good attendance, relatively, is that the rest of the counties were horribly under-represented!

So imposing such a formula now would not be imposing any actual limitation on anybody. We could adjust that 0.33% figure to 0.5%, and everybody from Santa Clara County who wanted to go this year still could have gone. Imposing that or any modified version of such a formula is also not likely to help us with our membership problem overall. But we are presumably all hoping that the party will get growing again, and if it does then a system like this could become relevant again, so this might be a very good time to get it in place.

Keep in mind that the benefit of having such a system in place is more than just providing protection against domination by a geographical group, or by any other subset of the membership that might be dominant in a particular county. Re-involving the county parties in the governance of the state party also would have the social/organizational benefit of giving the two levels more incentive to pay attention to what the other is doing. And give the counties an additional incentive to work on building membership!  That used to be an actual thing, back when this system was in place -- counties making an effort to get people to join and renew as the allocation deadline was coming up, just as state parties do when the allocation deadline for the national convention comes up.

What about the issue of people being left out if they are in a county that is inactive, or supposedly "active" but not active enough to help its own members become delegates?  I think we can improve on the old system in that regard, by allowing people to self-select as "alternates" to fill in the gaps -- but still subject to the per-county limitations. The effect of such a hybrid system would be to give the actually-active counties a real role to play in the governance of the state organization, selecting delegates from among their own membership using procedures set by their own bylaws -- but leave something very similar to the current system in place for people from the rest of the counties. Then, as the party grows, and more counties become active, and the number of members interested in being delegates starts making the quotas relevant again, the fraction of the votes at the convention would also gradually shift, naturally and without any further change in the bylaws, until most are actually being selected by their counties.

[Joe Dehn]

On 2025-11-27 23:52, Joe Dehn wrote:

The effect of such a hybrid system would be to give the actually-active counties a real role to play in the governance of the state organization, selecting delegates from among their own membership using procedures set by their own bylaws -- but leave something very similar to the current system in place for people from the rest of the counties. Then, as the party grows, and more counties become active, and the number of members interested in being delegates starts making the quotas relevant again, the fraction of the votes at the convention would also gradually shift, naturally and without any further change in the bylaws, until most are actually being selected by their counties.

 

Here is draft language to implement this, using the current Bylaw 20, Section 3, as the base:

 

a. Delegates and alternates to the convention shall be current State Central Committee members, and shall either hold public office or shall have been State Central Committee members for any ninety days prior to the convention.

b. Regular delegates shall be selected by active county organizations as provided in their bylaws, up to a limit of one delegate for each 0.5% or fraction thereof of the total number of State Central Committee members who are affiliated with that county. Active county organizations may also select any number of alternates, and may specify a ranking of these alternates. All such selections shall be reported to the Party Secretary no later than two weeks prior to the convention.

c. The following shall have voting status as delegates ex officio, not counting against the limit in paragraph (b) and with their vote not transferable to any other member or substitution by an alternate:

i The current Chair of each active county.

ii. For each inactive county, the Chair Pro Tem or if there is no Chair Pro Tem another member appointed to serve as a delegate for that county by the Area Coordinator for that county. Each Area Coordinator shall be responsible for providing this information to the Party Secretary at least one week prior to the convention.

iii. Each current member of the state Executive Committee.

iv. Any registered Libertarian currently holding an elective public office. (For the purpose of this provision, central committee member shall not be considered a public office.)

d. Any State Central Committee member meeting the qualifications in paragraph (a) may apply to serve as an alternate by notifying the Party Secretary in writing or through a form provided for this purpose on the Party web site.

e. Alternates shall be seated and have the same voting rights as regular delegates selected by their county, up to the limit for their county set in paragraph (b). If the total number of delegates so selected and currently registered in attendance plus alternates present and willing to serve exceeds that limit, alternates ranked by the county party shall be seated first, in that order. Any other alternates shall be seated according to the date when they first became a central committee member, earliest being seated first.

f. Notwithstanding the above, any current State Central Committee member may be added as a delegate or alternate by a 4/5 vote of the convention.

Notwithstanding the above, each Executive Committee member may seat one current State Central Committee member as a delegate.

 

Here's what that "0.5% or fraction thereof" formula would give us, for the largest counties, based on the most recent membership report:

 

county	CCM	delegates
Los Angeles	80	34
Santa Clara	67	29
San Diego	43	18
Orange	40	17
Riverside	24	11
Alameda	18	8
Sacramento	17	8
Contra Costa	16	7
San Francisco	16	7
Ventura	15	7
Fresno	14	6

 

 

Note that in addition to the delegate positions allocated this way every county chair could attend as a delegate, just from holding that position; counties with more members active at the state level might get one (or more) of the state EC slots; and any county that is successful in getting Libertarians elected to local office would also be represented by those elected Libertarians.

Smaller counties would of course have fewer delegate slots. Counties with fewer than five members would only get one vote, based on this formula, given the current total membership. But if we want to see the party growing, we should be expecting a lot more than that from any but the very smallest counties. And even for a very tiny (by population) county, if there was somebody interested in getting things going in that county the Area Coordinator could appoint him/her under the "Chair Pro Tem" provision allowing that county to have a total of two.

[Mimi Robson]

Hi there,

In 2019 I submitted a bylaw with advance notice to return our convention to a true convention (with delegates selected by the counties).  I don't believe it ever even got heard because there was no particular interest in doing it.  But being we're talking about it now, here it is.  I believe Joe proofread this for me back then, and Mick Seebeck helped me draft it (he used to be a CA member and is a parliamentarian).

Anywho. . .

[Mike Van Roy]

Using Santa Clara's example, if large counties would still be below their maximum allocation then going back to county ExComs choosing their delegates would seem to be a moot point.

And if county ExComs weren't bothered to select their delegates to start with I don't think a bylaw change would fix that. In fact it might discourage people from wanting to become delegates since they would have to attend a meeting just to be eligible for another meeting.

Mike

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

[Starchild]

I agree with these comments of Joe’s, and support county representation at our conventions. 

Going back to my mantra of running our own organization the way we want government to operate, this resembles the federal system that has served the United States fairly well in terms of checks and balances (though it has been significantly undermined by the 17th Amendment allowing direct election of U.S. Senators, and by other changes that have centralized more power in Washington and made it more vulnerable to special interests).

Another benefit is that it gives members an incentive to get involved with their local parties which is more likely to lead to year-round involvement than is just showing up once a year at state conventions.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

LPC Bylaws Committee member

(415) 573-7997

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lpcalifornia-bylaws-discuss/dcfede86a8ca6b28a449379097acd856%40dehnbase.org.

[Starchild]

I can see some anti-takeover benefits to this amendment you proposed in the past Mimi (giving automatic delegate status to past chairs – though why not to all past ExCom members?), but I’m really opposed to giving ex officio delegate status to holders of public office. 

If anything, I’d like to see us go in the opposite direction, and prohibit sitting politicians from serving as party delegates! The Democrat and Republican parties are largely dominated and controlled by their elected politicians, and anything that threatens to move us down that road seems to me like a very bad idea. 

Anyone holding actual political power, is naturally at risk of being corrupted by it. By which I don’t just mean venal corruption, but becoming more statist. They are among the last Libertarians we should want making decisions in the party. The party should be helping keep them on track, not the other way around.

Even if a Libertarian officeholder is doing a good job in public office, focusing on that job – not worrying about the party’s internal governance – is almost certainly a better use of their time from a libertarian perspective. 

Attending and speaking at our conventions is one thing, and all well and good, but holders of public office should be taking direction from the Libertarian Party, not running it. 

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

LPC Bylaws Committee member

(415) 573-7997

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lpcalifornia-bylaws-discuss/CAD2vyrQ3UiZ22XGvpjdkgg0vdpOzPwhH3wz42rrHHhMTALezug%40mail.gmail.com.

[Honor (Mimi) Robson]

Starchild,  I am not proposing that amendment. It was something I proposed in 2019 when there were many people wanting to return to state convention. I just shared it because there was talk of proposing something similar (which is now included in the proposals on Joe’s website). 

I am not personally in favor of this, but voted to put Joe’s amendment in the report for the delegates to vote on. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 4, 2025, at 10:42 PM, Starchild <sfdr...@earthlink.net> wrote:

 I can see some anti-takeover benefits to this amendment you proposed in the past Mimi (giving automatic delegate status to past chairs – though why not to all past ExCom members?), but I’m really opposed to giving ex officio delegate status to holders of public office. 

<Bylaw Amendment-Central Committee Members.pdf>